W12A Landfill Annual Status Report January 1 to December ... · W12A Landfill Status Report 2018 Page 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 General This report is being submitted to comply with

W12A Landfill Annual Status Report

January 1 to December 31, 2018

Prepared by

City of London 300 Dufferin Ave P.O. Box 5035

London, Ontario N6A 4L9

March 2019

W12A Landfill Status Report 2018

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 General .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Description .................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Brief History of W12A Landfill ............................................................................. 2 1.4 Planning Considerations..................................................................................... 5

2.0 Environmental Monitoring ................................................................................... 13

2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Regional Characteristics ........................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Site Characteristics ................................................................................... 17 2.2.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program ............................................................. 31 2.2.4 Upper Aquifer Results ............................................................................... 33 2.2.5 White Oak Aquifer Results ........................................................................ 40

2.3 Surface Water .................................................................................................. 45 2.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology .......................................................................... 45 2.3.2 Surface Water Monitoring Program ........................................................... 45 2.3.3 Surface Water Results .............................................................................. 47

2.4 Leachate .......................................................................................................... 48 2.4.1 Leachate Characterization ........................................................................ 48 2.4.2 Leachate Monitoring Program ................................................................... 49 2.4.3 Leachate Quality Monitoring Results ......................................................... 49

2.5 Water Wells ...................................................................................................... 51 2.5.1 Area Groundwater Resources ................................................................... 51 2.5.2 Water Well Monitoring Program ................................................................ 51 2.5.3 Upper Aquifer ............................................................................................ 51 2.5.4 White Oak Aquifer ..................................................................................... 55

2.6 Landfill Gas ...................................................................................................... 56 2.6.1 Landfill Gas Overview ............................................................................... 56 2.6.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring Program ............................................................... 56

3.0 Site Development/Operations ............................................................................. 57

3.1 W12A Cell Expansion Construction .................................................................. 57 3.2 Site Capacity .................................................................................................... 57

3.2.1 Historical Waste Quantities ....................................................................... 57 3.2.2 Estimated Remaining Disposal Volume .................................................... 61 3.2.3 Estimated Remaining Site Life .................................................................. 62

3.3 Cover Material Requirements and Availability .................................................. 64 3.3.1 Material Balance ....................................................................................... 64 3.3.2 Operating Materials (including imported daily cover) ................................. 64 3.3.3 Final Cover Placement .............................................................................. 66 3.3.4 Leachate Collection System ...................................................................... 66

3.4 Leachate Management ..................................................................................... 67 3.4.1 System Description ................................................................................... 67 3.4.2 Leachate Volumes .................................................................................... 68 3.4.3 Leachate Collection System Maintenance ................................................ 69

3.5 Landfill Gas Management ................................................................................. 69 3.5.1 System Description ................................................................................... 69 3.5.2 2018 Operation ......................................................................................... 75

3.6 Stormwater Management ................................................................................. 79


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

3.6.1 System Description ................................................................................... 79 3.6.2 2018 Operation ......................................................................................... 79

3.7 Household Special Waste (HSW) Depot .......................................................... 79 3.8 Small Vehicle Drop-off ...................................................................................... 80 3.9 General Site Maintenance ................................................................................ 81 3.10 Public Liaison Committee ............................................................................... 81


iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Permitted Uses for Various Zoning Designations ............................................... 9 Table 2 Environmental Monitoring Program Locations and Frequency ......................... 13 Table 3 Environmental Monitoring Program Parameters .............................................. 14 Table 4 Inputs and Sources for POLLUTE ................................................................... 25 Table 5 Trigger Mechanism for Groundwater Impacts .................................................. 32 Table 6 Calculation of Reasonable Use Criterion – Upper Aquifer ................................ 33 Table 7 Summary of Chemical Test Results for Key Parameters – Upper Aquifer ........ 34 Table 8 Summary of Chemical Test Results for Selected Parameters – Upper Aquifer 38 Table 9 Calculation of Reasonable Use Criterion – White Oak Aquifer ......................... 40 Table 10 Summary of Chemical Test Results – White Oak Aquifer .............................. 41 Table 11 Trigger Mechanism for Surface Water Impacts .............................................. 46 Table 12 Surface Water Sampling Stations .................................................................. 47 Table 13 Summary of Chemical Test Results– Surface Water ..................................... 48 Table 14 Leachate Monitoring Results ......................................................................... 50 Table 15 Waste Quantities Disposed of at W12A Landfill in Tonnes ............................ 58 Table 16 Monthly Waste Quantities Disposed of at W12A Landfill in Tonnes ............... 60 Table 17 Landfill Capacity Calculations ........................................................................ 61 Table 18 Remaining Site Life at the W12A Landfill ....................................................... 63 Table 19 Cover Material Calculations ........................................................................... 65 Table 21 Summary of Gas Flare Shutdowns ................................................................ 78 Table 22 Quantity of Material Received at the W12A Landfill Depot in 2018 ................ 80

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Inferred Stratigraphy of W12A Landfill East-West Cross Section .................... 18 Figure 2 Inferred Stratigraphy of W12A Landfill North-South Cross Section: Phase 1 .. 20 Figure 3 Inferred Stratigraphy of W12A Landfill North-South Cross Section: Phase 2 .. 21 Figure 4 Landfill Gas Schematic ................................................................................... 73

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1 Site Location Plan ............................................................................................... 3 Map 2 Site Plan .............................................................................................................. 4 Map 3 Zoning Designations ............................................................................................ 7 Map 4 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 8 Map 5 Natural Resources and Heritage Features ......................................................... 11 Map 6 Thickness of Surficial Aquitard .......................................................................... 27 Map 7 Groundwater Flow Direction - Upper Aquifer ..................................................... 28 Map 8 Groundwater Flow Direction - White Oak Aquifer............................................... 29 Map 9 Chloride Concentrations .................................................................................... 43 Map 10 Area Water Well ............................................................................................... 53 Map 11 Water Well Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 54 Map 12 Status of Site Development ............................................................................. 70 Map 13 Landfill Gas Extraction Wells ........................................................................... 71


iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Environmental Compliance Approvals Appendix B Environmental Monitoring Program Appendix C Groundwater Chemical Test Results Appendix D Surface Water Chemical Test Results Appendix E Leachate Chemical Test Results Appendix F Water Well Chemical Test Results Appendix G Water Sampling Protocols Appendix H Reports & Maps W12A Landfill Appendix I Historical Water Level Data Appendix J Groundwater Monitoring Wells Appendix K Piezometric Surface Graphs Appendix L Landfill Gas Test Results Appendix M Waste Generation Projections & Landfill Capacity Assessment Appendix N Leachate Volume Data Appendix O Landfill Gas Wells Appendix P Landfill Flare Shutdown Summary Appendix Q Stormwater Management Pond Data Appendix R Household Special Waste (HSW) Depot Appendix S Operational Data Appendix T Public Liaison Committee

LIST OF DRAWINGS

Drawing 1 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections ..................................Back of the report Drawing 2 Environmental Monitoring Location Plan............... …Back of the report


Page 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General

This report is being submitted to comply with the reporting requirements in the W12A Landfill’s various Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). The City of London W12A Landfill operates under three ECAs (as amended) which are listed below along with their reporting requirements (Appendix A).

A042102 (issued October, 2007)

This ECA is the landfill’s approval under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act and deals with the landfill’s design and operation.

Condition 71 of the ECA requires the submission of an annual Status Report on the landfill development, operations and monitoring to the MECP District Manager by March 31 each year (or an alternative date agreed to by the District Manager).

1828-9CKRMK (issued December, 2013)

This ECA is the landfill’s approval under Section 20.2 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act and Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act and deals with the landfill’s leachate collection and disposal system and stormwater management ponds.

Condition 8 (5) requires the preparation of an annual Status Report on the leachate collection system and stormwater management ponds operation and monitoring results. The report is to be submitted to the MECP District Manager upon request.

4183-78XHLX (issued December, 2007)

This ECA is the landfill’s approval under Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act and deals with the landfill’s air emissions from the landfill gas flare and the Household Special Waste Depot.

1.2 Site Description

The W12A Landfill is located at 3502 Manning Drive in the City of London approximately 1.5 kilometres west of Wellington Road (Map 1). The landfill is bounded by White Oak Road to the west, Manning Drive to the south and agricultural land to the north and east. All adjacent properties to the north and east of the landfill are owned by the City of London.

The landfill accepts waste for landfilling generated within the City of London, the Municipality of Thames Centre, Lake Huron and Elgin Area Water Treatment Plants and TRY Recycling.

In addition, the W12A Landfill has a Household Special Waste (HSW) facility and a public drop-off depot for household garbage, appliances, blue box recyclables,


Page 2

brush, cardboard, electronics, scrap metal, tires and wood. The HSW facility accepts waste from the City of London, the County of Middlesex (including First Nations Communities) and the County of Elgin.

These facilities and other operational infrastructure at the landfill are presented in Map 2 along with the general layout of the landfill and the property limits.

The legal description of the landfill property is “Part Lots 18, 19, 20 in Concession 6 in the City of London and County of Middlesex designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 on Expropriation Plan 42196”.

1.3 Brief History of W12A Landfill

In 1969, the City of London commissioned James F. MacLaren Limited to develop a long term solid waste disposal plan. The results of the study are contained in the report entitled Report on Solid Waste Disposal for the City of London (October 1970). The report recommended that the City proceed with the necessary approvals, detailed design and land acquisition for the development of a new landfill referred to as W12 located on part of Lots 18, 19 and 20 Concession 5 in the former Township of Westminster.

During site investigations, it was determined the geological setting of W12 was not suitable for a landfill because a spillway containing granular soils traversed the surficial silty clay soils that are generally predominant in the area. It was also determined the area south of W12 had thick surficial deposits of silty clay. As a result the location of the proposed landfill was changed to the area referred to as W12A located on part of Lots 18, 19 and 20 Concession 6 in the former Township of Westminster.

In April 1973, the City of London filed an application for a Certificate of Approval (C of A) (now replaced by ECA), for a Waste Disposal Site to the MECP for the W12A Landfill. Subsequently, the Environmental Hearing Board held a public hearing in the former Township of Westminster from July 30, 1973 to August 3, 1973 to review the application for the W12A Landfill. The Environmental Hearing approved the application.

The MECP issued Provisional C of A (A042102) for the W12A Landfill on November 13, 1973. The C of A did not permit the disposal of waste until final design plans and specifications were submitted and approved by the MECP.

In 1974, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) held a public hearing to address planning issues related to the establishment of a new landfill. As a result of the hearing the OMB issued an order in January 1975 authorizing the City of London to acquire the necessary lands to create the W12A Landfill and spend the necessary funds to construct the new landfill. The OMB also directed the former Township of Westminster to amend its zoning by-law and any other necessary by-laws to permit landfilling in the lands referred to as W12A.

COLONEL TALBOT RD

MANNING DRWHITE

OAK

RD

HIGH BURY AVE S

DINGMAN DR

WELLINGTO NRD

S

WELLINGTONRD

WHITE OAKRD

WHARNCLIFFERD S

WILTON GROVE RDEXETER RD

BRADLEY AVE

GLANWORTH DR

HIGHWAY 401

WESTMINSTER DR

GLANWORTH DR

SCOTLAND DR

WESTMINSTER DR

DECKER DR

HIGHWAY 402

BOSTWICK RD

HIGHWAY401

WONDERLANDRD

S

BRADLEY AVE W

W12A LANDFILL

January 25, 2019

W12A LANDFILL2018 ANNUAL REPORT

LegendExisting W12A Landfill

Notes:1) City of London Aerial Photography, April 2018

300 Dufferin Avenue,PO Box 5035London, OntarioN6A 4L9General Inquiries: 519-661-4500www.london.ca

Date:

Solid Waste Management Division

_̂

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Lake Erie

Lake Huron

USA

USA

SOUTHERN ONTARIO

Lake Ontario

KEY PLAN

SiteLocation

#

SOUTHERN ONTARIOKEY MAP

SarniaLondon

Windsor

Toronto

Chatham

Hamilton Niagara Falls

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Map 1

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

1 - S

ite Lo

catio

n Plan

.mxd

0 500 1,000 1,500

Metres

!I1:35,000

kj kj

")

")") ") ")")

")

kj

'

kj

!(

#*

#*

Household Special Waste Building

Main Pumping Station/Standby Generator

Leachate Storage No. 2 Leachate

Storage No. 1

CELL 5EAST CELL 3 CELL 2 CELL 1

CELL 9

CELL 7

CELL 8

CELL 4CELL 10

CELL 5WEST

CELL 6SOUTH

SOUTH HALF

CELL 6NORTH

SOUTH HALF

CELL 6SOUTH

NORTH HALF

CELL 6NORTH

NORTH HALF

PHASE 2 WASTE DISPOSAL FILL AREA

PHASE 1 WASTE DISPOSALFILL AREA

Stormwater Pond No. 5


PondForebay

Stormwater Pond No. 2/3


PondForebay

Flare Station

Administrative Building

Contractor Maintenance

Building

City Maintenance

BuildingWeigh Scale &

Scale House

MANNING DR

SCOTLAND DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

Drainage Ditch No. 4


DrainageDitch No. 2

Drainage Ditch No. 3Drainage

Ditch No. 5



January 25, 2019



Date:


SITE PLAN

Map 2

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

2 - S

ite P

lan.m

xd

W12A LANDFILL

"

KEY MAP

DINGMAN DR

MANNING DR

SCOTLAND DR

WESTMINSTER DR

EXETER RD

WELL

INGT

ON R

D S

GLANWORTH DR

WILTON GROVE RD

WHITE

OAK

RD

DECKER DR

WELLINGTON RD

WESTMINSTER DR

HWY 401

HWY 401

HWY 402

Legendkj Landfill Site Entrancekj Landfill Site Seconday Entrance' Public Drop Off Area!(

MH 701 Pumping Station/StandbyGenerator

#* Leachate Storage") Drainage Ditch

Landfill Access RoadsMonitoring Access RoadsPhase 1 Waste Disposal Fill Area (59.3 ha)Phase 2 Waste Disposal Fill Area (47.7 ha)Stormwater Ponds/ForebaySite Buildings

Key Map

Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) Site Features by Callon Dietz Inc Oct, 20163) Site Features updated by City of London, Feb, 2017.

0 100 200 300

Metres

!I1:6,000


Page 5

In 1976 the final design plans and specifications for the W12A Landfill were submitted to the MECP by MacLaren Engineers (formerly James F. MacLaren Limited) on behalf of the City. The original site design consisted of 14 cells covering 107 hectares, five storm water management ponds, the use of berms and trees to provide screening, a perimeter leachate collection system and a surface and groundwater monitoring program. On August 16, 1976 the MECP re-issued C of A A042102 for the W12A Landfill to permit the disposal of waste in accordance with the submitted plans.

Since 1976 the C of A has been re-issued or amended sixteen times to permit changes in the operation of the landfill. These changes have included refinement of the environmental monitoring programs, requirement for an annual report, approval of a household special waste facility, various design changes and infrastructure upgrades and an expansion of the area from which waste can be received.

Waste was first disposed of in the landfill during the summer of 1977. Over the next 25 years, approximately 5 million tonnes of waste were deposited at the W12A Landfill in the first six cells. These cells cover 60 hectares and are referred to as Phase One (Map 2).

The remainder of the landfill covers 47 hectares and will accommodate a further approximately 5.5 million tonnes. The area is referred to as Phase Two (Map 2). Phase Two of the landfill includes several engineering upgrades that were approved in 2002 including approval for a full underdrain leachate collection system and a landfill gas collection system.

1.4 Planning Considerations

Official Plan

The W12A Landfill resides within the area designated as the Waste Management Resource Recovery Area in the City’s Official Plan, called the London Plan. The London Plan was approved by the Province on December 28, 2016, however is partially under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. The items being appealed are not associated with the land use policies of the Waste Management Resource Recovery Area.

The Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type covers 288 hectares that includes the W12A Landfill and surrounding land (Map 3). The following land uses in conformity with the policies of the London Plan may be permitted within the area, Landfills; Related uses to the function, operation and education of all aspects of waste reduction, re-use, recycling, management, resource recovery, treatment, and waste disposal; and Eco-Industrial Parks where industries are involved in the processing, fabricating or manufacturing of products using materials available from the Waste Resource Recovery Area, including alternative energy sources.

