Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site · Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site. ... 1.1 Certificate of Approval.....1 1.2 Purpose

Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority360 Fairview Ave. West, Suite 211

ESSEX, Ontario N8M 3G4Internet: www.ewswa.org

EEsssseexx--WWiinnddssoorr RReeggiioonnaall

LLaannddffiillll SSiittee

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1

1 . 1 C e r t i f i c a t e o f A p p r o v a l ................................................................................................1

1 . 2 P u r p o s e ..........................................................................................................................................1

2 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES ................................................................................................1

2 . 1 W a s t e Q u a n t i t i e s .................................................................................................................1

TABLE 1: MONTHLY AND AVERAGE DAILY WASTE QUANTITIES FOR 2007 AND 2008 ............................2

2 . 2 S p e c i a l W a s t e s .......................................................................................................................2

TABLE 2: SPECIAL WASTE QUANTITIES RECEIVED .........................................................................................3

2 . 3 W a s t e R e f u s a l s ......................................................................................................................3

TABLE 3: WASTE REFUSED .................................................................................................................................3

2 . 4 W a s t e T y p e s .............................................................................................................................4

TABLE 4: WASTE MATERIAL TYPES AND TONNAGE ........................................................................................5

3 TRAFFIC................................................................................................................................................5

TABLE 5: TRAFFIC DATA FOR 2007-2008.......................................................................................................6

4 INSPECTIONS AND COMPLAINTS .................................................................................................6

4 . 1 S i t e I n s p e c t i o n s ...................................................................................................................6

4 . 2 C o m p l a i n t s ..................................................................................................................................7

4 . 3 A c c i d e n t s , F i r e s a n d I n c i d e n t s ...........................................................................8

5 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................9

5 . 1 D i s p o s a l O p e r a t i o n s ........................................................................................................9

5 . 2 D i s p o s a l A r e a s .......................................................................................................................9

TABLE 6: CAPACITY OF DISPOSAL AREAS .........................................................................................................9

TABLE 7: WASTE CELL REFUSE TONNAGE TO DATE .....................................................................................10

5 . 3 W a s t e D i s p o s a l M e t h o d s ...........................................................................................10

TABLE 8: DAILY COVER .....................................................................................................................................11

5 . 4 S i t e M a i n t e n a n c e ...............................................................................................................11

5 . 5 V e g e t a t i o n a n d C o v e r ..................................................................................................12

5 . 6 R o a d s ..............................................................................................................................................13

5 . 7 E r o s i o n C o n t r o l / D r a i n a g e ........................................................................................13

TABLE 9: COMPACTION......................................................................................................................................14

TABLE 10: COMPACTION RESULTS...................................................................................................................15

5 . 9 C o m p o s t i n g ..............................................................................................................................15

5 . 1 0 C e l l D e v e l o p m e n t ..........................................................................................................16

6 GAS MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................................................16

6 . 1 P a s s i v e S o l a r F l a r e s ......................................................................................................16

6 . 2 V a c u u m F l a r e .........................................................................................................................17

TABLE 11A: CELL 1 VACUUM FLARE LANDFILL GAS ESTIMATED TOTALS FOR 2007..............................18

TABLE 11B: CELL 1 VACUUM FLARE LANDFILL GAS ESTIMATED TOTALS FOR 2008..............................18

7 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................18

7 . 1 L e a c h a t e Q u a n t i t i e s .......................................................................................................20

TABLE 12A: LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 2007 ..............................................................................21

TABLE 12B: LEACHATE MANAGEMENT 2008 .................................................................................................22

TABLE 13: LEACHATE GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METAL ANALYSIS ..........................................................26

TABLE 14A: POSITIVE MISA RESULTS (PS3)...............................................................................................27

TABLE 14B: POSITIVE MISA RESULTS (PS1) ...............................................................................................28

TABLE15: LEACHATE ANALYSIS RESULTS – WINDSOR POLLUTION CONTROL LABORATORY.................29

7 . 4 L e a c h a t e S p r i n g s a n d S t a i n s ...............................................................................30

7 . 5 L e a c h a t e L a n d T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m .................................................................30

7 . 6 W e s t C e l l L a n d T r e a t m e n t a n d R e c i r c u l a t i o n S y s t e m .............31

7 . 7 C e l l 1 L a n d T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m ..........................................................................32

7 . 8 C e l l 1 B i o - R e a c t o r ...........................................................................................................33

7 . 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l M o n i t o r i n g o f L e a c h a t e L a n d T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m s ........................................................................................................................................................33

8 MONITORING PROGRAMS............................................................................................................37

8 . 1 S u r f a c e W a t e r a n d S e d i m e n t M o n i t o r i n g ...............................................38

8 . 2 G r o u n d W a t e r M o n i t o r i n g ........................................................................................40

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007-2008 .........................................................................49

8 . 3 W e a t h e r M o n i t o r i n g .......................................................................................................52

TABLE 15: PRECIPITATION 2007-2008 .........................................................................................................53

FIGURE 1: PRECIPITATION MONITORING 2007-2008 COMPARISON........................................................53

8 . 4 L e a c h a t e L e v e l M o n i t o r i n g .....................................................................................53

8 . 5 G a s M o n i t o r i n g ....................................................................................................................54

8 . 6 O t h e r M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m s ...................................................................................54

8 . 7 W o o d l o t M o n i t o r i n g ........................................................................................................54

8 . 8 A q u a t i c B i o l o g y M o n i t o r i n g ...................................................................................56

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring Report

Prepared by Jagger-Hims Ltd.

under separate cover

Appendix B

Site Plan

Appendix C

Ministry of the Environment

Site Inspection Reports

Appendix D

Ontario Regulation 558 Schedule IV Inorganics and PCBs Analysis Reports

ESSEX-WINDSOR REGIONAL LANDFILL SITE BIENNIAL REPORT 2007-08

1 INTRODUCTION

The Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site is located in the south half of Lots 14, 15, and

16, Concession 7 in the Town of Essex (formerly the Township of Colchester North).

The Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority (EWSWA) operated the landfill during the

year. Staff of EWSWA manages the Site and operates the weigh scale, provides

inspection services, contract administration and maintains the associated records for the

Site.

1 . 1 C e r t i f i c a t e o f A p p r o v a l

The Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site is licensed by the Ontario Ministry of the

Environment (MOE) under Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A-011101 (September

28, 1995) as amended.

1 . 2 P u r p o s e

The purpose of this report is to fulfill Condition No. 18 of the Certificate of Approval (CA)

for the Site. Condition 18 requires a biennial operations report to be prepared and

submitted by April 1st of the submission year.

2 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES

2 . 1 W a s t e Q u a n t i t i e s

The Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill site was officially opened to the receipt of waste on

July 2nd, 1997. The site was originally licensed to accept waste from all generators of

non-hazardous solid waste located in the County of Essex, City of Windsor and the

Municipality of Chatham-Kent, The County of Lambton and the County of Elgin. In

November 2007, the site service area was expanded to include the Province of Ontario.

A total of 185,793.91 tonnes of waste were received during operations in 2007 and

195,885.12 tonnes in 2008. There was a 5.43% increase in total waste being landfilled

at the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill for 2008 compared to 2007. Of the total,

185,486.50 tonnes of waste were generated from within Essex-Windsor, and 307.41

tonnes were generated from within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent in 2007. There

were 195,625.60 tonnes generated from within Essex-Windsor and 259.52 tonnes from

the Municipality of Chatham-Kent in 2008.

ESSEX-WINDSOR SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY 1


The Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority has implemented a number of waste bans or

restrictions at the site and as a result does not accept tires, pallets, clean old corrugated

cardboard, white goods, fish offal, brush, grass and leaves for disposal. It does accept

tires for recycling and wood, pallets, brush, grass and leaves for composting.

The average daily waste quantity delivered to the Site in 2007 was 611 tonnes per

operating day (see Table 1 for monthly amounts) and 645 tonnes in 2008.

TABLE 1: MONTHLY AND AVERAGE DAILY WASTE QUANTITIES FOR 2007 AND 2008

MONTH

2007 TOTAL

2007 DAILY AVERAGE

2008 TOTAL

2008 DAILY AVERAGE

January 13,951.38 536.6 14,869.64 571.9

February 11,655.87 485.7 11,190.12 466.3

March 14,220.9 526.7 12,824.92 475.0

April 15,349.19 639.5 17,214.43 717.3

May 18,487.28 711.0 16,339.80 628.5

June 16,700.95 642.3 17,050.87 655.8

July 16,654.12 640.5 22,287.66 857.2

August 17,450.00 698.0 16,870.65 674.8

September 15,692.99 627.7 23,977.96 959.1

October 16,312.17 652.5 15,798.08 631.9

November 16,173.45 622.1 13,933.83 535.9

December 13,145.61 547.7 13,527.16 563.6

Tonnes 185,793.91 610.86 195,885.12 644.78

2 . 2 S p e c i a l W a s t e s

Certain wastes require specific approval or special handling. These are classified as

“special wastes”, and could include such things as solid waste in barrels, asbestos, or

industrial solid waste. The following table provides a detailed summary of all of the

special waste received at the Regional Landfill.



TABLE 2: SPECIAL WASTE QUANTITIES RECEIVED

Special Waste Loads in 2007 Loads in 2008 Asbestos 59 99

Grain Dust 91 79 Bleaching Clay 263 270

Municipal Sludge 295 353

2 . 3 W a s t e R e f u s a l s

The Authority’s Weighperson, as well as the Contractor’s employees are required to

question waste haulers about the nature of the wastes being disposed of, and to look

for suspicious, unauthorized, or banned materials present in a load. The Authority

employs Waste Inspectors who are located in the active disposal area to inspect loads of

waste for unacceptable material such as liquids, suspected hazardous wastes, special

waste which have not been approved and waste banned from the site by the Authority.

As well, wastes are inspected to ensure compliance with waste bans and regulations

under the Environmental Protection Act.

If wastes of this type are brought to the Site by a licensed commercial hauler they are

refused from landfilling and returned with the hauler for proper disposal or recycling.

The following waste refusals took place in 2007 and in 2008:

TABLE 3: WASTE REFUSED

TYPE 2007 QUANTITY 2008 QUANTITY

Tires 125 381

Major Appliances 6 19

Pallets 0 3

Bath Tubs 0 4

Hot Water Tanks 0 2

Railroad Ties 42 11

Other* 2 0

TOTAL 175 420 * other items consisted of car batteries (2)



2 . 4 W a s t e T y p e s

Municipally delivered wastes hauled directly to the site in 2007 totaled 24,663.37

tonnes, and 24,274.70 in 2008. The municipally delivered total tonnes represent 13.3%

of the overall waste received in 2007 and 12.4% in 2008.

Refuse brought in from Transfer Stations No. 1 & 2 in 2007 represented 104,284.22

tonnes and 104,772.59 tonnes in 2008. This refuse represents 56.1% of the total waste

received in 2007 and 53.5% of the total waste received in 2008. The reader is referred

to the annual reports of the Transfer Stations for details on the types of waste included

in this total.

IC&I delivered refuse totaled 50,774.50 tonnes or 27.3% of the total tonnage in 2007

and 60,281.88 tonnes or 30.8% of the total tonnage in 2008.

A total of 2,139.54 tonnes of sewage sludge originating from the Towns of Amherstburg,

Lakeshore and Kingsville was disposed of at the Site during 2007. During 2008 a total of

2,834.17 tonnes of sludge was delivered to the site from the Towns of Amherstburg,

Lakeshore, Kingsville, Essex and the City of Windsor. The sludge is incorporated with the

other wastes and co-disposed in the active fill area. The amount of sludge disposed of

was 1.2% in 2007 and 1.4% in 2008 of the total waste stream, which is below the 2%

limit contained in the Site’s CA.



TABLE 4: WASTE MATERIAL TYPES AND TONNAGE

2007 Percent 2008 Percent

Municipally Delivered Refuse 24,528.79 13.20% 24,129.11 12.32%Municipally Del'd IC&I Refuse - 0.00% - 0.00%Municipal Del'd Clean Up 134.58 0.07% 145.59 0.07%Municipally Del'd Recovery Cleanup - 0.00% - 0.00%Recycling Residual 1,398.68 0.75% 442.70 0.23%HCW/YW Residual - 0.00% - 0.00%Trsf Ctr Residuals - 0.00% - 0.00%Mun Const/Demo - 0.00% 560.41 0.29%Pollution Control Grit 172.27 0.09% 241.66 0.12%Municipal Del'd Sewage Sludge 2,139.54 1.15% 2,834.17 1.45%Residentially Del'd Refuse 11.82 0.01% 8.18 0.00%Res. Construction/Demolition 18.66 0.01% 2.66 0.00%Residential Shingles 5.00 0.00% 2.37 0.00%Charitable Organizations 20.79 0.01% 14.34 0.01%Nemak - DC11 178.45 0.10% 230.30 0.12%EAP Rotary Baghouse Dust 432.00 0.23% 4.33 0.00%WAP-Silica Dust 1,349.82 0.73% 1,617.45 0.83%Vines-Landfilled - 0.00% 103.38 0.05%Nemak-EAP-Baghouse Dust - 0.00% - 0.00%WAP - Zircon Baghouse Dust 282.00 0.15% 478.20 0.24%WCP - Baghouse Dust - 0.00% - 0.00%IC&I Del'd Refuse 46,237.04 24.89% 56,819.28 29.01%IC&I Construction & Demolition 3,676.34 1.98% 2,405.85 1.23%IC&I Shingles 665.04 0.36% 651.57 0.33%IC&I Delivered Asbestos 196.08 0.11% 405.18 0.21%Sharps 2.24 0.00% 2.99 0.00%NEC-Zircon Sand 22.17 0.01% 12.81 0.01%EAP Heat treat sand 38.38 0.02% - 0.00%Transfer Station Refuse* 104,284.22 56.13% 104,772.59 53.49%

185,793.91 195,885.12

Transfer Stn. Refuse includes T1 and T2 and miscellaneous

3 TRAFFIC

A total of 15,690 vehicles entered the Site to dispose of waste from January to

December 2007 and 14,734 vehicles during the same time period in 2008. The daily

average volume of waste disposal traffic, averaged out over the number of working days



the Site was open during 2007, equaled 52 vehicles per day and 43 vehicles per day in

2008.

TABLE 5: TRAFFIC DATA FOR 2007-2008

WASTE LEACHATE ALT DAILY COVER

COMPOST FOUNDRY SANDS

TIRES

Year 20 7 0 20 8 0 20 7 0 20 8 0 20 7 0 20 8 0 20 7 0 20 8 0 20 7 0 20 8 0 20 7 0 20 8 0 JAN 1169 1235 58 52 37 31 23 5 133 92 0 0

FEB 1020 929 137 65 21 64 1 2 112 86 0 0

MAR 1244 991 108 123 49 23 6 2 129 64 0 0

APR 1270 1334 104 107 64 63 53 49 119 96 0 0

MAY 1535 1306 92 138 235 67 117 51 122 85 0 0

JUN 1430 1223 0 25 55 65 96 66 107 80 0 0

JUL 1399 1489 0 0 35 45 51 42 63 30 3 0

AUG 1405 1236 0 33 37 39 32 68 112 33 1 0

SEP 1350 1475 65 0 26 41 28 90 103 0 0 0

OCT 1375 1297 48 41 59 39 23 84 101 0 0 0

NOV 1375 385 39 82 51 46 26 142 102 0 0 0

DEC 1118 111 20 56 43 65 10 31 62 0 1 0

TLS 15,690 13,011 671 722 712 588 466 632 1,265 566 5 0

4 INSPECTIONS AND COMPLAINTS

4 . 1 S i t e I n s p e c t i o n s

The Solid Waste Authority provides a full time on site supervisor at the Regional Landfill

Site. One of the roles of the supervisor is to undertake a perimeter check of the Site on

a daily basis to identify problems in any of the following areas: leachate springs, erosion,

drainage, litter, daily cover, leachate levels, etc. As well, the supervisor is responsible

for ensuring compliance with waste bans, Certificate of Approval and Regulations under

the Environmental Protection Act.