Waste processing and other uses permitted by the policies of the London Plan are require to have a municipal use component.


Page 6

The Waste Management Resource Recovery Area allows for the introduction of certain land uses by site specific zoning, subject to the criteria listed in the Waste Management Resource Recovery Area policies, and the Civic Infrastructure policies of the London Plan. These uses include:

1) Municipal waste disposal facility; 2) Landfill energy production system from landfill gas; 3) Leachate pre-treatment/hauled liquid waste facility; 4) Public drop-off depot for municipal hazardous or special waste; 5) Community recycling drop-off depot; 6) Material recovery facility; 7) Yard waste composting facility; 8) Source separated organic composting facility; 9) Transfer stations associated with municipal waste disposal facilities; 10) Thermal, mechanical and biological processing of waste to reduce

volumes, stabilize materials, treat residual waste and remove recyclables;

11) Other similar waste collection, processing and recovery functions; 12) Energy generation facilities, including wind and/or solar energy

conversion system, and; 13) Eco-industrial park uses.

Land Use

Existing land uses within the W12A Landfill property were restricted to landfilling in 2018.

Agricultural activities, limited to the growing of cash crops, occurred in the north western portion of the landfill up to 2015. All agricultural activities at the landfill were ceased in 2016.

Land uses within 500 metres of the landfill and access road to the landfill are shown on Map 4. The majority of this land is in agricultural production.

Other land uses include an aggregate pit, vacant land, radio transmission towers, single family dwellings, vegetative areas and a Material Recovery Facility owned by the City. In 2018 there were eight single family residences within 500 metres of the landfill or along the main access road on Manning Drive. Four of the residences are owned by the City.

All land within 500 metres of the W12A Landfill is designated as agricultural, open space, resource extraction, waste and resource management or environmental review in the London Plan. The designated open space area, approximately 20 hectares of land to the south of the landfill, coincides with a cemetery. The designated environmental review areas coincide with river, stream or ravine corridors that are outside of flood plain regulated corridors.

Zoning

The landfill is zoned WRM1 (Waste and Resource Management Zone). This zoning permits municipal waste disposal (Map 3).

MANNING DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

SCOTLAND DR

WELLINGTONR D

S

GLANWORTH DR

HIGHWAY 40

1

CNRA

ILWAY

NF1

AG1

RT

h-2*AG1

OS5CF1

EX

h-2*AG1

h-2*CF1

AG2

OS5

ER

h-2*AG2

NF/OS3

AG2

ERh-2*AG1

h-2*AG2

AG1

AG2

ER

AG2

ER

ER

AG2ER

AG2

AG2OS3(1)

ER

ER

h-28*AG2

AG2

h-28*AG2

ER

R1-14R1-10

NF2/OS3

RT

RRC1 OS1

AG1

AG2/AG5

h-2*AG1h-2*AG1

h-2*AG2OS5OS5

h-2*AG2(9)OS5h-2*AG2

ER

h-28*AG2

WRM1

AG1(3)

AG1(1)

AG1

AG1(1)

ER

AG1

R1-10AG2

h-18*h-89*AG2(20)

AG2

AGC1

EX

EX

AG2

h-17*RRC1NF1

NF1

NF1

ER

ER

ER

AG2

AG2

500 M LANDFILL PERIMETER

January 25, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) For Detailed Zoning information, refer to Zoning By-law Z.1.


Date:


ZONING

Map 3

LegendZoning Bylaw Z.1 - Class (symbol)

Agricultural (AG, AGC, RRC, TGS)Commercial (AC, ASA, BDC, CC,CSA, DA, HS, NSA, RSA, RSC, SS)Industrial (EX, GI, HI, LI, OB, WRM)Institutional (CF, DC, HER, NF, RF)Open Space & Recreation (CR, ER,OS)Railway (RT)Residential (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,R7, R8, R9, R10, R11)Urban Reserve (UR)

Property InformationParcelsWaste Management ResourceRecovery AreaExisting W12A Landfill

0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:15,000

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

MANNING DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

SCOTLAND DR

WELLINGTONR D

S

GLANWORTH DR

HIGHWAY 40

1

CNRA

ILWAY

FormerAggregate Operations Aggregate

Operations

Communication Equipment Facility

(Removed 2016)

Material Recovery Facility

Cemetery

Communication Equipment

Facility

CommunicationEquipment

Facility

School

Glanworth Hamlet

500 m LANDFILL PERIMETER

February 5, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 2018


Date:


LAND USE

Map 4

LegendOfficial Plan - Schedule A

Community FacilityOpen SpaceRural SettlementEnvironmental ReviewAgriculture

Property Information! Residence

ParcelsCity Owned LandsExisting W12A Landfill

0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:15,000

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

4 - L

and U

se.m

xd


Page 9

Land within 500 metres of the landfill and access road is zoned AG2 (Agricultural 2), ER (Environmental Review), EX (Extractive), Waste and Resource Management and OS3 (1) (Open Space 3 Special Provision 1). Permitted uses for these zonings are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Permitted Uses for Various Zoning Designations

Designation Permitted Uses within 500 metres of the Landfill

AG2 Permits intensive (livestock facilities, riding stables, commercial greenhouse, compost facility, aquaculture, agricultural research station and manure storage facility) and non-intensive agricultural (general agricultural) uses

ER Land in this zone is intended to remain in a natural condition until their significance is determined through the completion of more detailed environmental studies. Permitted uses are; conservation lands, conservation works, passive recreational uses, managed woodlots and agricultural uses

EX Permits resource extraction operations, farms, wayside pits and forestry uses

WRM1 Municipal waste disposal, agricultural uses, leachate pre-treatment/hauled liquid waste facility, public drop-off for municipal hazardous and special waste, community recycling and drop-off depot, yard waste composting facility and material recovery facility

OS3(1) Cemeteries with a prohibition of any structures related to places of assembly, mausoleums and crematoriums

City Owned Lands

The City owns all of the properties within the block of land bound by Wellington Road, Manning Drive, White Oak Road, and Scotland Drive, with exception of two parcels. The City also owns a number of properties both adjacent to and further out from this block of land. Land acquisition around the W12A landfill is considered on a case by case basis and may be purchased to act as a buffer, to protect against short and long-term encroachment around the landfill or for other purposes. In 2018 the property at 5725 White Oak Road was purchased by the City.


Page 10

Natural Resource and Environmental Heritage Features

The London Plan recognizes a number of natural resource and environmental heritage features (Map 5).

The London Plan identifies one natural resource feature and extractive industrial land within 500 metres of the landfill.

With respect to environmental heritage features, there are no wetlands, verified Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), potential naturalization areas, upland corridors or floodplains located within 500 metres of the landfill. Beyond 500 metres, there is one potential ESA, several vegetative patches, and several river, stream or ravine corridors that are outside of flood plain regulated corridors (Map 5).

It should also be noted the London Plan shows “Big Picture Meta-Cores and Meta-Corridors” that crosses the landfill from south to north. The “Big Picture Meta-Cores and Meta-Corridors” are represented conceptually and are not to be interpreted as rigid boundary delineations. The corridors are also not a component of London’s Natural Heritage System, however, naturalization projects and landowner stewardship initiatives that support the “Big Picture” system of core natural areas and corridor connections are encouraged by the City of London.

LegendOfficial Plan - Schedule B1# Potential Upland Corridor# Potential Naturalization Area

Big Picture Meta-Cores & Meta CorridorsMax HazardUnevaluated CorridorGround Water RechargeSignificant WoodlandWoodlandProvincially Significant WetlandLocally Significant WetlandUnevaluated WetlandPotential ESAUnevaluated Vegetation PatchesSignificant CorridorESAs

Other" Drainage Flow Direction

Municipal DrainsSubwatershed Boundary

Property InformationParcelsCity Owned LandsExisting W12A Landfill

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

MANNING DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

SCOTLAND DR

WELLINGTONR D

S

GLANWORTH DR

HIGHWAY 40

1

CNRA

ILWAY500m PERIMETER AROUND W12A LANDFILL

Shore Drain

W12A

Drai

n

GoughDrain

Wright Drain

Dingman Creek Subwatershed

Dodds Creek Subwatershed

Kett le Creek Subwatershed

Dodds Creek Subwatershed

TEMP

0

TEMP

January 25, 2019




Date:


NATURAL RESOURCES AND HERITAGE FEATURES

Map 5

0 250 500 750

Metres

!I

1:15,000

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

5 - N

atural

Res

ource

s and

Heri

tage F

eatur

es.m

xd


Page 13

2.0 Environmental Monitoring

2.1 Overview

The W12A Landfill has had groundwater, surface water, leachate, water well and landfill gas monitoring programs since it opened in 1976. Over the years the frequency, locations sampled and parameters tested for have changed as the program has evolved. Complete details (e.g., location, frequency and parameters to be tested) of the current environmental monitoring programs are presented in Appendix B and summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2 Environmental Monitoring Program Locations and Frequency

Program

Setting

Number of Sampling Locations

Number of Sampling Events

Groundwater

Shallow Aquifer - on-site 12 3

Shallow Aquifer - off-site 6 1

White Oak Aquifer 6 1

Till under landfill 1 1

Surface Water On-site sampling locations 5 4

Off-site sampling locations 1 4

Leachate Monitoring wells 3 3

Leachate pumping station 1 4

Water Wells Off-site water wells 15 1

Landfill Gas On-site wells 2 5

Chemical test results from the groundwater, surface water, leachate and private well monitoring programs for the W12A Landfill Site are presented in Appendices C, D, E and F respectively. Also included in these appendices are time versus concentration graphs for key parameters. A review and discussion of the test results are presented in Sections 2.2 (Groundwater), 2.3 (Surface Water), 2.4 (Leachate), Section 2.5 (Water Wells) and Section 2.6 (Landfill Gas).

All samples were analyzed at laboratories that are accredited and/or licensed by the Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories, Standards Council of Canada and MECP. Standard quality assurance/quality control measures are used when analyzing water samples including certified reference material, blank sample analysis, duplicate sample analysis, primary and secondary standards and proficiency efficiency testing.

The protocols used to collect the groundwater and surface water samples are presented in Appendix G.


Page 14

Table 3 Environmental Monitoring Program Parameters

Parameter

Groundwater

Monitoring Wells

Leachate

Monitoring

Private

Water Wells

Surface Water

Stations

Comp. Indicator Comp. Indicator Comp. Indicator Comp. Indicator

General

Alkalinity X X X X X X X X

BOD5 X X X X

COD X X X X X

Conductivity X X X X X X X X

DOC X X X X X X

Hardness X X X X

pH X X X X X X X X

Phenols X X X X X X X X

Sulphate X X X X X X X X

Suspended Solids X X X X

Total Cyanide X

Nutrients

Ammonia X X X X X X

Nitrate X X X X X X

Nitrite X X X X

TKN X X X

Total Phosphorus X X X

Major Ions

Chloride X X X X X X X X

Calcium X X X X X X

Iron X X X X X X X X

Magnesium X X X X X X


Page 15

Parameter

Groundwater

Monitoring Wells

Leachate

Monitoring

Private

Water Wells

Surface Water

Stations

Comp. Indicator Comp. Indicator Comp. Indicator Comp. Indicator

Manganese X X X

Potassium X X X X X X

Sodium X X X X X X

Trace Metals

Arsenic X X X X

Barium X X X X

Boron X X X X

Cadmium X X X X X X X

Chromium X X X X

Copper X X X X

Lead X X X X

Mercury X X

Nickel X X X X X X

Selenium X X

Silver X

Strontium X

Zinc X X X X

Volatiles

EPA 624 Scan X X


Page 16

2.2 Groundwater

2.2.1 Regional Characteristics

General

This section and the following section gives an overview of the hydrogeological setting to provide context for the monitoring program and the interpretation of the groundwater test results.

Previous Studies

Previous studies conducted at the W12A Landfill have described the regional setting of the area in detail. These studies are listed in Appendix H and the information from these reports are summarized below.

Regional Geology

The surface tills and stratified drift in the area were deposited by the Erie glacial lobe and its melt waters during the late Wisconsin ice age.

The landfill is located on the Westminster moraine which consists of low permeability till soils identified as Port Stanley Till. The Westminster moraine was an end moraine, formed when there was a pause in the retreat of the ice margin.

After the Erie Interstadial period, the re-advance of the Erie lobe formed the Ingersoll moraine (north of the landfill). The Westminster moraine was overridden as the Erie Lobe retreated to form the St. Thomas moraine, south of the landfill.

Immediately north of the landfill, gravel and gravelly sand were formed from the older Catfish Creek drift (located under the Port Stanley Till) or were deposited underneath the Port Stanley Till by subglacial streams (Dreimanis, 1970).

The bedrock surface of the region slopes from the north-northeast, where it is about 240 masl near Dorchester, to the southeast, where it is about 140 masl east of St. Thomas. Immediately below the landfill, the bedrock surface elevation is approximately 190 masl. The bedrock consists of Dundee Formation limestone.

The regional stratigraphy for the area is presented on Drawing 1. These regional cross sections are from the W12A Landfill Area Plan Study Hydrogeological Background Study completed in December 2005 by Dillon Consulting.

Regional Hydrogeology

Major hydrostratigraphic units are divided into aquitards and aquifers. An aquitard consists of low permeable soils that inhibit groundwater flow. An aquifer consists of permeable soils that can transmit significant quantities of water such that when water wells are installed they produce usable quantities of water.

The regional hydrogeology is dominated by a Surficial Aquitard (Port Stanley Till).


Page 17

The next major hydrogeological feature in the region is an aquifer found beneath the Port Stanley Till, consisting of stratified sand and gravel soils, most likely part of the Catfish Creek Drift. These soil deposits comprise the White Oak Aquifer. The aquifer is described as having an irregular vertical distribution with a maximum thickness of approximately 45 metres just north of the landfill along Scotland Drive (Golder Associates, November 1991). The approximate aerial extent of the White Oak Aquifer is 100 km2 and flow is in a general north to south direction (Golder Associates, November 1991).

Some local aquifers consisting of sand and gravel soil layers within the till soils were probably formed by subglacial processes at the time that the till soils were deposited. One such local aquifer is underneath the landfill and above the White Oak Aquifer. These aquifers are not regionally extensive and generally thinner than the White Oak Aquifer.

2.2.2 Site Characteristics

General

The following sections summarize the site specific stratigraphy and hydrogeological characteristics of the W12A Landfill. A complete description of the site specific characteristics can be found in Appendix H. The report titled, W12A Landfill Area Plan Study Hydrogeological Background Study, completed in December 2005 by Dillon Consulting provides a comprehensive examination of the stratigraphy at and near the landfill.

Much of the information on the stratigraphy in the area comes from drilling monitoring wells and boreholes. The borehole logs from drilling and summary tables are provided in Appendix J and the borehole locations are shown on Drawing 2.

Site Geology and Hydrogeology

The inferred stratigraphy below the landfill consists of the following major hydrostratigraphic units (Figure 1, 2, and 3):

Surficial Aquitard

Upper Aquifer

Lower Aquitard

White Oak Aquifer

Aquitard

Bedrock

February 5, 2019



Date:


INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY OF W12ALANDFILL WEST - EAST CROSS SECTION

Figure 1

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Figu

re 1 -

Infer

red S

tratig

raphy

of W

12A L

andfi

ll Wes

t - Ea

st Cr

oss S

ectio

n.mxd

##

SCOTLAND DR

MANNING DR

W12ALANDFILL

WHITE OAK RD

HIGHW

AY 40

1

West - East

!I

Section Location

Legend

February 5, 2019



Date:


INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY OF W12ALANDFILL NORTH - SOUTH CROSS SECTION

Figure 2

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Figu

re 2 -

Infer

red S

tratig

raphy

of W

12A L

andfi

ll Nort

h - S

outh

Cros

s Sec

tion -

Pha

se 1.

mxd

##

SCOTLAND DR

MANNING DR

W12ALANDFILL

WHITE OAK RD

HIGHW

AY 40

1

North - SouthPhase 1

!I

Section Location

Legend

February 28, 2019



Date:


INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY OF W12ALANDFILL NORTH -SOUTH CROSS SECTION

Figure 3

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Figu

re3_In

ferred

Strat

igrap

hyOf

W12

ALan

dfillN

orth_

South

Cros

sSec

tion_

Phas

e2.m

xd ##

SCOTLAND DR

MANNING DR

W12ALANDFILL

WHITE OAK RD

HIGHW

AY 40

1

North - SouthPhase 2

Legend

!I

Section Location

Legend


Page 23

Surficial Aquitard

The site is underlain by an upper till unit, consisting of low permeability Port Stanley Till referred to as the Surficial Aquitard. The thickness of the Surficial Aquitard varies from a high of 20 m in the northwest corner of the site to a low of 8 metres at the southeast corner of the site (Map 6). The base of the upper till unit is effectively flat at an elevation of 258 to 262 masl (Figure J-1 in Appendix J).

The hydraulic conductivity of the till soils below the landfill is estimated to be approximately 1.3 x 10-10 m/sec (Geotechnical Research Centre University of Western Ontario, 2000). This is equivalent to a groundwater velocity of 1 to 2 cm per year (based on the site specific soil porosity of 0.35 and a unit hydraulic gradient).

The hydraulic conductivity was estimated based on flexible wall hydraulic conductivity testing as well as the calculation of hydraulic conductivity based on the chloride profiles in the soil below the waste.

The principal groundwater flow direction in the Surficial Aquitard is downwards, caused by the relatively low water level in the underlying sand and gravel unit.

The upper few metres of this aquitard are weathered and fractured, which may cause preferential groundwater flow horizontally through a network of fractures.

Upper Aquifer

Underlying the Surficial Aquitard is layered sand and gravel soils which are approximately 8 to 10 metres thick (see Figure J-2 in Appendix J). This stratum is referred to as the Upper Aquifer.

The water level in the Upper Aquifer is consistently below the interface of the overlying till except for the southwest corner. The resulting unsaturated zone varies from 1 to 2 metres in the north east part of the site to non-existent in the southwest corner.

Groundwater flow in the Upper Aquifer below the landfill is principally horizontal, towards the southwest (Map 7). The water level data as well as historical water level data is presented in Appendix I.

The hydraulic gradient is minimal, especially for the western part of the landfill site. The reason for the low gradient is related to the small amount of recharge occurring through the Surficial Aquitard and the limited extent of the Upper Aquifer north of the site.

Piezometric surface graphs showing water levels over time for selected wells are provided in Appendix K. The piezometric surface graphs show water levels were rising slowly (< 0.05 metres per year) in the Upper Aquifer until about 7 years ago and have since stabilized.


Page 24

Geologic cross-sections show that the Upper Aquifer is spatially discontinuous. This aquifer exists beneath and southwest of the landfill site. The Upper Aquifer probably discharges to the upper reaches of Dodds Creek, southwest of the site. Directly north of the landfill the Upper Aquifer pinches out.

Pump tests indicate that the Upper Aquifer has a hydraulic conductivity in the range of 10-5 m/sec to10-4m/sec which would result in a significant flow rate even under low hydraulic gradients (Dillon Consulting Ltd., 2002).

Lower Aquitard

Underlying the Upper Aquifer, a Lower Aquitard exists, separating the Upper Aquifer from the White Oak Aquifer. The Lower Aquitard consists mainly of silty clay soils and is generally about 15 to 20 metres thick. The hydrogeologic characteristics of this unit have not been studied. However, based on soil descriptions in borehole logs (i.e., silty clay soils), the till will have low permeability similar to the Surficial Aquitard.

White Oak Aquifer

As previously discussed, the White Oak Aquifer consists of layered sand and gravelly soils with some inter-layering of silt and clay soils (stratified glacial drift). The aquifer was used as a drinking water source for the City of London from the 1950’s until 1967. Groundwater was extracted via a series of wells located north of the landfill along Scotland Drive. When the wells were shut off and for a period of time afterwards, groundwater in the aquifer in the area that is now the W12A Landfill flowed to the north. Over time the water levels in the aquifer rebounded and groundwater flow shifted to the south and southeast. Groundwater flow direction in this aquifer for June 2018 is shown in Map 8.

The piezometric surface graphs for wells in the White Oak Aquifer show water levels in the aquifer were rising gradually across the entire aquifer beneath the landfill until about 5 years ago and have stabilized in the up-gradient wells (Appendix K). Water levels have risen over the last 17 years by approximately 4 m up-gradient of the landfill and 1.5 m down-gradient of the landfill.

Impact Assessment

Contaminant transport modelling for Phase 2 of the landfill was completed in 2002 and presented in Phase 2 of the W12A Landfill, Design and Operations Report Certificate of Approval No. A042102. Contaminant transport modelling of Phase 1 of the landfill was completed in 2003 and presented in the 2003 Annual Report. Modelling was completed in accordance with the Landfill Standards a Guideline on the Regulatory and Approval Requirements for New or Expanding Landfilling Sites (MECP, 1998).

The computer program POLLUTE was used to predict the groundwater quality in time and space as contaminants migrate from the landfill into the groundwater environment. The model incorporated the performance of the leachate collection system, soil characteristics, the hydrogeological setting and the characteristics of the various contaminants in the leachate (Table 4).


Page 25

Table 4 Inputs and Sources for POLLUTE

Input Parameters Examples Sources

Leachate Collection System

Distance between collection pipes, leachate mounding

Design/as-built drawings

Calculations

Soil Characteristics Total organic carbon, cation, exchange capacity, diffusion, coefficient porosity

City of London W12A Landfill Investigation (Geotechnical Research Centre, UWO, 2000)

Hydrogeological Setting

Thickness of clay, groundwater flow direction

Borehole logs, water level measurements

Contaminant Characteristics

Initial source concentration, contaminant mass as a portion of waste, half-life, adsorption

Leachate testing

Landfill Standards A Guideline on the Regulatory and Approval Requirements for New or Expanding Landfilling Sites (MECP, 1998)

The upper two units (Surficial Aquitard and Upper Aquifer) are important for the purposes of impact assessment of the landfill. Groundwater travels downward through the Surficial Aquitard and laterally offsite in a southwest direction in the Upper Aquifer. No impacts are expected to manifest in the White Oak Aquifer given the existing groundwater flow regime.

Contaminant transport modelling of health related parameters indicate that the landfill impact is isolated to the upper couple of metres of the Surficial Aquitard located immediately below the landfill. For organic parameters (e.g., benzene) the modelling results indicate the concentrations decrease to negligible values within 2 m of the bottom of the landfill through a combination of adsorption and biodegradation. For metals (e.g., lead), the travel time concentrations are also minimal due to significant retardation or adsorption.

Chloride, which is not a health related parameter and does not degrade or adsorb, is estimated to reach the Upper Aquifer in several hundred years. This makes chloride the “critical” contaminant for the landfill (the parameter which engineering controls and monitoring programs are based on).

Chloride levels in the Upper Aquifer down-gradient of Phase 2 of the landfill (the portion of the landfill with an underdrain leachate collection system) are expected to approach 100 mg/l in 600 to 800 years and then gradually decline.

Chloride levels in the Upper Aquifer down-gradient of Phase 1 of the landfill (the portion of the landfill with a perimeter leachate collection system) are expected to reach 200 mg/l in 600 to 800 years and then decline.

MANNING DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

BRAD ISHRD

GLANWORTH DR

WESTMINSTER DR

WELLINGTONRDS

HIGHWAY401

SCOTLAND DR

WONDERLAND RD S

HIGHWAY 402

MORRISON RD

GLANWORTH DR

CNRA

ILWAY

WONDERLAND RD S

SIGNIFICANT WHITE OAKAQUIFER RECHARGE AREASSIGNIFICANT WHITE OAKAQUIFER RECHARGE AREASSIGNIFICANT WHITE OAKAQUIFER RECHARGE AREASSIGNIFICANT WHITE OAKAQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS

January 25, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) Thickness of surficial aquitard produced by Dillon Consulting Limited,December 2005 (Landfill Area Plan Study Hydrogeological BackgroundStudy Report #05-04556)


Date:


THICKNESS OF SURFICIAL AQUITARD

Map 6

0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:20,000

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

6 - T

hickn

ess o

f Surf

icial

Aquit

ard.m

xd

LegendThickness of Surficial Aquitard (m)

> 55 - 1010 - 1515 - 2020 - 3020- 30

Property InformationParcelsExisting W12A Landfill

$

$

$

A

A

A

A A A

A

A

A AA

A A

A

A

A

A A

A

A

AA

A

A

A

WHITE

OAK

RD

WELLINGTON RD S

SCOTLAND DR

MANNING DR

HWY 401

W

259.0

260.0

259.5

258.5258.0

257.5

257.5

258.0

259.0

260.0

259.5

258.5

01-9a258.4m

13-3a258.7m

01-12b260.6m

92-11259.1m

94-1258.9m

94-3258.6m

04-2a258.6m

82-6258.4m

01-14259.3m

84-5b258.6m

91-4a259.2m 92-7

258.8m

92-3260.2m

92-2260m

92-1259.6m

04-6a259m

92-4259.1m

05-1257.2m

05-2257.5m

05-3258m

05-4259.2m05-5

258.9m06-1258.6m

06-2258.8m

13-1a258.2m

February 19, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) Site Features prepared by Callon Dietz Inc, Oct 19, 2016


Date:


PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE - UPPER AQUIFER SUMMER 2018

Map 7

LegendGround Water Flow

Piezometric Surface Upper Aquifer$ Groundwater Flow Direction

AquiferA Upper Aquifer


0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:12,000

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

7 - G

round

water

Flow

Dire

ction

- Upp

er Aq

uifer.

mxd

$

$

!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

WHITE

OAK

RD

WELLINGTON RD S

SCOTLAND DR

MANNING DR

HWY 401

W

259.0

258.5

258.0

256.0

254.0

254.0256.0

258.0258.5

259.0

92-12258.7m

01-12a259m

92-10259m

01-13259m

94-2259m

01-3a259m

14258.5m

92-9259.2m

92-8253.4m

January 31, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) Site Features prepared by Callon Dietz Inc. LTD, October 19, 2016


Date:


PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE - WHITE OAK AQUIFER SUMMER 2018

Map 8

LegendGround Water Flow

Piezometric Surface White OakAquifer

$ Groundwater Flow DirectionAquifer!? White Oaks Aquifer


0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:12,000

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

8 - G

round

water

Flow

Dire

ction

- Whit

e Oak

Aquif

er.mx

d


Page 31

2.2.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program

The following discussion of groundwater quality test results for 2018is intended to provide an evaluation of groundwater quality relative to historical data and current compliance standards.

Modifications to the Groundwater Monitoring Network

There were no modifications to the groundwater monitoring network in 2018. The borehole logs and installation details for the wells can be found in Appendix J.

Key Parameters

The review of water quality is focused on six key parameters: chloride, sodium, iron, Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), cadmium and nickel. In 1999, the MECP and the City agreed that these parameters would be used in assessing impacts to groundwater with respect to the Reasonable Use Guideline (RUG). These parameters were chosen as they were found at high levels in the leachate and at low levels in the down-gradient groundwater monitors.

Details on the RUG can be found in the MECP document Guideline B-7 (formerly 15-08) Incorporation of the Reasonable Use Concept into MOEE Groundwater Management Activities. The guideline details the calculation of the Reasonable Use Criterion (RUC) for contaminants. The RUC is the maximum concentration for parameters allowed at the property boundary of a waste disposal site.

Trigger Mechanism

Of the six aforementioned parameters, chloride is the “critical” contaminant (the parameter which engineering controls and monitoring programs are based on) because it is the only parameter expected to be detected in the down-gradient monitoring wells at elevated levels based on the previously described contaminant transport modelling. For this reason, the trigger mechanism for implementation of contingency measures to prevent groundwater impacts is based on chloride (Table 5).

“Trigger Mechanism” wells consist of all cross-gradient and down-gradient monitoring wells adjacent to the landfill which are located in the Upper Aquifer as of 2006. These wells are 94-1, 94-3, 01-9a, 76-1 (13-1a), 76-2 (04-2a), 76-3 (13-3a), 91-4a, 84-5b, 06-1, and 06-2.


Page 32

Table 5 Trigger Mechanism for Groundwater Impacts

Level One Procedures

Groundwater sampling program as detailed in Appendix K of Phase 2 of the W12A Landfill, Design and Operations Plan, Certificate of Approval No. A042102 (November 2002). The sampling program consists of three sampling events per year.

Annual review of sampling program and trigger mechanism to confirm the adequacy of the program.

“Trigger” to Implement Level Two Procedures

Groundwater sample and confirmation sample shows chloride greater than 33 mg/l (approximately 25% of the Reasonable Use Guideline (RUG) value for chloride for any down-gradient or cross gradient monitoring well in the shallow aquifer (monitoring wells 94-1, 94-3, 01-9a, 13-1a, 04-2a, 13-3a, 91-4a, 84-5b, 06-1 and 06-2).

Confirmation sample to be taken as soon as possible after receiving results in excess of Level Two trigger values.

Level Two Procedures

Groundwater sampling increased to six events per year: o Level one sampling program plus, o Sampling on-site monitoring wells in the shallow aquifer for indicator parameters in August,

December and February.

“Trigger” to Implement Level Three Procedures

Groundwater sample and confirmation sample shows; o Chloride greater than 33 mg/l for three consecutive events at

a single monitoring well or, o Chloride greater than 66 mg/l (approximately 50% of RUG

value) for single event. o Confirmation sample to be taken as soon as possible after

receiving results in excess of Level Two trigger values.

Level Three Procedures

Groundwater sampling as per Level Two operating procedures;

Investigations will be implemented to determine the cause of the elevated groundwater quality results and/or assess down-gradient impacts.

If investigations determine the cause of the elevated groundwater results are landfill related, a detailed design of the preferred contingency measure (e.g., purge wells, contaminant attenuation zone, etc.) will be undertaken.

“Trigger” to Implement Level Four Procedures

Groundwater sample and confirmation sample shows; o Chloride greater than 133 mg/l.

Confirmation sample to be taken as soon as possible after receiving results in excess of Level Two trigger values.

Level Four Procedures

Implement contingency measures

“Trigger” to Return to Level One Procedures

Surface water sampling program shows chloride less than 33 mg/l for all on-site down-gradient monitoring wells for 3 consecutive sampling events.


Page 33

The trigger mechanism requires preliminary action should chloride levels exceed 33 mg/l and installation of the contingency measures should chloride levels exceed 133 mg/l.

As previously discussed chloride is:

not a “health related” parameter and expected to be the only parameter to eventually migrate off-site;

expected to take hundreds of years to reach the landfill’s property boundary based on modelling;

predicted to peak at levels below the aesthetic drinking water criteria of 250 mg/l based on modelling.

2.2.4 Upper Aquifer Results

Chemical test results from the groundwater monitoring program, as well as, time versus concentration graphs for key parameters are presented in Appendix C.

Reasonable Use Criterion

As previously discussed, the MECP and the City agreed that six parameters would be compared to the RUG in assessing impacts to groundwater. The RUC for these parameters in the Upper Aquifer are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Calculation of Reasonable Use Criterion – Upper Aquifer

Item

Parameter

Chloride Sodium Iron DOC Cadmium Nickel

ODWO (mg/l) 250 200 0.30 5.0 0.005 0.1

Aesthetic/Health Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Health Aesthetic

RUC Factor 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5

Background Level 17 45 0.48 1.6 0.0002 0.003


133 122 0.485 3.3 0.0014 0.052

Notes 1. Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (ODWO). 2. Background level calculated from 2018 average of levels in monitoring wells 92-11, 82-6 and

01-14. 3. Reasonable Use Criterion (RUC) is calculated using the equation:

(ODWO-Background) X RUC Factor + Background. 4. Details of the Reasonable Use Guideline can be found in the Ministry of Environment

Document GUIDELINE B-7 (formerly 15-08) Incorporation of the Reasonable Use Concept into MOEE Groundwater Management Activities.

5. Reasonable Use Criterion = Background Level if Reasonable Use Criterion < Background Level


Page 34

Discussion of 2018 Water Quality Results

Table 7 provides a summary of the water quality results for the “key” parameters (chloride, iron, sodium, DOC, cadmium and nickel). Complete water quality results are presented in Appendix C. Time versus concentration graphs were prepared for each of the six key parameters and are also presented in Appendix C.