Approximately once per year, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) conducts an

unannounced tour of the landfill site. On August 11, 2007 and May 12, 2008 the MOE



carried out site inspection of the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill. See Appendix C for

inspection results.

4 . 2 C o m p l a i n t s

A formal complaint reporting procedure is in place at the Site. There was one complaint

received during 2007.

On June 1st, 2007, Mrs. Perz of 9773 Concession 9, Essex called the Waste Disposal

Manager at approximately 9:15 AM. She detected odour at her residence. The Waste

Disposal Manager immediately attended the site but the odour had dissipated. He spent

some time at the Perz property and when a breeze came up an odour could be

detected. The Manager identified the odour source as the yard waste shredding

operation being carried out at the Regional Landfill.

He advised the homeowners that between the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM while the Landfill

site is open to the receipt of waste and yard waste, the potential for off site odours

exists. He also indicated that odours were usually intermittent and in most cases short in

duration. On this date the Manager spent approximately 30-40 minutes at the

homeowner’s property and with the exception of two short periods of time, the odour

could not be detected.

This complaint was followed up by the Waste Disposal Manager for resolution. Upon

returning to the Landfill site he conducted a review of the yard waste shredding

operation with staff and in an effort to reduce the potential for off site odour impact the

following changes would be implemented to the yard waste composting/shredding

operation:

1. The compost row assigned to incoming yard waste will be

turned on a more regular basis in order to help prevent the

raw grass/yard waste from going anaerobic.

2. The compost row assigned for incoming yard waste to be

shredded will be shredded on a more regular basis once again



reducing the potential for the grass in the yard waste to go

anaerobic.

There were three complaints reported in 2008.

On January 21st, 2008, Mr. Dufour of 6810 6th Concession noted that he was traveling

from the City of Windsor to his residence following a Waste Management truck from

Highway #3 along County Road 23. The truck’s waste load was not secured causing

loose waste to be blown from the trailer along the road. Mr. Dufour called the Waste

Disposal Supervisor to express his concerns regarding the litter. The Waste Disposal

Manager contacted Mr. Mitchell, Manager of Waste Management, who assured him this

matter would be addressed. Mr. Mitchell contacted the Waste Disposal Supervisor by

email on January 25th to advise him that he had discussed the issue with his staff and

they were all reminded about the importance of securing their waste loads.

On June 25th, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Mr. Rick Colenutte detected a sweet tea like odour at

that time as well as around 5 AM on and off over the previous 3 to 4 weeks. He

contacted the Waste Disposal Manager who advised Mr. Colenutte that the month of

June had been very wet causing the compost to become very odoriferous. The Waste

Disposal Manager indicated that wood chips would be added to the compost pile during

the first two weeks of July to help dry it out. The addition of wood chips should aid in

reducing the nitrogen levels, increase aeration and therefore reduce the odour levels.

On August 6th, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Mr. Carl Hape called Todd Pepper to advise him that

he could smell what he described as landfill gas. Mr. Pepper advised Mr. Hape that

during working hours, waste is being pushed and packed into place which may result in

off-site odours.

Anyone wishing to register a complaint may do so by calling the Essex-Windsor Solid

Waste Authority at 1-800-563-3377 or by calling the Landfill site at (519) 776-7941.

4 . 3 A c c i d e n t s , F i r e s a n d I n c i d e n t s

There were no accidents, fires or incidents that impacted landfilling operations in 2007

or 2008.



5 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE

5 . 1 D i s p o s a l O p e r a t i o n s

Waste disposal operations at the Site were performed by Shepley Excavating, under

contract with the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority. The work performed includes

the placement and compaction of waste; the placement of daily, intermediate and final

cover and maintenance of access roads. Staff of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste

Authority carried out litter control, dust control, cleaning of roads and general

maintenance.

5 . 2 D i s p o s a l A r e a s

The Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site is 123 hectares in size with a waste footprint of

58 hectares. The disposal area is divided into five cells. The design capacity and area

of the waste cells are as follows:

TABLE 6: CAPACITY OF DISPOSAL AREAS

CELL AREA (ha) TOTAL VOLUME * WASTE MASS (Tonnes)

1 14.4 1,707,000 m3 784,000

2 11.4 2,834,000 m3 1,360,000

3 10.0 2,675,000 m3 1,284,000

4 10.6 2,969,000 m3 1,427,000

5 11.6 2,615,000 m3 1,245,000

TOTAL SITE 58.0 ha 12,800,000 m3 6,100,000

* Total volume is calculated based on measurement from top of the leachate collection system to final contours including

1.0 meter of final cover, daily and interim cover. Based on a compaction rate of 600 kilograms/m3



TABLE 7: WASTE CELL REFUSE TONNAGE TO DATE

YEAR CELL 1 CELL 2 CELL 3 CELL 4 CELL 5

1997 83,970

1998 180,363

1999 188,298

2000 193,513

2001 226,426

2002 80,859 150,120

2003 0 272,974

2004 56,514 221,646

2005 43,873 152,801

2006 19,930 168,526

2007 5,789 180,003

2008 92,032 103,852

TOTAL: 1,171,567 1,249,922

Cell 1 of the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill was opened to the receipt of waste in July

1997 and as of December 31st, 2007 had approximately 1,079,535 tonnes of waste in-

situ and 1,171,567 tonnes in 2008. Cell 1 was originally designed to accommodate the

disposal of 784,000 tonnes of waste; however as a result of a number of staff initiatives

(1999 mining project, larger landfill compactor and alternative daily cover) the original

design capacity for Cell 1 has been significantly increased.