Table 7 Summary of Chemical Test Results for Key Parameters – Upper Aquifer

Parameter

Monitoring Wells

Results

Comments

Maximum Value (mg/l)

Average Value (mg/l)

Wells with ↑ trend

Chloride

RUC = 133 mg/l

Trigger 1 = 33 mg/l

Trigger Mech.

14 6 No wells

Down-gradient

7 4.5 No wells

Up-gradient 488 55 92-11 Elevated concentration in 04-6a (488 mg/l) and 01-12b (50-53 mg/l). Other wells were < 33 mg/l.

Cross-gradient

14 7 94-1 Increased from 6.5 mg/l to 14 mg/l over last decade

Iron

RUC = 0.48 mg/l

Down-gradient

1.72 1.05 No wells

Up-gradient 5.05 1.00 No wells Elevated concentrations in 04-6a (5.1 mg/l), 01-12b (1.9 mg/l) and 92-11 (1.4 mg/l)

Cross-gradient

1.62 0.84 No wells Elevated concentrations in 94-1 and 04-2a (1.3-1.6 mg/l)

Sodium

RUC = 122 mg/l

Down-gradient

70 47 No wells

Up-gradient 237 58 No wells All wells <70 mg/l except 04-6a (237 mg/l).


Page 35

Parameter

Monitoring Wells

Results

Comments




Cross-gradient

74 48 No wells

DOC

RUC = 3.3 mg/l

Down-gradient

2.5 1.6 No wells

Up-gradient 2.1 1.4 No wells

Cross-gradient

2.8 2.0 No wells

Cadmium

RUC = 0.0014 mg/l

Down-gradient

<0.0002 <0.0002 No wells


Cross-gradient

<0.0002 <0.0002 No wells

Nickel

RUC = 0.052 mg/l

Down-gradient

0.0048 0.0021 No wells


Cross-gradient

0.0150 0.0036 No wells

Notes 1. “Trigger Mechanism” wells are the wells adjacent to the landfill and are listed in the trigger

mechanism requiring action should chloride levels exceed 33 mg/l. These wells are 94-1, 94-3, 01-9a, 13-1a, 04-2a, 13-3a, 91-4a, 84-5b, 06-1 and 06-2.

2. “Down-gradient” wells are south and southwest of the landfill. These wells are 13-1a, 94-3, 01-9a, 05-1, 05-2 and 05-3.

3. “Up-gradient” wells are north and northeast of the landfill. These wells are 82-6, 91-4a, 92-11, 01-12b, 01-14 and 04-6a.

4. “Cross-gradient” wells are east and west of the landfill. These wells are 13-3a, 84-5b, 94-1 and 04-2a.

5. ↑ Trend is when or there is a statistically significant trend upwards using linear regression analysis method from McBean and Rovers (1984).

RUC

There were no exceedances of the RUC in any of the down-gradient, up-gradient or cross-gradient wells with the exception of iron, chlorides and sodium as discussed below as discussed below.

Iron Concentration

Iron concentrations in some of the down-gradient, up-gradient and cross gradient wells were observed above the RUC in 2018. It is noted that the June 2015 groundwater monitoring event was modified to incorporate field filtering. This


Page 36

sample collection modification has been incorporated in each of the groundwater monitoring events since then. It is believed that this change in the sampling collection method is responsible for the elevated iron levels.

In 2018, the average results in the up-gradient wells 01-12b (1.9 mg/l), 92-11(1.0 mg/l) and June 2018 result for 04-6a (5.1 mg/l) were in exceedance of the RUC, with maximum observed values in 01-12b (1.9 mg/l), 92-11 (1.4 mg/l) and 04-6a (5.1 mg/l), respectively. The average concentrations of the down-gradient and cross-gradient wells that were above the RUC were observed to be lower than the maximum values observed in up-gradient wells 01-12b and 04-6a. Groundwater in the upper aquifer is characteristic of elevated iron levels. As observed in private water wells in the upper aquifer since monitoring commenced in 1976.

Chloride Concentrations & Trigger Mechanism

There was an exceedance of the trigger mechanism for chlorides in two up-gradient wells (>33 mg/l). Chloride concentrations from the June 2018 sampling event are presented on Map 9. Chloride levels in the down-gradient and cross-gradient monitoring wells that are linked to the trigger mechanism (94-1, 94-3, 01-9a, 13-1a, 04-2a, 13-3a, 91-4a, 84-5b, 06-1, and 06-2) ranged from less than the analytical detection limit to 13.5 mg/L with an average concentration of 5.5 mg/L

Monitoring well 01-12b, located north of the landfill and in close proximity and down-gradient to the aggregate pits on Scotland Drive, had an average chloride level of 52 mg/l. This level is consistent with historical results at this location. The cause of the elevated chloride levels may be road salt. The use of road salt along the 401 and the Significant Groundwater Recharge Area in the area of the gravel pits is likely the cause of elevated chloride concentrations in the White Oak Aquifer (Dillon Consulting Ltd., February 2015). The road salt may also be impacting the Upper Aquifer.

An elevated chloride level of 488 mg/L was observed in the up-gradient well 04-6a located adjacent to the ditch along Manning Drive. The elevated level observed is believed to be due to structural damage sustained to the in-situ well casing, allowing for infiltration of road salt impacted water into the well. This is assumed given the wells proximity to Manning Drive and the fact that the chloride concentrations observed at this monitoring location appear to be an outlier compared to other monitoring wells near this location. As discussed above, all other down-gradient wells were within RUC and trigger limits for chlorides.

Sodium

There was an exceedence of sodium observed in well 04-6a (256 mg/l) recorded during the June sampling event. The result is consistent with historical results and is likely elevated as a result of the integrity of the monitoring location as discussed above.

Increasing Trends


Page 37

For the purposes of this report an increasing trend is defined as having a statistically significant trend upwards using linear regression analysis method from McBean and Rover (1984).

The time versus concentration graphs and linear regression analysis results show no increasing trends for any of the key parameters in any of the down-gradient wells. The time versus concentration graphs for chlorides show an increasing trend for chlorides in up-gradient well 92-11 and in cross-gradient well 94-1.

Chlorides have increased from typical values of less than 10 mg/l in the 1990’s to greater than 25 mg/l in well 92-11. This monitoring well is located up-gradient of the landfill therefore the increasing trend is not related to landfilling activities. This well is down-gradient of the aggregate pits where it is believed that chlorides from road salt is being introduced into the groundwater.

The time versus concentration graphs show an increasing trend for chlorides in well 94-1. Chlorides have increased from typical values of 5 mg/l to 13 mg/l over the last decade. This monitoring well is located cross-gradient of the landfill and down-gradient of well 92-11.

Other Parameters

Table 8 provides a summary of the test results for additional parameters to assess the overall groundwater quality.

No exceedance of the ODWO was found in any of the down-gradient wells except well 13-1a with an average sulphate concentration of 580 mg/l and 0.06 mg/l of manganese in June. The values are slightly above the aesthetic guideline and are consistent with historical results.

All wells had Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) levels below the detection limit.

Summary

Overall, the test results indicate no impacts on the Upper Aquifer from the W12A Landfill.


Page 38

Table 8 Summary of Chemical Test Results for Selected Parameters – Upper Aquifer

Parameter Monitoring Wells

Results Comments




General Parameters

Sulphate

ODWO = 500 mg/l

Down-gradient 654 173 13-1a High concentration in Well 13-1a (654 mg/l). Increased from 323-654 mg/l over last decade

Up-gradient 108 88 No wells

Cross-gradient 403 213 13-3a Increased from 85-403 mg/l over last decade

Manganese

ODWO = 0.05 mg/l

Down-gradient 0.06 0.03 No wells Marginal exceedance consistent with historical results observed at this location


Cross-gradient 0.03 0.02 No wells

Nitrate

ODWO = 10 mg/l

Down-gradient <0.40 <0.40 No wells

Up-gradient <0.40 <0.40 No wells

Cross-gradient <0.40 <0.40 No wells

Trace Metals

Arsenic

ODWO = 0.025 mg/l

Down-gradient 0.017 0.008 No wells



Chromium

ODWO = 0.05 mg/l


Up-gradient 0.001 <0.001 No wells


Zinc

ODWO = 5 mg/l




Other


Page 39


Results Comments




VOCs

(over 20 different parameters tested)

Down-gradient Not Applicable, Below Detection Limit

No wells Below detection limit

Up-gradient Not Applicable, Below Detection Limit


Cross-gradient Not Applicable, Below Detection Limit


Notes

1. ODWO = Ontario Drinking Water Objective. ND = Not Detected 2. “Down-gradient” wells are south and southwest of the landfill. These wells are 13-1a, 94-3,

01-9a, 05-1, 05-2 and 05-3. 3. “Up-gradient” wells are north and northeast of the landfill. These wells are 82-6, 91-4a, 92-11,

01-12b, 01-14 and 04-6a. 4. “Cross-gradient” wells are east and west of the landfill. These wells are 13-3a, 84-5b, 94-1

and 04-2a. 5. ↑ Trend is when there is a statistically significant trend upwards using linear regression

analysis method from McBean and Rover (1984).


Page 40

2.2.5 White Oak Aquifer Results

Chemical test results from the groundwater monitoring program for the White Oak Aquifer as well as time versus concentration graphs for key parameters are presented in Appendix C.

Reasonable Use Guideline Criterion

The RUC for key parameters in the White Oak Aquifer are calculated in Table 9.

Table 9 Calculation of Reasonable Use Criterion – White Oak Aquifer

Item Parameter

Chloride Sodium Iron DOC Cadmium Nickel

ODWO (mg/l) 250 200 0.3 5.0 0.0050 0.100

Aesthetic/Health Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Health Aesthetic

RUC Factor 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2500 0.500

Background Level 98 35 2.38 3.2 <0.0002 <0.002


174 117 2.38 4.1 0.0014 0.051

Notes

1. Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (ODWO). 2. Background level calculated from 2018 average of levels in monitoring wells 92-10 and 92-

12. 3. Reasonable Use Criterion is calculated using the equation:

(ODWO-Background) X RUC Factor + Background. 4. Details of the Reasonable Use Guideline can be found in the Ministry of Environment

Document GUIDELINE B-7 (formerly 15-08) Incorporation of the Reasonable Use Concept into MOEE Groundwater Management Activities.

5. Reasonable Use Criterion = Background Level if Reasonable Use Criterion < Background Level

Discussion of 2018 Water Quality Results

Table 10 provides a summary of the test results for chloride and the other “key” parameters (iron, sodium, DOC, cadmium and nickel). Time versus concentration graphs were prepared for each of the six key parameters and are presented in Appendix C.


Page 41

Table 10 Summary of Chemical Test Results – White Oak Aquifer


Results Comments




Key parameters

Chloride

RUC = 174 mg/l

Down-gradient 17 11 No wells

Up-gradient 147 54 92-12 Increased from 84-147 mg/l over last decade

Cross-gradient 12 11 No wells

Iron

RUC = 2.38 mg/l


Up-gradient 5 2 No wells Elevated concentration in well 92-12 (4.5 mg/l) and 01-12a (3.0 mg/l).


Sodium

RUC = 117 mg/l


Up-gradient 54 24 92-12 Increased from 20-54 mg/l over last decade


DOC

RUC = 4.1 mg/l

Down-gradient 2.7 2 No wells

Up-gradient 6.4 <1.7 No wells Elevated concentration in well 92-10 (6.4 mg/l)


Cadmium

RUC = 0.0014 mg/l



Cross-gradient 0.0002 <0.0002 No wells

Nickel

RUC = 0.051 mg/l

Down-gradient 0.002 <0.002 No wells


Cross-gradient 0.001 <0.001 No wells

Other Parameters

Sulphate

ODWO = 500 mg/l


Up-gradient 280 186 No wells


Notes

1. “Down-gradient” wells are south and southwest of the landfill. These wells are 92-8 and 01-3a.

2. “Up-gradient” wells are north and northeast of the landfill. These wells are 92-9, 92-10, 92-


Page 42

12, 01-12a and 01-13.

3. “Cross-gradient” wells are east and west of the landfill. This well is 94-2 (and formerly 72-101a, decommissioned in 2006).

4. ↑ Trend is when there is a statistically significant trend upwards using linear regression analysis method from McBean and Rover (1984).

Increasing Trends

For the purposes of this report an increasing trend is defined as having a statistically significant trend upwards using linear regression analysis method from McBean and Rover (1984).

The time versus concentration graphs show no increasing trends for any of the key parameters in any of the down-gradient or cross-gradient wells.

The chloride levels of two up-gradient wells (92-10 and 92-12) have been fluctuating. Concentrations in well 92-10 increased from 20 mg/l in 2000 to approximately 120 mg/l in 2012 and have since declined to 82 mg/l in 2018. Chloride concentrations in well 92-12 have increased from 32 mg/l in 2000 to over 140 mg/l in 2018.

As previously discussed, the cause of the elevated chloride levels may be as a result of road salt. The use of road salt along the 401 and the Significant Groundwater Recharge Area in the area of the gravel pits is likely the cause of elevated chloride concentrations in the White Oak Aquifer (Dillon Consulting Ltd., February 2015). These wells are down-gradient of the aggregate pits.

Sodium levels also increased in these wells.

An exceedance was observed in an upper-gradient well 92-10 with an iron level of 6.4 mg/l in the October sampling event. The cause of the elevated iron level at this up-gradient location is unknown. All other up-gradient wells were within RUC for iron.

Summary

Chloride levels in the down-gradient monitoring wells are less than levels in the up-gradient wells (Map 9). Many other parameters (e.g., iron, sulphate, etc.) are also much higher in the up-gradient wells as compared to the down-gradient wells. In general the groundwater in the White Oak Aquifer is poorer quality up-gradient of the landfill as compared to down-gradient.

Overall, the test results indicate no impacts on the White Oak Aquifer from the W12A Landfill.

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A !A

!A!A

@@@!A

!A

!A !A

!A !A

!A

!A !A!A

!A !A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

#0

#0

!A

MANNING DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

BRADISHRD

SCOTLAND DR

WELLINGTONR D

S

GLANWORTH DR

HIGHWAY 40

1

GLANWORTH DR

CNRA

ILWAY

92-7

92-3 92-2

92-1

92-4

05-4

05-5

01-12b53 mg/L

92-1132 mg/L

94-112 mg/L

94-35 mg/L

01-9a4 mg/L

04-2a4 mg/L

82-65 mg/L

01-145 mg/L

84-5b7 mg/L 91-4a

5 mg/L

04-6a488 mg/L

05-17 mg/L

05-24 mg/L

05-34 mg/L

06-16 mg/L

06-24 mg/L

13-1a4 mg/L

13-3a4 mg/L

00-3a00-3b00-7a97-7

97-4

97-397-5

G1-11

G2-11

97-2

92-12131 mg/L

01-12a29 mg/L

92-1075 mg/L

01-1310 mg/L

94-210 mg/L

01-3a17 mg/L

1460 mg/L

92-94 mg/L

92-84 mg/L

January 31, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) Site Features prepared by Callon Dietz Inc. LTD, October 19, 2016


Date:


CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONSSUMMER 2018

Map 9

0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:15,000

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

9 - C

hlorid

e Con

centr

ation

s.mxd

LegendActive Monitoring Wells

!A Groundwater, Upper Aquifer!A Groundwater, White Oaks Aquifer!A Leachate, -#0 Methane Gas, -@ Till, -



Page 45

2.3 Surface Water

2.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

The W12A Landfill sits on the surface water divide between the Dodds Creek watershed and the Dingman Creek watershed (Map 5). The majority of the site is within the Dodds Creek watershed (142 hectares) and a small portion in the Dingman Creek watershed (13 hectares).

Prior to the development of the landfill, surface water drained to a number of separate channels that discharged into one of five culverts. Four culverts crossed Manning Drive (located in the Dodds Creek watershed) and one culvert crossed White Oak Road (located in the Dingman Creek watershed). Drainage in the channels was intermittent, with flows only after rainfall events. The soils in the area are moderately well drained Muriel silty clay, with silty loam overlying the clay near low-lying areas adjacent to the channels.