As a result of landfilling operational limitations (maximum truck ramp grades) a

significant portion of Cell 1 airspace could not be used prior to relocating landfilling

operations to Cell 2. During 2007 and 2008 the bulk of landfilling activity took place in

Cell 2. In addition a small area of Cell 1 was also landfilled.

5 . 3 W a s t e D i s p o s a l M e t h o d s

The ramp method of landfilling was employed at the Regional Landfill Site during

operations in 2007 and 2008. Wastes were deposited at the bottom or top of the ramp

and pushed upwards or downwards in a lift over the operating face. The landfill

contract specifies that the lift shall be a maximum height of 3 metres, that the ramp



slope is to be 5:1, and that the layer of waste, prior to compaction should not exceed

0.45 metres. The Contractor was noted as generally complying with these requirements

during the year. The waste is spread using a Caterpillar D8 bulldozer and is then

compacted using a Caterpillar 836C Landfill compactor.

At the end of each working day, or more frequently if needed, the tipping area is

covered completely with a layer of soil or other approved equal (daily cover). The

primary function of daily cover is to reduce odours, nuisance, vectors, fires, litter and

unsightliness of the landfill site. Several forms of alternative daily cover are combined

with clay to accomplish this. They include street sweepings, auto shredder fluff, foundry

sands and tarps. For 2007 and 2008 the following quantities of cover was combined with

clay and tarps for application to the active tipping area at the end of each working day.

TABLE 8: DAILY COVER

MATERIAL TYPE 2007 TONNES 2008 TONNES

Alternative Daily Cover 9,818 10,412

Sand 43,894 21,218

Auto Shredder Fluff 229 18,919

As per CA No.A011101, samples of Shredder Fluff were taken on a monthly basis and

submitted for analysis of Ontario Regulation 558 Schedule IV Inorganics and PCBs. In

every case the Auto Shredder Fluff samples conformed with the specifications of a non-

hazardous waste under Ontario Regulation 558.

5 . 4 S i t e M a i n t e n a n c e

EWSWA Staff carried out the day to day maintenance of the site. This included, but was

not limited to, the cleaning and scraping of roads, litter control, dust control and the

maintenance of the leachate collection system.

There are 18 litter control units stationed at the Site. The portable litter control units

are used in conjunction with the permanent litter control fence surrounding Cell 1 and

the northern portion of Cell 2 to control the movement of litter on the site. The units



are 10 metres long by 5 metres high with a wire mesh type fence attached to them.

The units are mounted on skids that permit easy relocation by the heavy equipment at

the site. The units are moved frequently to coincide with wind direction and have

assisted greatly in controlling the movement of litter away from the disposal area.

The removal and control of mud from the road is accomplished by the application of

several pieces of equipment. A water truck combined with a front end loader (F.E.L.)

and a truck wheel wash are used in various combinations and have all but eliminated

the tracking of mud off the site.

Dust control for 2007 and 2008 was accomplished by using a 3,800 imperial gallon

water truck equipped with spray bars. During the dry periods, water was applied to the

tipping face area and roads to control dust.

5 . 5 V e g e t a t i o n a n d C o v e r

A number of landscaping projects were carried out in 2007 and 2008. In July 2007

areas of the west slope of Cell 1 were re-graded with topsoil and seeded to promote a

healthier growth of grass. In September 2007 Border City Landscape was contracted to

hydro seed portions of the north and west surface water ditches that had been modified

to reduce surface water infiltration earlier in the season. During May and August of

2008, areas of the west and south slopes of Cell 1 and the south slope of Cell 2 were

top soiled and seeded as required. In order to promote a thicker growth of grass on the

sides and top of waste cells, two major cuts were completed in 2007 and 2008. By

cutting the grass more often weed patches do not get a chance to germinate and the

grass is allowed to reestablish itself in poorer growth areas. A healthy, thick grass

growth reduces erosion, surface water infiltration and cell cap desiccation. In both 2007

and 2008 select planting beds located on the site visual mitigation berms were re-

mulched.

During April and August of 2008 the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority contracted for

the supply of three tri-axel dump trucks to assist in the hauling and application of final

cover to the south and west slopes of Cell 1 and the south outside slope of Cell 2. For

part of 2008 landfilling activities were confined to the exterior slopes of Cell 1 and Cell 2.



After landfilling the waste to conform to the C of A design grades, the exterior slopes

were then covered with a minimum of 1m of compacted virgin clay. The area was then

covered with 150 mm of topsoil and then seeded.