Drainage in the eastern portion of the landfill is now controlled by ditches around the perimeter of the fill area which drain to one of two stormwater management ponds. The existing internal drainage system, location of the two stormwater management ponds, location of the culverts and the surface water sampling locations are shown on Drawing 2. Stormwater Management Pond #5 drains to Drainage Ditch #1 and Stormwater Management Pond #4 drains to Drainage Ditch #3.

Drainage in the south-western portion of the landfill is controlled by ditches along the access road. The ditches direct surface water to Stormwater Management Pond #2/3 which discharges into Drainage Ditch #5.

Drainage in the north-western portion of the landfill remained predominantly unchanged in 2018. Waste disposal cell 9 was constructed (construction finished in December) in 2018, a small portion of the surface water in this area is now drained in ditches to the north and eastern portion of waste disposal cell 9.. Drainage in this area drains to Stormwater Management Pond #1.

2.3.2 Surface Water Monitoring Program

The following discussion of surface water quality test results for 2018 is intended to provide an evaluation of surface water quality relative to historical data and current compliance standards (Appendix D).

Key Parameters

The discussion will focus on four key parameters (un-ionized ammonia, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5), chloride and sulphate) which the surface water “trigger mechanism” for implementation of contingency measures is based on. The trigger mechanism is presented in Table 11.

All four parameters in the trigger mechanism are found in the leachate at concentrations many times greater than what would typically be expected in surface water and have been found occasionally at levels above background in the surface water discharging from the stormwater management ponds. These


Page 46

four parameters are also included in Landfill Standards (MECP, 1998) as parameters to be included in surface water monitoring programs.

Table 11 Trigger Mechanism for Surface Water Impacts

Level One Operating Procedures

Stormwater management pond operated in “continuous” discharge mode

Surface water sampling program as detailed in Appendix K of Phase 2 of the W12A Landfill, Design and Operations Report, Certificate of Approval No. A042105 (November 2002) or Appendix B of Stormwater Management Master Plan (November 2002). The sampling programs consists of four sampling events per year

Annual review of sampling program and trigger mechanism

“Trigger” to Implement Level Two Operating Procedures

Surface water sample and confirmation sample shows; o Un-ionized ammonia greater than 0.3 mg/l or, o BOD5 greater than 10 mg/l or, o Chloride greater than 800 mg/l or, o Sulphates greater than 1,000 mg/l,

Or leachate outbreak occurs and leachate reaches drainage ditch

Confirmation sample to be taken as soon as possible after receiving results in excess of Level Two trigger values

Level Two Operating Procedures

Stormwater management pond operated in “batch” discharge mode. This involves closure of the valve that permits discharge of stormwater off-site.

Surface water sampling consists of:

Level one sampling program plus

Sampling for parameter that ‘triggered’ Level Two operating procedures at the end of each rain event

The stormwater is either discharged as stormwater or pumped into the leachate collection system/ fill area depending on the water quality results from the monitoring program o Un-ionized ammonia greater than 0.3 mg/l or o BOD5 greater than 10 mg/l or o Chloride greater than 800 mg/l or o Sulphates greater than 1,000 mg/l

Un-ionized ammonia, chloride and sulphate results will be available the same day samples are collected. BOD5 results will not be available until 5 days after the sample is collected. In the event that the water level in the pond is going to reach the overflow level for the stormwater management pond before results are available, the stormwater will be discharged (if practical) into the leachate collection system and/or onto the fill area to infiltrate and subsequently be collected by the leachate collection system.

Investigations will be implemented to determine the cause of the elevated water quality results and/or assess down-gradient impacts. These investigations will determine potential long term actions that could be implemented or whether discharge of the surface is likely to have an adverse impact.

“Trigger” to Return to Level One Operating Procedures

Surface water sampling program shows for 3 consecutive sampling events: o Un-ionized ammonia less than 0.3 mg/l, o BOD5 less than 10 mg/l, o Chloride less than 800 mg/l and o Sulphate less than 1,000 mg/l


Page 47

Sampling Locations

Surface water samples are collected from six drainage ditches (Table 12) and the four Stormwater Management Ponds #1, #2/3, #4 and #5 (Drawing 2).

Table 12 Surface Water Sampling Stations

Sampling Station Receiving Watershed

Surface Runoff

Comments # Location Completed Fill Area

Landfill Property

1 Weir at southeast corner of landfill

Dodd Creek Yes Yes Receives flow from pond #5

2 West end of culvert at entrance to

landfill

Dodd Creek No Yes Includes drainage from buffer area including drop-off depot

3 Weir, Manning Drive (centre of

landfill)

Dodd Creek Yes Yes Receives flow from pond #4 & buffer area

5 Ditch at southwest corner of landfill

Dodd Creek Yes1 Yes Includes drainage from pond #2/3 & buffer area

7 Ditch at northwest corner of landfill

Dingman Creek No Yes Includes drainage from pond #1 and agricultural land

10 North end of culvert at 3713 Scotland

Drive

Dingman Creek No No Includes drainage from agricultural land

1This location receives flow from a partially completed fill area.

Since the landfill is situated on a surface water divide there are no up-gradient sampling locations. Ditches 7 and 10 do not receive surface water from areas that have been landfilled and can be considered representative of background conditions.

2.3.3 Surface Water Results

A summary of the test results for the key parameters (un-ionized ammonia, BOD5, chloride and sulphate) at three surface water sampling stations (ditch #1, #3 and #5) used for the trigger mechanism are presented in Table 13.

There were no exceedances for any trigger mechanism parameters in 2018.

The City also undertakes sampling directly from the stormwater management ponds that receive runoff from areas that have been landfilled (Ponds 4 and 5).


Page 48

All samples collected from the stormwater management ponds did not exceed any of the trigger mechanism parameters.

Table 13 Summary of Chemical Test Results– Surface Water

Parameter

Sampling ID

Results

Maximum (mg/l) Average (mg/l)

BOD

Trigger > 10 mg/l

Ditch 1 3 2

Ditch 3 5 3

Ditch 5 3 <2

Chloride

Trigger > 800 mg/l

Ditch 1 43 32

Ditch 3 178 95

Ditch 5 135 80

Sulphate

Trigger > 1,000 mg/l

Ditch 1 52 28

Ditch 3 111 77

Ditch 5 198 171

Un-ionized Ammonia

Trigger > 0.3 mg/l

Ditch 1 0.008 0.005

Ditch 3 0.012 0.005

Ditch 5 0.024 0.012

Other Parameters

Suspended Solids levels were similar to historic values which are typically below 100 mg/l. In 2018, the drainage ditches suspended solids ranged from < 3 mg/l to 69 mg/l. The highest level was recorded in April in drainage ditch #3.

Phosphorous levels in all the ditches and the stormwater management ponds tested, including ditches not receiving surface water from the landfill, exceeded the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) criteria of 0.03 mg/l in 2018. Phosphorous levels generally ranged between 0.03 mg/l and 0.14 mg/l, which was below the discharge criterion in the City’s Stormwater By-law of 0.40 mg/l.

Analyses for trace metals were completed on field filtered samples since high suspended solids can skew metal levels. Metal levels were below the PWQO for all surface water samples. Historically, the stormwater management ponds typically had occasional exceedances of the PWQOs for copper and zinc.

2.4 Leachate

2.4.1 Leachate Characterization

In 2000 and 2001, leachate from the W12A Landfill site was characterized to confirm no contaminants are overlooked in assessing future groundwater impacts or leachate treatment requirements.


Page 49

The leachate characterization consisted of:

Reviewing historical monitoring results of leachate collected from on-site leachate storage tanks (general chemistry and trace metals);

Testing of leachate in the on-site storage tanks for a wide range of parameters not included in the historical monitoring program (Carbamates, Chlorinated Phenols, Dioxins & Furans, Herbicides & Phenoxy Acid Herbicides, Organochlorine & Organophosphorus Pesticides, Total PCBs, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs));

Testing of leachate collected from the leachate monitoring wells for general chemistry, trace metals and VOCs.

The leachate characterization study found the leachate to be typical of what would be expected for a mid-size Ontario landfill. The only parameters tested that exceeded the Ontario Drinking Water Standards were some general chemistry parameters, some trace metals and some VOCs. These parameters are included in the leachate and groundwater monitoring programs. These exceedances are expected given the nature of landfilling operations at W12A. As discussed above, these parameters were measured and characterized in order to assess any potential impacts to surrounding groundwater quality.

2.4.2 Leachate Monitoring Program

Leachate from the landfill is collected by a perimeter leachate collection system in Phase 1 and an underdrain leachate collection system in Phase 2. Details of the leachate collection system are provided in Section 3.3.1.

Leachate from the landfill must travel laterally through the waste to the leachate collection system and then along the collection system until it reaches one of two pumping stations. Leachate from the majority of Phase 1 drains directly to the main pumping station used to pump the leachate off-site for treatment. Leachate from the remainder of Phase 1 and all of Phase 2 drains to maintenance hole #701 and is then pumped to the main pumping station.

The quality of the leachate may change as it moves from the centre of the landfill to the pumping stations especially for highly volatile compounds. In addition, the leachate collection system collects some clean surface water which has not been in contact with waste during heavy rain events. The result is that leachate in the pumping station is diluted when compared to the leachate collected from the leachate monitoring wells. Therefore, the results from the leachate collected from the leachate storage tanks is representative of the quality of leachate that will require treatment, and leachate from the monitoring wells is representative of leachate for assessing future groundwater impacts. For the above reasons, leachate is sampled from both the leachate storage tank and leachate monitoring wells.

2.4.3 Leachate Quality Monitoring Results

The following discussion of leachate water quality test results for 2018 is intended to provide an evaluation of leachate water quality relative to historical


Page 50

data. The locations of the leachate pumping station and leachate monitoring wells are shown on Drawing 2.

As noted in Section 2.1, the ECA requires that the leachate pumping station be sampled three times per year. The pumping station is typically sampled monthly.

Leachate monitoring wells were constructed in 1997 and have been sampled since 2001. Leachate monitoring wells are located in the older portions of the landfill where no new waste has been placed for more than a decade.

Current and historical test results, as well as time versus concentration graphs for key parameters are presented in Appendix E and summarized in Table 14.

Table 14 Leachate Monitoring Results

Parameter Leachate Monitoring Wells

Leachate Pumping Station

Comments

Treatment Related Parameters

Ammonia Variable

617 – 1200 mg/l

Variable

44 – 609 mg/l

Dependant on precipitation and construction of disposal cell sequence

BOD Stable

32 – 70 mg/l

Variable

18 – 434 mg/l

Variability in pumping station likely due to precipitation and cell construction

COD Stable

1180 – 2140 mg/l

Stable

428 – 704 mg/l

Stable

Phosphorous Stable

2.1 – 7.9 mg/l

Fairly Stable

0.3 – 3.7 mg/l

Stable

Contaminant Transport Parameters

Chloride Stable

1480 – 2270 mg/l

Variable

142 – 1190 mg/l

Variability in pumping station likely due to precipitation and cell construction

Iron Fairly Stable

8 – 154 mg/l

Stable

3 – 13 mg/l

Stable

DOC Stable

272 – 364 mg/l

Stable

105 – 204 mg/l

Stable

Sodium Fairly stable

832 – 1920 mg/l

Stable

486 – 788 mg/l

Fairly stable

Cadmium Stable

<0.01 mg/l

Stable

< 0.01 mg/l

Stable


Page 51

Parameter Leachate Monitoring Wells

Leachate Pumping Station

Comments

Nickel Stable

0.10 – 0.39 mg/l

Stable

0.04 – 0.06 mg/l

Stable

2.5 Water Wells

2.5.1 Area Groundwater Resources

As noted in Section 2.2.2 there are two aquifers below the W12A Landfill. The Upper Aquifer, that is discontinuous, “pinches” out just north of the landfill and the deeper White Oak Aquifer. Both aquifers are used as sources of drinking water.

Map 10 shows the locations of historic and existing water wells that have been drilled in the area.

2.5.2 Water Well Monitoring Program

The locations of the existing and historical water wells that have been sampled are detailed on Map 11. Many of the water wells north and east of the landfill are decommissioned. These wells have been taken out of service and the residents are on municipal water.

The existing Water Well Monitoring program includes nine water wells that terminate in the White Oak Aquifer and four wells that terminate in the Upper Aquifer. The chemical test results for these wells and time versus concentration graphs are presented in Appendix F.

Indicator parameters, including the six key parameters identified by the MECP and the City (chlorides, iron, sodium, DOC, cadmium and nickel), are tested for annually. Heavy metals are tested on a 3-year cycle with the most recent testing completed in 2017. The next testing is scheduled for 2020.

The following discussion of water well test results for 2018 is intended to provide an evaluation of water quality relative to historical data. The discussion includes a comparison of “key” parameters to the RUC. It should be noted that the RUC only applies to water quality at the landfill site property boundary, however, it provides a convenient comparator for assessing groundwater. RUC for the Upper Aquifer and White Oak Aquifer are presented for six parameters (chloride, sodium, iron, DOC, cadmium and nickel) in previous sections.

2.5.3 Upper Aquifer

The 2018 Water Well Monitoring program included two water wells in the Upper Aquifer (wells #12 and #36). Both water wells are located down-gradient or cross-gradient of the landfill. It should be noted that well #12 was monitored in June 2018 prior to its decommissioning in November 2018.


Page 52

Key findings from reviewing the test results from the Upper Aquifer water wells are presented below:

Both wells had chloride levels (the “critical’ contaminant) below the RUC value of 133 mg/l

Chlorides in both wells were below the trigger concentration (33 mg/l).

Well #12 had increasing trends for chlorides

Well #12 continued to have high iron levels (12.7 mg/l in 2018); high iron levels have been encountered in private water wells in the Upper Aquifer since monitoring began in 1976; recent iron levels are similar to historical levels

Other key parameters (sodium, DOC, cadmium and nickel) were below RUC for all wells

There were no exceedances of heavy metals in the Upper Aquifer wells tested

Historically, Well #22 displayed a slowly increasing trend for chlorides which increased from 7 mg/l in the mid 1990’s to 23 mg/l in 2018. This well was located cross-gradient of the landfill and therefore increasing concentration was not from landfill groundwater impacts. This well was located near monitoring well 94-1 (cross-gradient to the landfill) and down-gradient of monitoring well 01-12b (up-gradient of the landfill). Both of these wells have increasing chlorides levels that are believed to be caused by road salt. Historically sulphate and hardness were also observed to be increasing, but plateaued in 2010.

Well #22 which was previously monitored is no longer active, and is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2019. Historically, chloride levels in well #22 began increasing in 1994; however, chloride levels peaked in 2008 at 108 mg/l and decreased to 22 mg/l in 2018. Chloride levels in groundwater monitoring wells located between well #22 and the landfill (wells 94-3, 01-9a, 05-1, 05-2 and 05-3) continue to remain at background levels (< 10 mg/l) and are not increasing.

Investigation by Dillon Consulting indicates the relatively high chlorides may be caused by surface water infiltrating into the Upper Aquifer. The Surficial Aquitard decreases in thickness in this area and may potentially be non-existent for a small area including a portion of a tributary to Dodd’s Creek.

The City of London owns the property that the well is located on and hired a contractor in 2016 to install a deeper well to take water from the White Oak Aquifer (well #131) to supply the property. An internal water treatment equipment was installed in 2017 to address some aesthetic water quality parameters observed in new well #131.

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

$

$

$

$

$

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!!

$

$

$

!

!

!

$!!

!

$!"

"

!!

!"$

!$$!

!

!

!!! !

!

!

! ! !

!!! !

!!!

!

!!!!

!""!

!

"

!

!

!!

"

!

$

!

$

$

!

!

$$

!

$

!

$

$

!

"

!

!

!!

$

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

$

$

MANNING DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

BRAD ISHRD

SCOTLAND DR

WELLINGTONRD

S

GLANWORTH DR

HIGHWAY 40

1

GLANWORTH DR

CNRA

ILWAY

!1

!33

!14

!90

!17

!24 !25 !32

!31

!16

!23

!27

!26

!20 !21

!131 !126!127

!125

!110

$9

$36

$111$113

$100

"124

!4!3!73

!61!59

!72

!94!60

!62

!66

!65

!74

!10!128

!130 !129

!114

!121

!120

!108

!102

$2

$22

$19

$18

$116

$117

$119

$118

$112

$109

"75

"70

"76

!7!8

!6!5

!68

!71

!50

!64

!95

!86

!67!79!92!88

!52

!97

!93!69!91

!83!85!81

!80

!82

!84

!98

!89

!96

!63!56

!55!87

!99

!28

!29

!15

!11

!115

!103!105!104!106

!101

!51

!53!58

!30

!122!107

13

12

!78!77

!54!57

February 28, 2019




Date:


WATER WELLS AROUND W12A

Map 10

0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:15,000

LegendInactive Water Wells! White Oaks Aquifer$ Upper Aquifer

" Unknown Water SourceActive Water Wells! White Oaks Aquifer$ Upper Aquifer

" Unknown Water SourceDecommissioned Water Wells! White Oaks Aquifer$ Upper Aquifer

" Unknown Water SourceProperty Information

ParcelsExisting W12A Landfill

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

$

$

$

$

$

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!!

$

$

$

!

!

!

!

!

$

MANNING DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

BRADISHRD

SCOTLAND DR

WELLINGTONR D

S

GLANWORTH DR

HIGHWAY 40

1

GLANWORTH DR

7

2

9

438

6

1

5

36

33

14 1730

24 25 32

31

28

29

22

19

18

13

12

16

23

27

26

20

15

21

11

10

131

January 28, 2019




Date:


WATER WELL MONITORING PROGRAM

Map 11

0 250 500 750

Metres

!I1:15,000

LegendCurrent Monitoring Program$ Upper Aquifer

! White Oaks AquiferDeccomissioned Monitoring Wells$ Upper Aquifer

! White Oaks AquiferHistoric Monitoring Wells$ Upper Aquifer

! White Oaks AquiferProperty Information

ParcelsExisting W12A Landfill


Page 55

2.5.4 White Oak Aquifer

The Water Well Monitoring program includes 13 water wells in the White Oak Aquifer (well #16, #17, #20, #21, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #31, #32, #33, and #131). The water wells are located cross-gradient and down-gradient of the landfill.

Key findings from reviewing the test results from the White Oak Aquifer water wells are presented below:

All wells sampled had chloride (the “critical’ contaminant) levels below 35 mg/l which is below the RUC value of 174 mg/l.

Most wells continue to have high iron levels which is typical of the area. The area up-gradient of the landfill has long been known to contain naturally high iron levels. In the late 1950’s and 1960’s water was pumped from the White Oak Aquifer from this area to supply the City of London with drinking water. Water pumped from the White Oak Aquifer had to be treated to reduce iron levels which sometimes exceeded 10 mg/l of iron.

Other key parameters (sodium, DOC, cadmium and nickel) were below RUC for all wells.

Several wells (#25, #26 and #32) have historically had increasing sulphate levels. Sulphate levels were similar to the previous year in all three aforementioned wells in 2018. The report W12A Landfill Site Assessment of Water Well Monitoring Program (Dillon Consulting Ltd., February 2005) concluded that the changing sulphate levels were not landfill related.

Several wells in the White Oak Aquifer have historically had increasing chloride levels but concentrations that are relatively low (< 35 mg/l) and in some cases have plateaued; the report W12A Landfill Site Assessment of Water Well Monitoring Program (Dillon Consulting Ltd., February 2005) concluded that the changing chloride levels were not landfill related because:

o Increasing chloride levels were not found in monitoring wells in the Upper Aquifer which should be impacted first by any leachate migrating from the landfill before reaching the White Oak Aquifer;

o Chloride levels up-gradient of the landfill in the White Oak Aquifer are higher than down-gradient and therefore down-gradient chloride levels are likely to rise with time;

o Plotting of water chemistry using Durov diagrams show water chemistry in private wells distinctly different than what one would expect from water being impacted by leachate from W12A Landfill.


Page 56

2.6 Landfill Gas

2.6.1 Landfill Gas Overview

Landfill gas is formed from three processes (bacterial decomposition, volatilization, and chemical reactions). Most landfill gas is produced by bacterial decomposition, which occurs when organic waste is broken down by bacteria naturally present in the waste and in the soil used to cover the landfill. Landfill gases can be created by volatilization when certain wastes, particularly organic compounds, change from a liquid or a solid into a vapor. Landfill gas can also be created by the reactions of certain chemicals present in waste. For example, if chlorine bleach and ammonia come in contact with each other within the landfill.

Landfill gas is composed of a mixture of hundreds of different gases. By volume, landfill gas typically contains 45% to 60% methane and 40% to 60% carbon dioxide. Landfill gas also includes small amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, ammonia, sulfides, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as trichloroethylene, benzene, and vinyl chloride.

2.6.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring Program

Landfill gas monitoring has historically consisted of:

continuous air quality monitoring for methane, oxygen and hydrogen sulphate in all on-site buildings

periodic “bartests” to determine the methane gas concentrations in the surficial soils in the area adjacent to the fill area

periodic testing of landfill gas to determine its composition

Semi-annual monitoring of two landfill gas monitoring wells installed in the buffer area of the landfill. These monitoring wells were installed at the property boundary opposite the two closest off-site buildings to the waste footprint (Drawing 2).

Monitoring of the buildings has never encountered elevated levels of methane or hydrogen sulphate or low levels of oxygen.

No bartests were performed in 2018. Historically, the bartests have found detectable levels of methane do not migrate beyond 10 m from the waste footprint in the areas tested.

No testing of the landfill gas composition was completed in 2018. Historical testing of the landfill gas quality have found the landfill gas to be typical of other landfills with methane ranging from 55% to 60% and carbon dioxide between 40% and 45% with trace amounts of a few NMOCs.

Testing of the landfill gas monitoring wells in 2018 found that the average methane levels were 27 ppm and 140 ppm in wells G1-11 and G2-11, respectively, indicating that landfill gas is not migrating off site through the soil. Test results for the landfill gas monitoring wells are presented in Appendix L.


Page 57

3.0 Site Development/Operations

3.1 W12A Cell Expansion Construction

The most recent expansion of the landfill base and leachate collection system within the approved area for landfilling activities was completed in 2018. The expansion consisted of the construction of Cell 9, expansion of the Phase 2 leachate collection system, expansion of the Phase 2 storm water ditches and perimeter berms.

Due to an increase in commercial waste volumes received at the W12A landfill over the course of 2018, available disposal capacity at W12A was depleted sooner than anticipated. As such, the development of Phase 2 – Cell 9 has been completed in 2018 instead of in 2019 as originally scheduled. The advanced development of Cell 9 added an additional 1,000,000 m3 of capacity to the landfill footprint.

The W12A landfill is expected to have 1 additional expansion in the next 3 to 4 years given the current approved operational footprint and predicted waste quantities.

3.2 Site Capacity

3.2.1 Historical Waste Quantities

Table 15 presents the types and quantities of solid non-hazardous waste disposed at the landfill since it opened. The waste quantities in these tables are broken into eight categories; residential, IC&I (industrial, commercial & institutional) waste and CR&D (construction, renovation and demolition) recycling residuals, biosolids, street sweepings/road work, other municipal, water treatment plan residuals and contaminated soil. These categories are based on the waste categories used to record waste received at the W12A Landfill.

Approximately 9,094,000 tonnes of waste has been disposed of at the landfill since 1977 inclusive of the approximately 322,000 tonnes received at the landfill in 2018. A monthly breakdown of the waste quantities received at the landfill in 2018 is presented in Table 16.


Page 58

Table 15 Waste Quantities Disposed of at W12A Landfill in Tonnes Year Residential1 IC&I2 C,R&D3 Ash4 Biosolids Street "Other" WTP6 Contaminated Soil Total

Recycling Sweepings/ Municipal5 Process Waste

Residuals Road Work Residuals Waste Cover Landfilled

1977 20,123 32,093 0 0 3,806 0 0 0 0 0 56,022

1978 58,722 81,687 0 0 26,516 0 0 0 0 0 166,925

1979 71,955 69,874 0 0 30,861 0 0 0 0 0 172,690

1980 89,995 70,721 0 0 52,083 0 0 0 0 0 212,799

1981 100,810 71,451 0 0 47,888 0 0 0 0 0 220,150

1982 110,249 71,267 0 0 44,273 0 0 0 0 0 225,788

1983 113,247 72,616 0 0 36,745 0 1,096 0 0 0 223,705

1984 122,438 80,522 0 0 51,445 0 5,247 0 0 0 259,653

1985 125,460 90,263 0 0 43,000 0 2,935 0 0 0 261,657

1986 134,801 101,816 0 0 49,386 0 2,275 0 0 0 288,278

1987 123,205 114,928 0 0 67,046 0 1,465 0 0 0 306,644

1988 75,674 126,943 0 33,349 16,886 0 2,711 0 0 0 255,564

1989 81,410 141,954 0 33,752 15,272 0 3,677 0 0 0 276,065

1990 73,790 125,027 0 30,142 7,366 0 8,161 0 0 0 244,485

1991 97,133 109,099 0 14,180 8,745 0 27,110 0 0 0 256,266

1992 97,708 58,516 0 15,386 8,643 0 32,318 0 0 0 212,571

1993 93,397 37,191 0 14,404 11,389 0 33,923 0 0 0 190,303

1994 86,300 32,007 0 15,875 14,359 0 34,015 0 0 0 182,556

1995 70,041 13,154 0 16,422 12,840 0 63,243 0 0 0 175,700

1996 51,096 6,118 0 22,194 11,190 0 44,756 0 0 0 135,354

1997 49,063 4,294 0 21,677 12,973 0 42,404 0 0 0 130,410

1998 44,034 3,588 0 21,548 16,042 0 39,367 0 0 0 124,579

1999 49,622 2,192 0 19,373 7,861 0 57,925 0 0 0 136,973

2000 91,306 2,355 0 5,394 29,402 0 107,177 0 0 0 235,635


Page 59

Year Residential1 IC&I2 C,R&D3 Ash4 Biosolids Street "Other" WTP6 Contaminated Soil Total Recycling Sweepings/ Municipal5 Process Waste

Residuals Road Work Residuals Waste Cover Landfilled

2001 92,856 2,436 0 4,093 6,620 0 38,716 0 0 0 144,721

2002 97,771 3,732 0 5,746 15,993 35,529 19,736 0 5,556 851 184,914

2003 102,194 4,120 0 5,176 5,861 42,491 28,374 0 263 0 188,479

2004 98,477 21,378 0 3,867 6,601 34,073 9,912 0 468 3,019 177,795

2005 102,559 36,947 0 5,351 2,913 30,674 8,727 0 10,054 12,355 209,580

2006 100,206 47,921 0 6,069 6 37,034 8,808 0 5,423 23 205,490

2007 100,404 47,346 0 6,001 0 37,769 23,984 0 9,925 5,004 230,433

2008 101,437 64,178 0 2,956 23,851 43,040 26,941 0 4,689 17,300 284,392

2009 97,720 69,742 0 0 0 43,000 26,907 0 17,626 18,883 273,878

2010 93,898 72,436 0 6,067 4,121 29,697 11,551 0 6,185 42,410 266,365

2011 94,435 75,008 10,236 0 10,317 22,371 9,595 0 15,800 13,187 250,949

2012 91,638 54,445 23,403 0 4,747 26,554 5,623 0 18,528 4,511 229,449

2013 93,172 45,954 18,991 1,904 4,633 23,062 8,946 0 3,590 1,269 201,521

2014 93,569 40,314 24,155 4,163 5,994 42,748 8,511 0 2,473 1,073 223,000

2015 91,339 13,614 33,936 12,953 2,577 47,181 8,594 0 4,757 3,656 218,606

2016 93,151 24,245 35,332 4,166 14,268 51,512 7,762 0 6,954 21,137 258,528

2017 94,438 56,992 44,317 6,551 3,639 49,273 10,600 0 5,756 5,851 277,417 2018 96,462 66,193 37,865 7,178 0 49,421 11,269 2,108 16,732 34,370 321,600

Total 3,767,304 2,266,678 228,234 345,936 738,159 645,429 784,362 4,217 134,779 179,420 9,094,518

Percent 41% 25% 3% 4% 8% 7% 9% 0% 1% 2%

Notes 1. "Residential" waste includes curbside, bulk bin and depot garbage collected by the City from residential and light commercial sources.

2. "IC&I" is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste collected by the private sector. 3. "C,R&D recycling residuals" is an abbreviation for Construction, Renovation and Demolition recycling residuals. Prior to 2011, C&D recycling residuals were included with IC&I. 4. "Ash" includes sewage sludge ash (since 1998) and residential waste ash (1988 to 1999). 5. "Other Municipal" includes material recovery facility residuals, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 6. "WTP process residuals" is an abbreviation for water treatment plant process residuals.


Page 60

Table 16 Monthly Waste Quantities Disposed of at W12A Landfill in Tonnes

Month Residential/ IC&I1 CR&D2 Other Contaminated Soil Biosolids Street Ash Total Operating

Light

Commercial Municipal3 Waste Cover

Sweepings Landfilled Materials4

January 8,430 4,976 2,169 833 0 2,923 0 2,703 1,168 23,326 3,434

February 6,824 4,502 1,892 646 0 2,251 0 1,328 0 17,470 4,672

March 7,342 5,260 2,340 828 0 168 0 1,962 940 18,876 6,468

April 8,159 4,984 2,580 1,076 0 212 0 5,754 997 23,834 3,337

May 9,440 5,833 3,870 1,216 0 304 0 3,432 790 25,045 3,814

June 7,763 5,118 3,677 1,056 4,734 1,066 0 4,318 0 27,872 3,191

July 8,136 5,112 3,793 1,030 29,485 3,019 0 4,128 525 55,376 18,286

August 8,578 5,884 3,676 1,067 0 5,186 0 4,547 0 29,013 2,397

September 7,753 6,399 3,458 786 565 663 0 4,353 937 24,973 1,802

October 8,553 7,156 3,848 1,070 889 520 0 10,659 0 32,766 3,483

November 8,112 6,019 3,259 945 805 299 0 4,062 927 24,477 2,851

December 7,372 4,951 3,301 715 0 120 0 2,176 893 19,597 4,795

Total 96,462 66,193 37,865 11,269 36,478 16,732 0 49,421 7,178 322,627 58,530

Notes

1. "IC&I" is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional.

2. "CR&D" is an abbreviation for Construction, Renovation and Demolition recycling residuals.

3. "Other Municipal" includes street sweepings, rubble and grit as well as waste from parks and City projects.

4. "Operating Materials" refers to purchased materials used (and subsequently buried) in the landfill (e.g. rubble, wood chips, etc.).


Page 61

3.2.2 Estimated Remaining Disposal Volume

Estimates of the volume of disposal capacity that has been consumed (including waste, daily/intermediate cover and final cover) for the period 1976 to 2017 and for 2018, as well as, the capacity remaining as of January 2019 are presented in Table 17.

Based on a topographic survey, it is estimated that the remaining disposal volume is approximately 2,151,000 m3 as of January 2019 (Table 17). After allowing for final cover (362,000 m3) and daily/intermediate cover (assume 4:1 ratio of waste to cover soil), approximately 1,431,000 m3 of disposal capacity is available for waste as of January 2019.