5 . 6 R o a d s

A water truck and a front-end loader, owned by EWSWA, were utilized as required to

clean the County road and internal access road at the Regional Site. The Authority

carried out daily and monthly road patrols on access routes to the Site, and local

municipal roads that surround the Site, for illegally dumped waste and waste that may

have fallen off of trucks on the way to the Site.

The roads patrolled include County Road 18 from County Road 23 to Coulter Sideroad,

County Road 23 from Highway 3 to Highway 18, Ferris Sideroad from Concession Road

8 to County Road 18, McCormick Sideroad from County Road 18 to Concession Road 6,

Coulter Sideroad from Concession Road 8 to Concession Road 6, Concession Road 8

between the Coulter and Ferris Sideroads, Concession Road 6 between the Coulter and

McCormick Sideroads.

Material picked up from the road patrols was brought to the landfill for proper disposal

and the wood and brush was placed on the compost pad for later chipping. In 2007 and

2008 the illegal dumping of waste around the site continued to be minimal.

5 . 7 E r o s i o n C o n t r o l / D r a i n a g e

Several washouts were repaired as required and a number of areas which experienced

minor erosion during the year were repaired in 2007 and 2008.

In August and September of 2007 the surface water ditches located over the leachate

collection system north and west of Cell 1 were modified to help reduce surface water

infiltration through the bottom of the ditches into the leachate collection system.

Desiccation cracks forming in the bottom of the ditch were acting as a conduit for

surface water to enter into the leachate collection system.

The entire surface water ditch running from manhole #8 to pump station #3 was over

excavated with approximately 150 mm of soil removed from the bottom and sides of the



ditch. After removing the soil a Bentofix clay liner was placed over the entire area. The

liner was then covered with approximately 150 mm of topsoil for protection. Once the

clay liner was hydrated it became non-permeable to water and significantly reduced the

potential for surface water to leak into the leachate collection system from the bottom of

the ditch.

5 . 8 V o l u m e A n a l y s i s a n d C o m p a c t i o n

Monthly compaction surveys of the Site were carried out in 2007 and 2008 to provide for

accurate volume analysis. The results are included in Table 8.

The compaction surveys were completed by EWSWA staff. The average compaction of

waste for the Regional Landfill for 2007 was 780.22, which is 30% greater than the

minimum acceptable compaction criterion of 600 kg/m3. The averages for 2008 were

833.01 and 38.8% respectively.

TABLE 9: COMPACTION

MONTH 2007 COMPACTION

CRITERIA (+/- %)

600 KG/M3

2008 COMPACTION

CRITERIA (+/- %)

600 KG/M3

January 718.3 19.7% 853.65 42.3%February 705 17.5% 633.93 5.7%March 691.3 15.2% 872.28 45.4%April 758 26.3% 745.92 24.3%May 759.5 26.6% 805.63 34.3%June 752.8 25.5% 743.54 23.9%July 753.9 25.7% 843.13 40.5%August 775.9 29.3% 922.37 53.7%September 802.9 33.8% 856.63 42.8%October 897.6 49.6% 959.51 59.9%November 886.9 47.8% 877.38 46.2%December 860.5 43.4% 882.15 47.0%AVERAGE 780.22 30.03% 833.01 38.83%

The approved airspace at the commencement of landfilling for the Essex-Windsor

Regional Landfill was 12,200,000 m3. Based on the 2007 average compaction ratio of

780 kg/m3 and based on the 185,794 tonnes of waste received during operations in

2007, the approximate volume of airspace consumed in 2007 as a result of landfilling



activities was 238,197 m3. At the end of 2007, the approximate capacity of airspace

remaining for the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill was estimated to be 9,287,762 m3.

Based on the 2008 average compaction ratio of 833 kg/m3 and based on the 195,885

tonnes of waste received during operations in 2008, the approximate volume of airspace

consumed in 2008 as a result of landfilling activities was 235,156 m3. At the end of

2008, the approximate capacity of airspace remaining for the Essex-Windsor Regional

Landfill was estimated to be 9,052,606 m3. The remaining capacity of the Landfill is

shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10: COMPACTION RESULTS

YEAR WASTE

LANDFILLED

(TONNES)

ANNUAL AVG. COMPACTION

(KG/M3)

AIRSPACE CONSUMED

(M3)

REMAINING AIRSPACE

(M3)

— — — — 12,200,000

1997 83,970.78 650* 129,186 12,070,815

1998 180,363.45 757 238,261 11,832,555

1999 188,298.61 882 213,490 11,619,065

2000 193,513.28 791 244,643 11,374,422

2001 226,426.47 778 291,037 11,083,386

2002 230,979.74 779 296,508 10,786,878

2003 272,974.15 761 358,704 10,428,174

2004 278,159.99 737 377,422 10,050,752

2005 196,674.46 713 275,841 9,774,911

2006 188,456.38 757 248,952 9,525,959

2007 185,793.91 780 238,197 9,287,762

2008 195,885.12 833 235,156 9,052,606

Total 2,039,817.31 Avg: 781 * Estimate

5 . 9 C o m p o s t i n g

An amendment to Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A-011105 dated August 18th,

1997 allows for the operation of an on site compost pad. In September 2001 and

December 2004, subsequent amendments were approved which permitted additional



quantities of yard waste on the pad to be composted and permitted the addition of a

number of new feed stocks to the compost mix.

As a result of the MOE amendment approved in December 2004, the Compost Pad for

the Essex Windsor Regional Landfill was enlarged to accommodate the additional

quantities of yard waste approved for composting. In May of 2005, Amico Contracting

was commissioned to carry out the Compost Pad Expansion. The work was completed

by the end of summer.

Grass, leaves, tree trimmings and brush are restricted from disposal at the Essex-

Windsor Regional Landfill Site. As a result many local municipalities have established

separate collection systems for yard wastes. In 2007 a total of 5,589 tonnes of yard

waste was delivered to the Regional Landfill and 4,010 tonnes were delivered in 2008.

Of the total yard waste delivered in 2007, 32% was municipal yard waste, 0% was

residential and 67.9% was IC&I. In 2008, 48.1% was municipal yard waste, 0% was

residential and 51.9% was IC&I. In 2007, an additional 14,423.75 tonnes and

17,539.27 tonnes in 2008, of processed yard waste were relocated to the site from

Transfer Station No.1 to be composted. All compost delivered to the site during 2007

and 2008 was shredded and windrowed as required. After approximately 14 months the

finished compost was screened and prepared for market.

5 . 1 0 C e l l D e v e l o p m e n t

No cell development was carried out in 2007 or 2008. For 2007 and 2008 waste was

disposed of in Cell 1 and Cell 2.

6 GAS MANAGEMENT

The Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill gas management system consists of a number of

programs established throughout the Landfill site designed to reduce landfill gas

emissions.

6 . 1 P a s s i v e S o l a r F l a r e s

In 2000 three passive solar flares were installed, two on the West Cell and a third one

on top of Cell 1. The existing monitoring programs do not allow for calculating gas



quality or quantity but for much of 2007 and 2008 two of the passive flares were

observed burning off gas on a continual basis. The third flare located on the east side

of the West Cell has been observed burning off landfill gas on a more intermittent basis.

In April 2007 and April 2008 the flares were removed one at a time, inspected, cleaned

up and reinstalled.

In 2005 the County of Essex entered into a Landfill Gas Lease Agreement with IGRS that

required IGRS to market the energy or other by-products of the landfill gas generated

by the Regional Landfill. To this end a landfill gas collection and flaring system was

installed in parts of Cell 1 and Cell 2 in the fall of 2008. Twenty-three landfill gas

extraction wells were installed as per the Construction Drilling Report (dated Oct. 14,

2008) submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and these were connected to the

landfill gas flare via a network of piping. Monitoring of the new gas collection system

commenced in January 2009.

6 . 2 V a c u u m F l a r e

In early 2001, the Authority embarked on a full scale pilot bioreactor program in Cell 1

of the Regional Landfill. The project called for the installation of horizontal gas

collection trenches and pipes which are designed to be connected to a candle stick flare

and an 8-hp blower. In June of 2002, the flare was commissioned. Based on weekly

monitoring results approximately 3,829,700 m3 of landfill gas with 1,156,438 m3 of

methane was flared in 2007 and 4,698,474 m3 of landfill gas with 1,463,649 m3 of

methane were flared in 2008. In January 2009 the vacuum flare was decommissioned

and replaced by the IGRS landfill gas collection system.



TABLE 11A: CELL 1 VACUUM FLARE LANDFILL GAS ESTIMATED TOTALS FOR 2007

2007 MONTH

AVG. FLOW (M/S)

AVG. CH4 (%) DAYS OF OPERATION

VOLUME OF LANDFILL GAS (M3)

VOLUME OF METHANE (M3)

January 24.9 31.7 26 266,782 84,609 February 25.4 29.3 28 292,694 85,635

March 25.4 30.9 35 365,507 113,010 April 25.5 30.1 28 294,342 88,514 May 25.8 30.1 28 297,020 89,403 June 25.0 27.5 35 360,893 99,345 July 25.4 26.6 28 292,653 77,980

August 25.2 30.6 35 362,830 110,894 September 25.1 30.9 31 320,687 99,159

October 24.8 31.3 25 255,000 79,756 November 25.2 27.9 28 290,387 80,899 December 27.5 34.2 38 430,905 147,234

Grand Total m3 3,829,700 1,156,438 Note: Flow calculations are based on a 3-inch pipe with nominal area of 0.004768 m2

TABLE 11B: CELL 1 VACUUM FLARE LANDFILL GAS ESTIMATED TOTALS FOR 2008

2008 MONTH

AVG. FLOW (M/S)

AVG. CH4 (%) DAYS OF OPERATION

VOLUME OF LANDFILL GAS (M3)

VOLUME OF METHANE (M3)

January 28.2 31.1 25 290,428 90,387 February 28.2 24.2 35 405,879 98,321 March 31.2 30.4 28 359,946 109,421 April 31.7 33.5 28 365,796 122,522 May 33.0 35.2 35 475,582 167,250 June 39.5 34.7 28 455,108 158,093 July 38.7 32.0 32 510,145 163,396 August 30.1 30.6 31 384,540 117,554 September 33.5 32.7 28 386,105 126,439 October 31.8 27.9 35 457,929 127,667 November 35.1 30.7 28 404,437 124,055 December 35.1 28.9 14 202,579 58,544

Grand Total m3 4,698,474 1,463,649 Note: Flow calculations are based on a 3-inch pipe with nominal area of 0.004768 m2

7 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT

A perimeter leachate collection system and a leachate underdrain system is in place at

the Site. The system was constructed in six phases. Phase I, which surrounds the east



cell of the former Landfill Site No. 1 (now Cell 1 of the Regional Landfill), was installed

beginning in August 1990 and became functional in October 1990, although it was not

completed until March 1991. The leachate catchment area for Phase I was originally

13.8 hectares.