Table 17 Landfill Capacity Calculations Capacity Used

Item Units Year Total

1976 - 2017 2018

Volume Used m3 11,267,000 382,000 11,649,000

Final Cover Installed m3 708,000 0 708,000

Volume Used for Waste & Daily Cover m3 10,559,000 382,000 10,941,000

Daily Cover Used m3 2,319,000 136,500 2,455,500

Volume Consumed by Waste m3 8,240,000 245,500 8,485,500

Tonnage Tonnes 8,776,000 322,000 9,098,000

Apparent Density (waste & cover material) Tonnes/m3 0.83 0.84 0.83

Waste Density Tonnes/m3 1.07 1.31 1.07

Cover Material Used m3 2,319,000 136,500 2,455,500

Waste to Cover Material Ratio - 3.6 1.8 3.5


Page 62

Remaining Capacity

Item Units Quantity Comment

Approved Capacity m3 13,800,000

Volume Used m3 11,649,000

Volume Remaining - January, 2019 m3 2,151,000

Final Cover Requirements m3 362,000 Dillon estimate

Volume Available for Waste & Daily Cover m3 1,789,000 -

Daily Cover Requirements m3 358,000 Based on a 4:1 waste to cover ratio

Volume Available for Waste m3 1,431,000 -

Estimated Remaining Capacity Tonnes 1,534,000 Based on Scenario B - Expected

Estimated Closure Date - 2024 Based on Scenario B - Expected

Estimated Site Life Years 5 -

3.2.3 Estimated Remaining Site Life

Waste quantity projections for the City of London for the next 32 years were developed for 4 possible scenarios. These waste quantity projections represent the likely range of waste quantities that can be expected taking into account:

Population growth

Provincial waste diversion target of 60% for residential, IC&I and CR&D waste

Possible changes to the management of IC&I and CR&D waste

Complete details of the key assumptions, calculations and rationale for estimating the waste quantities for each scenario are presented in W12A Annual Report 2018 Waste Generation Projections & Landfill Capacity Assessment (Appendix M). The waste quantity projections suggest that the W12A Landfill has between 4 and 7 years of capacity remaining depending on how residential, IC&I and CR&D processing residual waste are managed in the future. With no changes in the existing waste management practices it is estimated that the W12A Landfill will have approximately 4 years of capacity remaining. A summary of all the assumptions and remaining site life is presented in Table 18.


Page 63

Table 18 Remaining Site Life at the W12A Landfill

Scenario Remaining Site Life

Years Date

A No Changes

residential diversion rate of 45% 4 2023

no change in disposal rate from City operations

no change in IC&I waste disposal rate (27% landfilled at

W12A)

no unprocessed C&D waste

no change in CR&D recycling process residuals disposal rate

B Expected - Decrease in Residential Waste Quantities

60% diversion of residential waste by 2022 4/5 2023/2024

no change in waste from City operations

no change in IC&I waste disposal rate (27% landfilled at

W12A)

no unprocessed CR&D waste

no change in CR&D recycling process residuals disposal rate

C Decrease in Residential, IC&I and C&D Waste Quantities

60% diversion of residential waste by 2022 7 2026

no change in disposal rate from City operations

ICI disposal rate decreases (10% landfill at W12A)

no unprocessed CR&D waste; no change in CR&D recycling process residuals disposal rate in 2019

no CR&D residuals after 2022

D

Increase in IC&I quantities and No Changes for Residential Waste

residential diversion rate of 45% 4 2023

no change in waste from City operations

ICI disposal rate increases (no export by 2025, 60% landfilled

at W12A coupled with 40% diversion of IC&I waste)

no unprocessed CR&D waste; no change in CR&D recycling process residuals disposal rate in 2019

100% of CR&D recycling process residuals goes to W12A

Landfill by 2025


Page 64

3.3 Cover Material Requirements and Availability

3.3.1 Material Balance

Waste disposed at the landfill is covered at the end of each working day. In 2018, daily cover consisted of soil, wood chips, shingles, compost and contaminated soil. Soil is also used for interim cover, final cover, screening berms and general landscaping needs.

The majority of soil used as cover material comes from the excavation of new cells to proposed bottom elevations. Soil is also obtained from off-site sources, including construction projects where excess soil is to be disposed of, or contaminated fill that requires landfill disposal.

Table 19 provides a material balance for 1976 to 2017, 2018 and for the remaining life of the landfill. It is estimated that there will be a surplus of approximately 714,000 m3 at the time of closure.

A surplus of soil can be accommodated by not dismantling the berms, increasing the thickness of the final cover or undertaking additional landscaping for the end-use for the landfill.

A soil deficit could occur if the City decides not to dismantle the existing earth berms or if more soil is required for daily/interim cover needs (e.g., a 4:1 waste to cover ratio is not achieved). A soil deficit could be made up in a number of ways including importing clean soil from construction projects in the City, increasing the usage of alternate daily cover materials or employing a re-usable geotextile/membrane for daily cover. It has been the City’s experience during the operation of the W12A Landfill that significant amounts of excess fill does become available from time to time from major construction projects.

3.3.2 Operating Materials (including imported daily cover)

Approximately 1,060,000 tonnes of operating materials has been imported at the landfill since 1977. Other materials imported in 2018 included rubble for road building, shingles to provide traction during wet weather periods and shingles and oversized compost for daily cover.

Historically, imported cover material consisted of clean soil/topsoil from construction projects in the City. More recently, alternative cover materials such as wood chips, oversized compost and contaminated fill have been used as cover material.

Wood chips are identified in the landfill’s Design and Operations Report as an alternative cover material that is to be used when covering garbage close to the limits of fill. The wood chips will provide a better hydraulic connection than clay and thereby reduce the likelihood of leachate outbreaks in the future.

Compost is a permitted daily cover material in the MECP Landfill Standards a Guideline on the Regulator and Approval Requirements for New or Expanding Landfills.


Page 65

Table 19 Cover Material Calculations Item Volume (m3) Comment

Historical Soil Balance (1976 to 2017)

Source of Cover Material

- Soil excavated from Phase 1 1,788,000 Phase 1 excavation covered 59.6 hectares and averaged 3 metres deep

- Soil excavated from Phase 2 2,054,000 Based on topographical survey (portions of cells 6S, 6N, 7 and 8)

- Soil excavated from buffer area 163,000 Excess from road construction and stormwater management ponds

- Purchased Top Soil 20,000 Top soil purchased for capping in 2017

- Clean Fill/Operating Materials 788,000 Tonnage of materials received and assumed density of 1,500 kg/m3

- Contaminated Soil 116,000 Tonnage of materials received and assumed density of 2,000 kg/m3

Total Available Material 4,929,000

Use of Cover Material

- Final Cover - Clay 838,000 Clay cover on cells 1, 2, 3, 4, 5E, 5W, 6S and 6N.

- Final Cover - Topsoil 115,000 Topsoil cover on cells 1, 2, 3, 4, 5E, 5W, 6S and 6N.

- Daily Cover 2,544,800 Calculated (total available material less final cover and berms)

- Berms 599,000 Based on topographical survey

Total Material Used 4,096,800

2018 Soil Balance

Available Material

- Soil excavated from Phase 1 0 -

- Soil excavated from Phase 2 458,500 cells 9 and 10 including stockpiles

- Purchased Top Soil 0 Top soil purchased for capping

- Clean Fill/Operating Mat. 39,000 Tonnage of materials received (density of 1,500 kg/m3)

- Contaminated Fill/Sweepings 17,000 Tonnage of materials received and assumed density of 2,000 kg/m3

Total Available Material 514,500

Material Use

- Final Cover 0

- Daily Cover 136,500 -

- Berms/Roads/Landscaping/Stockpiles

0

Total Material Used 136,500


Page 66

Item Volume (m3) Comment

Remaining Soil Balance

Available Material

- Soil remaining in Phase 1 0 -

- Soil remaining in Phase 2 1,210,200 based on Dillon estimate

- Soil to be excavated from buffer area 0

- Clean Fill/Operating Materials 156,000 assume approximately 39,000 m3 imported per year for 4 years

- sweepings 68,000 assume approximately 17,000 m3 imported per year for 4 years

Berms

Total Available Material 1,434,200

Material Needs

- Final Cover 362,000

- Daily Cover 358,000 Based on a 4:1 waste to cover ratio

Total Material Needs 720,000

Surplus 714,200

Contaminated fill is identified in the landfill’s Design and Operations Report as an alternative cover material, subject to restrictions on the level of contamination, and do not require any further approvals to be used. Approximately 51,100 tonnes of contaminated soil was received at the landfill in 2018 of which 34,400 tonnes was suitable as cover material.

3.3.3 Final Cover Placement

Approximately 68 hectares has received final cover since 1977. Map 12 shows the locations where final cover has been placed. The quantity of clay and topsoil used for final cover is summarized in Table 19.

3.3.4 Leachate Collection System

As discussed in Section 3.1, Phase 2 of the W12A leachate collection system was expanded as part of the Cell 9 landfill expansion in 2018. The expansion was completed to manage leachate generated from the increased landfill surface area. The system consists of an underdrain system that continuously collects leachate via a series of perforated leachate collection pipes that span the footprint of Phase 2 of the W12A landfill. A further expansion of the leachate collection system will be completed in next 2 to 3 years as part of the W12A Cell 10 expansion.


Page 67

3.4 Leachate Management

3.4.1 System Description

The existing landfilling activities rely on the low permeability of the native soils to limit the downward migration of leachate and prevent off-site groundwater impacts.

Collection System

Leachate from the landfill is collected by a perimeter leachate collection system in Phase 1 and an underdrain leachate collection system in Phase 2.

The perimeter collection system in Phase 1 is comprised of 200 mm diameter perforated pipe embedded in gravel around the perimeter of the landfilling area. Temporary leachate collection pipes were installed between the active cell and the next cell to be developed. The temporary leachate collection lines were decommissioned when landfilling was moved to the next cell.

A perimeter leachate collection system results in a leachate mound forming. The height of the mound has reached a steady state and is approximately 12 metres high at the peak.

The underdrain leachate collection system in Phase 2 consists of 200 mm diameter perforated high density polyethylene (HDPE) leachate collection pipes, spaced approximately 90 m apart in “valleys”. The collection pipes slope at a minimum grade of 0.5% and extend north-south across the width (approximately 880 m) of the landfill. The collection pipes are embedded in a drainage layer of clear stone that will cover the entire base of Phase 2. The drainage layer has a minimum thickness of 0.2 m at the ridges and a maximum thickness of 0.4 m at the bottom of the valleys, for an average thickness of 0.3 m. A non-woven geotextile filter is placed on top of the drainage layer to keep fines from clogging the drainage layer and 0.2 m thick protective layer (e.g., sand) is placed on top of the geotextile filter to protect the filter from being punctured.

The underdrain leachate collection system in Phase 2 of the landfill will prevent the formation of a leachate mound.

Map 12 shows the status of the leachate collection system at the end of 2018.


Page 68

Conveyance System

Until February 2013, leachate from Phase 1 drained to a 60 m3 holding tank located near the scalehouse (Map 12). Leachate from Phase 2 drained to maintenance hole #701 and was then pumped to a 60 m3 holding tank located near the administration building (Map 12).

Leachate from both holding tanks was hauled from the site on a daily basis, using tanker trucks, to the Dingman Creek Receiving Facility. After combining with other incoming sewage, the mixture flows by gravity sewer to the Wonderland Pumping Station and then is pumped through a forcemain to a gravity sewer and eventually reaches the Greenway Pollution Control Plant for biological treatment.

Construction of a leachate pumping station and forcemain was completed in February 2012. All leachate is now pumped to the Dingman Creek Receiving Facility instead of being hauled by tanker truck. The pumping station draws leachate from the 60 m3 holding tank located near the scalehouse. Leachate from maintenance hole 701 (Phase 2) is pumped to a gravity sewer which drains to the aforementioned 60 m3 holding tank.

Treatment System

The treatment of leachate at the Greenway Pollution Control Plant does not impact the quality of effluent from the facility nor increase the heavy metal content of the waste sludge (biosolids), with the exception of iron (Leachate Treatability Assessment – W12A Landfill by Dillon dated November, 2002). An increase in the iron concentration does not affect the management of the biosolids, since the biosolids are either incinerated or landfilled.

As the landfill grows, the volume of leachate will increase but it is not expected to have a negative impact on effluent from the Greenway Pollution Control Plant (Leachate Treatability Assessment – W12A Landfill by Dillon dated November, 2002).

3.4.2 Leachate Volumes

A weekly breakdown of the leachate collected in 2018 and information on the historical volumes of leachate captured is presented in Appendix N.

The amount of leachate that is captured has generally increased over the years as the size of the waste footprint has increased. Approximately 204,000 m3 of leachate was captured and pumped for treatment in 2018.

Leachate generation is estimated to be approximately 165,000 m3 when the entire landfill footprint has been developed and capped (Hydraulic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Modeling by City of London dated November, 2002).


Page 69

3.4.3 Leachate Collection System Maintenance

The leachate collection systems in Phase 2 - Cell 6, 7 and 8 was flushed as part of the Cell 9 expansion in 2018.

3.5 Landfill Gas Management


On February 19, 2004 the City of London received Certificate of Approval (Air) No. 8046-5VDKEC for the operation of an enclosed landfill gas flare system that will combust up to approximately 0.802 m3/s (1,700 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)) of landfill gas.

The flare is an enclosed type high temperature flare fabricated from carbon steel and supplied by LFG Specialties of Findlay, Ohio. A general process schematic of the system is provided in Figure 4. The flare’s data logger records the following data every two minutes:

Oxygen concentration (percent by volume)

Methane concentration (percent by volume)

Flare temperature (°C)

Landfill gas flow to the flare (cubic feet per minute, corrected to standard conditions)

The layout of the existing landfill gas collection system as well as the 2019 proposed expansion is shown on Map 13 including the location of the landfill gas wells. The borehole logs for the existing landfill gas wells are provided in Appendix O.

The initial gas collection system consisted of approximately 2 kilometres of buried HDPE pipe connecting 14 landfill gas extraction wells and 4 maintenance holes to the flare. There are nine landfill gas extraction wells that are not connected to the piping system located in the northern portion of Cell 5W. High leachate levels in this area have flooded the wells and made extraction of landfill gas from the wells impractical. French drains installed in the area in 2004 have marginally lowered the leachate levels.

Investigations were completed in 2005 to determine the feasibility of collecting more gas in order to further reduce odours and destroy more greenhouse gases.

As a result of this testing, an expansion of the system was undertaken in 2006. The expansion is shown on Map 13 and consists of:

permanent underground HDPE pipe connection to 8 additional gas extraction wells drilled in 2005 plus 3 maintenance holes (#101, #102 and #301)

permanent underground HDPE pipe connection to 1 of the gas extraction wells located in the northern part of Cell 5W drilled in 2003


Page 70

installation of approximately 700 metres of perforated HDPE collection pipe in the northern part of cell 5W just above the high leachate mound

Commissioning of the above noted system expansion was completed in 2007.

In December of 2008 five additional landfill gas extraction wells were installed on the eastern side of the southern portion of cell six as noted above the location of these wells is shown on Map 13. These wells were brought on-line May 2009.

A further expansion of the landfill gas collection system was completed in 2010. Twelve landfill gas extraction wells were installed in the southern part of Cell 6S and brought on line in July 2010.

The gas collection system was further expanded in 2012. Seventeen landfill gas extraction wells were installed in the northern part of Cell 6S and brought on line in September 2012.

In 2015, thirteen new landfill gas wells were installed. Ten of the new wells were installed in the western portion of Cell 5 west and three of the new wells were installed in the eastern portion of Cell 6 north. The location of these new wells is shown on Map 13.

In 2016, a project was undertaken to connect the thirteen wells drilled in 2015 to the existing landfill gas collection system. The project also involved raising and retrofitting four of the existing pumped condensate traps in order to prevent flooding, as well as, the replacement of an existing crushed sub lateral pipe to re-establish flow from an existing landfill gas extraction well.

In 2017, the City of London was approved for funding through the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Feed-in Tariff Program (FIT 5) to construction a 0.5MW landfill gas power plant. The project was expected to take approximately 3 years for regulatory approvals, engineering, construction and commissioning.

In 2018, the funding approved in the previous year was cancelled by the provincial government. Therefore the proposed 0.5MW landfill gas power plant will is no longer planned to be constructed.

Additional eight (8) landfill gas wells and two (2) converted maintenance hole connections will be constructed to the existing collection system via a network of newly constructed and existing buried HDPE gas collection piping and appurtenances in 2019.

" " "

"

" "

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

""

""

"

"

"

"

"" " " " " " ""

" "

" "

"

"

"

"

""

MANNING DR

SCOTLAND DR

WHITE

OAK

RD



PondForebay

Stormwater Pond No. 2/3


CELL 3CELL 5 EAST CELL2 CELL 1

CELL 5 WEST

CELL 4

CELL 7

CELL 8

CELL 9

CELL 10

CELL 6 SOUTH SOUTH HALF

CELL 6 NORTH SOUTH HALF

CELL 6 SOUTH NORTH HALF

CELL 6 NORTH NORTH HALF

February 7, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) Site Features prepared by Callon Dietz Inc, Oct19, 2016

0 100 200 300

Metres

!I1:6,000


Date:


STATUS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT

Map 12

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

12 - S

tatus

of S

ite D

evelo

pmen

t.mxd

LegendFinal Cover LimitActive Disposal Landfill Interim CoverInterim CoverWaste Disposal Cell Constructed 2018UndevelopedPhase 1 Waste Disposal Fill AreaPhase 2 Waste Disposal Fill AreaLeachate ForcemainTemporary Leachate Collection PipeLeachate Gravity PipePermanent Leachate Collection PipeStormwater Ponds/Forebay

Forcemain Continues to Dingman Pump

#*

#*

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

"

"

!(

"

"

"

"

!(

!(

!(

"

"

"

"

"

!(

"

"

!(

"

"

"

!(

!(

"

!("

"

!(

"

" "

"!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

GE5

TW3

GE3

GE4

TW-4

GE2

GE18

GE17

GE19

GE11

GE9

GE7

GE10

GE1

GE35-05

GE36-05

GE23-05

GE26-05

GE24-05GE33-5

GE6A-16-12

GE6A-17-15

GE6A-14-12

GE6A-15-12

GE6A-12-12GE6A-13-12

GE6B-6-10

GE6A-6-10GE6A-8-10

GE6A-5-10

GE6A-7-10

GE6A-3-10

GE6A-1-10

GE6A-2-10

GE5-13-15GE5-15-15

GE5-17-15

GE5-19-15

GE5-11-15

GE5-9-12

GE5-7-12

GE5-5-12

GE5-3-10

GE5-2-10

GE5-1-10

GE6A-21-15

GE6A-19-15

GE6A-9-12

GE6A-10-12GE5-4-12

GE4-1-12

GE6-12

GE6B-1-08

GE6B-2-08

GE6B-3-08

GE6B-4-08

GE6B-5-08

GE5-8-12

GE4-2-12

GE4-3-12

GE5-10-15

GE5-12-15

GE5-14-15

GE5-16-15

GE15-18-15

GE22-05

GE29-05GE6A-11-12

GE6A-4-10

GE6

GE8

GE15

GE13

GE12

GE14

GE37-05

GE38-05

GE39-05

GE40-05

GE41-05GE20-05

GE21-05

GE30-05

GE28-05

GE31-05

GE27-05

GE25-05GE34-05

GE32-05

GE42-05 GE43-05

GE16

MH601

MH301MH101

MH102

B2B4

A24 A22 A20

StormwaterPond No. 2/3

PondForebay

StormwaterPond No.1

StormwaterPond No.4

StormwaterPond No.5

PondForebay

MANNING DR

SCOTLAND DR

WHITE

OAK

RD

GE02-5

TW-4

February 8, 2019


Notes:1) Aerial Photography, April 20182) Site Features prepared by Callon Dietz Inc. LTD, October 19, 20163) Landfill gas collection system as-built information by Comcor April,2018.

0 100 200 300

Metres

!I1:6,000


Date:


LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND FLARING SYSTEM

Map 13

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Map

13 - L

andfi

ll Gas

Coll

ectio

n and

Flari

ng S

ystem

.mxd

LegendGas Collection & Flaring System

Maintenance Hole Connected to Gas System!( Gas Collection & Flaring System" Not Connected Gas Well

Historical Gas Well!( Proposed Gas Well 2019#* Methane Gas Probe

Approved Fill AreaExisting Gas PipingProposed Gas Piping 2019Horizontal Gas Collector

Property InformationParcelsCity Owned LandsExisting W12A LandfillBuildingsStormwater Ponds/Forebay

GE6B-11-18

GE6B-10-18

GE6B-9-18

GE6B-8-18

GE6B-7-18

GE7B-3-18

GE7B-2-18

GE7B-1-18

January 25, 2019



Date:


LANDFILL GAS SCHEMATIC

Figure 4

K:\_G

ISG\

Proje

cts\S

olidW

asteM

anag

emen

t\W12

A_An

nualR

eport

\Figu

re 4 -

Land

fill G

as S

chem

atic.m

xd


Page 75

3.5.2 2017 Operation

Flows

On June 20, 2004, the permanent LFG flaring system became operational at the W12A Landfill. Initially, the system was collecting around 750 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of LFG with a methane content of 45%. By December 2004, LFG flow to the LFG flare had dropped to around 500 scfm with a methane content of 50%. The reduction in LFG flow was caused by the depletion of the “pent-up” LFG within the landfill.

Between 2005 and 2008 the system drew approximately 450 to 550 scfm with a methane content of approximately 50%. After the 2009 expansion of the gas collection system the quantity of gas captured increased to 500 to 600 scfm.

The 2010 expansion of the gas collection system into Phase 2 of the landfill (first expansion into this area) initially increased gas flows to 600 scfm to 700 scfm. However in 2011 gas flows reduced to approximately 400 scfm to 500 scfm as

“pent-up” LFG within this are of the landfill was depleted.

With the 2012 expansion of the system, gas flows increased to 1,000 scfm and held steadily until October 2015 with gas flows generally between 900 and 1,000 scfm.

In October 2015, as a pilot project, a geomembrane was placed on the exposed leachate collection system on the west side of Cell 6N to prevent air from intruding into the leachate collection system. This allows gas to be drawn from the three leachate collection clean out pipes on the north end of Cell 6N. This temporary increased flow to 1,300 scfm between October and December 2015. Gas flows were then recorded in December 2015 have dropped to 1,100 scfm. This geomembrane was removed as part of the 2018 Cell 9 expansion. The leachate collection system in Cell 6 will be connected to Cell 9 and bedded in graded gravel and a protective layer of sand and gravel in 2019.

In 2016, prior to the connection of the thirteen additional gas wells to the gas collection system, the average flow rate was recorded to be between 1,100–

Installation of Geomembrane over Leachate

Collection System in Cell 6N


Page 76

1,200 scfm. The average flow rate increased to 1,500 scfm in 2017, followed by a drop to approximately 1,100 scfm in 2018.

Maintenance/Upgrades

In 2013, the flare stack portion of the system was upgraded to be in compliance with recent TSSA requirements for digester-gas, bio-gas and landfill gas installations. A summary of the upgrades undertaken is presented below:

installation and integration of burner management system;

installation of flare pilot, igniter and pilot fuel train system;

installation of replacement damper actuators with analog feedback, and

Installation of a main fuel train low pressure switch.

Subsequent to the installation and commissioning of the upgrades a TSSA field inspection was undertaken and a field inspection approval certificate was issued by the TSSA for the landfill gas flare.

In the summer of 2015 an inspection determined that the interior flare insulation liner had deteriorated and required replacing. In November 2015, the interior flare insulation liner was replaced. This work required the flare to be down for a period of approximately 5 consecutive days. The MECP was notified of this maintenance work prior to proceeding.

In 2016, one condensate pump was replaced and upgraded to a more corrosion resistant model. Another condensate pump was refurbished due to corrosion and reinstated.

In 2017, the flare was temporarily shut down to facilitate maintenance activities associated with the removal and relining of the flare insulation, as well as, replacement of the flare burner tips. Replacement of the insulation and burner tips were in line with expected timelines for refurbishment of landfill gas destruction units of this size and service level.

In 2018, the variable-frequency drive (VFD) was replaced to facilitate better flow control.

Landfill Gas Destruction

The quantities of methane gas destroyed and equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction since the installation of the initial landfill gas extraction wells in 2003 are presented in Table 20.

The quantities of methane destroyed in the flare were calculated based on the following formula:

MCH4 = VLFG × cCH4 × CH4

Where, MCH4 = mass flowrate of methane to LFG flare (pounds/minute)

VLFG = volume flowrate of LFG to flare (standard feet3 per minute)

cCH4 = methane concentration (percent by volume)


Page 77

CH4 = methane density at standard conditions (0.0409 lbs/Sft3)

The reduction in greenhouse gases is equivalent to approx., 21 times the amount of methane gas destroyed up to 2013 and from then on 25 times to align with revised global warming potential assumptions used federally and provincially.

Table 20 Annual Methane and GHG Destruction

Year Methane Destroyed

(tonnes/year)

GHG Reduction

(tonnes/year)

Comments

2004 900 18,000 permanent gas collection and flaring system begins operation in June, 2004

downtime approximately 25 to 30%

2005 2,050 41,100 additional wells added to system using temporary piping during spring/summer/ fall


2006 1,940 38,800 permanent piping installed to new wells in fall


2007 1,500

30,300 downtime approximately 25%; 1/3 of the shut down time was related to shutting down the system to connect new wells & install pumped drain traps

2008 1,800 37,900 downtime approximately 22%; approximately 1/4 of the shut down time was related to high vacuum pressure

2009 2,280 47,900 downtime approximately 16%;

downtime 40% in January/February due to expansion of the collection system

downtime 11% after expansion

2010 2,850 59,800 downtime approximately 7%


2012 3,240 68,000 downtime approximately 11% for year

downtime 2% from October to December after collection system expansion

2013 4,520 113,000 downtime approximately 6.5% for year

2014 4,150 104,000 downtime approximately 4.5% for year

2015 4,300 107,500 downtime approx. 11.5% for the year

downtime excluding planned shutdowns for


Page 78

inspections and maintenance approximately 9%




Operational Issues

In 2018, the flare automatically shut down a number of times resulting in the flare not being operational approximately 8% of the time. Details on each shutdown in 2018 are provided in Appendix P and a summary of the causes of the shutdowns is presented in Table 21.

The number of shutdowns that occurred in 2018 was consistent with those observed in 2017. The majority of the shutdowns are associated with maintenance or flare set point fail-safes. In each reporting period since 2012, the number of flare shutdowns has been consistently lower than the 2012 reporting period. The decrease in flare shutdowns is attributed to consistent gas flows and methane concentrations of the landfill gas currently being drawn from the landfill.

Table 21 Summary of Gas Flare Shutdowns

Reason for Shutdown

Occurrences

Number of Occurrences Percentage of total

Occurrences

Flare Low/High Temp 2 5

Flare Flameout 13 30

Air Compressor Fault 9 21

Power Fault 1 2

Burner Control Fault 7 16

Maintenance/Upgrade 0 0

Other 0 0

Failsafe Valve Failure 3 7

No Alarm 3 7

Low Methane/High O2 5 12

Total 43 100


Page 79

3.6 Stormwater Management


Stormwater Pond #5, at the southeast corner of the site, drains an area of 41 hectares on the eastern side of the landfill and has an active storage capacity of approximately 11,800 m3. The catchment area consists of landfill side slopes that have final cover and established vegetation, and the top of the landfill that has final cover and partially established vegetative cover.

Stormwater Pond #4, in the south buffer area, drains an area of 58 hectares in the centre of the landfill. Stormwater Pond #4 has an active storage capacity of approximately 20,000 m3. The catchment area includes the west side of Phase 1 and lands associated with Phase 2 fill area.

Stormwater Pond #2/3, in the southwest corner of the site, drains an area of 30 hectares in the western side of the landfill. Stormwater Pond #2/3 has an active storage capacity of approximately 11,000 m3. The catchment area lands associated with the Phase 2 fill area.

Stormwater Pond #1, in the northwest corner of the landfill drains an area of approximately14 hectares. Stormwater Pond #1 has an active storage capacity of approximately 5,800 m3. The catchment area was in agricultural production in 2016 receiving no runoff from landfilled areas. The catchment area will be re-graded as part of the Cell 9 expansion in 2019, and stormwater runoff from the Cell 10 and Cell 9 perimeter berm will be directed to this pond.

3.6.2 2018 Operation

No maintenance or construction activities were undertaken in the stormwater ponds in 2018. Weekly flows from the ponds are presented in Appendix Q. It should be noted no water level data from Stormwater Pond #4 were obtained between Week 31 and 52 in 2018 due to the malfunction of water level sensor. The water level was closely monitored by landfill staff during the period. The water level sensor will be replaced in early 2019.

3.7 Household Special Waste (HSW) Depot

The W12A Landfill has a Household Special Waste Depot that accepts hazardous and special waste from residents and small businesses. The depot is open Tuesday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. except Statutory Holidays. The depot accepts materials from the City of London and the County of Middlesex. Information on the operation of the HSW depot is provided in Appendix R and summarized below.

Approximately 456 tonnes of hazardous/special waste was collected at the depot in 2018. About 70% of the material collected was reused or recycled. The remaining 30% of material was shipped to licensed processing and/or disposal facilities. The majority of the hazardous/special waste material collected was paints (43%), miscellaneous organic chemicals (e.g., solvents) (16%) and electronics (11%).


Page 80

Approximately 12,600 residents used the HSW Depot in 2018. This represents a 19% increase in visitors over 2017. The facility typically receives between 9,000 and 12,000 visitors per year.

The HSW Depot is also home to a PCB storage facility (Site No. 10199A0001). This facility received no materials in 2018 and had no materials stored in it. A copy of the annual report for this facility submitted to the MECP in January as part of its approval requirements is provided in Appendix R.

3.8 Small Vehicle Drop-off

The W12A Landfill has a small vehicle drop-off near the scale house for residents and small businesses. The small vehicle drop-off is open Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Saturday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm except Statutory Holidays. There were approximately 18,000 users of the depot in 2018.

The depot accepts garbage, appliances, blue box recyclables, brush, yard materials, scrap metal, tires, clean wood, cardboard and electronics. A breakdown of the quantity of material received in 2018 is presented below (Table 22).

Table 22 Quantity of Material Received at the W12A Landfill Depot in 2018

Material Quantity (tonnes)

Appliances 15

Blue Box Recyclables 71

Brush/yard materials 1,280

Cardboard 35

Electronics 60

Garbage 2,182

Scrap Metal 118

Tires 10

Wood (clean) 1425

Total 5,196


Page 81

3.9 General Site Maintenance

Information on programs, investigations and activities in 2018 related to the general operations of the landfill is presented in Appendix S and summarized below:

Odour Complaints

A total of 62 odour complaints were received throughout the year. A review of these complaints found the majority of them were in the evening between 6:00 pm and midnight. This is an increase from the number of complaints received in 2017 and may be attributed to the periodic handling and placement of odorous materials at the landfill.

Litter Pickup

There were no litter complaints received in 2018.

Slope Inspections

Weekly inspections of the side slopes were completed.

Other Activities

Details on the litter control program, slope inspections and general activities at the W12A Landfill are provided in Appendix S.

3.10 Public Liaison Committee

The W12A Landfill Site Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program (Mitigative Measures Program) was adopted by London City Council on November 9, 2009. The Mitigative Measures Program provided for the formation of the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee (PLC). In general the W12A PLC consists of a maximum of 12 community members plus a chair with City Staff participating as a resource. The basis or goals of the W12A PLC are as follows:

To serve as a focal point for the dissemination, review and exchange of information and monitoring results relevant to the operation of the landfill;

To be responsible for recommending projects or undertakings to the City that are paid for by the Community Enhancement Fund.

The Community Enhancement Fund was also established as part of the Mitigative Measures Program. The Community Enhancement Fund is to address mitigative measures and special circumstances in the broader community of the W12A Landfill Site. The Community Enhancement Fund commenced with an initial balance of $350,000.00 and is added to annually at a rate of $0.25 (adjusted annually for inflation) for every tonne of waste that is disposed of at the W12A Landfill Site. To date, two projects have received funding $15,000 for the Glanworth Community Library in 2013 and $180,000 for the Point of Source Water Treatment Program in 2016. The balance of the Community Enhancement Fund at the end of 2018 was approximately $817,000.


Page 82

The W12A PLC typically meets every second month or six times a year. Quorum was met for each of the 6 meetings in 2018.

In general the format of the W12A PLC Meetings consists of the following:

Approval of Previous Minutes;

Discussion of Previous Action Items;

Residual Waste Disposal Strategy and Resource Recovery Strategy Update;

W12A Operational Update;

W12A Capital Projects Update;

MECP Update;

Open Discussion & New Business;

Adjournment.

Copies of minutes from meetings in 2018 are included in Appendix T.

W12A Landfill Annual Status Report January 1 to December ... · W12A Landfill Status Report 2018 Page 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 General This report is being submitted to comply with

Documents