The catchment area was reduced to 12.76 ha in 1997 with the development of the

Regional Landfill and further reduced to 9.76 ha as a result of the 1998 Landfill Mining

project.

Phase II, which surrounded the former west cell of Landfill Site No.1, was installed

between January and March 1993. This phase of the collection system became

operational in April 1993. The leachate catchment area for Phase II is 5.76 hectares.

In 1997 the development of Cell 1 of the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill led to the

expansion of the former Area 1 (Phase III). The southern section of Cell 1 was

excavated down to a depth of 10 metres below the existing site grade and extended

approximately 100 metres to the south. A leachate collection underdrain system,

consisting of a series of parallel perforated pipes, was installed at the base of the new

landfill cell. A new pump station was installed in order to permit the leachate to be

pumped out of the cell for treatment. This phase of the leachate underdrain system

became functional in September 1998.

Later in September of 1998, the southern section of Cell 1 was expanded further when

an additional 3 hectare area just north of the original Cell 1 excavation was developed

(Phase IV). This area was also excavated down to a depth of 10 metres below existing

grade and extended approximately 100 metres to the north. This portion of the

leachate underdrain system was activated in 1999. The Cell 1 Leachate Underdrain

System has a total catchment area of approximately 6 hectares.

Phase V of the leachate collection system was installed during the construction of Cell 2

North in the winter of 2002 and became operational on June 6th, 2002. Phase V consists

of 4.95 hectares of leachate underdrain system, only 2.70 ha of which was activated

during 2002. In 2003 the remaining 2.25 ha area was activated so that landfilling



activities could be carried out in this section of Cell 2. This section of the Landfill, like all

the newly constructed areas of the Landfill was also excavated down to a depth of 10

meters below existing grade and consists of a series of parallel perforated pipes

designed to collect and convey the leachate to a series of pumps.

Phase VI of the leachate collection system was installed during the construction of Cell 2

South in 2004. Phase VI consists of 5.45 hectares of leachate underdrain system, 4.13

ha of which was activated during 2005. The remaining 1.32 ha was activated in mid

December 2006. This section of the Landfill was also excavated down to a depth of

approximately 10 meters below existing grade and consists of a series of parallel

perforated pipes designed to collect and convey the leachate to a series of pumps.

The entire leachate collection system is drained/pumped to one of three leachate

collection ponds on the west side of the Site. The leachate is collected by tanker truck

from the ponds and taken to the Lou Romano Pollution Control Plant for treatment or

land applied/re-circulated on site, depending on the time of year and the annual

quantity of leachate produced.

7 . 1 L e a c h a t e Q u a n t i t i e s

The leachate management system in place at the Regional Landfill Site does not permit

the calculation of precipitation based leachate generation rates, as has been the practice

since 1991 at the former Landfill Site No. 1. At the former Landfill Site No. 1 there was

minimal leachate storage capacity, so leachate had to be removed as it was generated.

This provided accurate generation statistics.

The leachate collection system at the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site is operated to

remove leachate from the system to prevent leachate mounding in the waste. It also

prevents ground water contamination; however, leachate is now stored on site, in lined

leachate ponds, in order to maximize the utilization of leachate land application and

recirculation systems described in Sections 7.5 through 7.8 and to provide for hydraulic

and organic equalization of the leachate.



By the end of 1999 there was a combined storage capacity of 23,400 m3 in three ponds,

the south, east and west ponds. Two 5-HP aerators are installed in the south pond and

one 5-HP aerator was installed in each of the west and east ponds. The aerators help

control odours while at the same time reducing B.O.D. levels in the leachate.

During November 2005 the south pond was drained and the sumps were vacuumed out

of any sediment build up.

Leachate generated at the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill is managed or treated via a

number of different leachate treatment technologies. These include hauling leachate off

site to an approved sewage treatment facility, re-circulating leachate into existing

landfilled waste or land applying leachate to a vegetative ecosystem.

In 2008, the various leachate management systems both on and off the site managed

39,379.24 m3 of leachate, a decrease of 0.34% compared with the 39,513.39 m3 in

2007. The quantities of leachate in 2007 and 2008 are shown in the following tables 12A

and 12B.

TABLE 12A: LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 2007

MONTH 2007

TRUCKED OFF SITE

GREENFIELD LAND

TREATMENT

CELL 1 (SPRAY)

CELL 1 (BIO-REACTOR)

WEST CELL LAND

TREATMENT

WEST CELL RE-CIRCULATION TOTAL

(M3) January 2,474.32 — — 550.98 — 226.62 3,251.92February 5,718.51 — — 84.5 — — 5,803.01March 4,577.25 — — 301.26 — 296.94 5,175.45April 4,380.44 — — 543.13 — 289.08 5,212.65May 3,877.64 — 192.00 — 602.00 — 4,671.64June — — 831.00 — 1,418.00 — 2,249.00July — — 732.00 — 1,485.00 — 2,217.00August — — 311.00 — 834.00 — 1,145.00September 2,546.82 — 510.44 — 1,039.00 — 4,096.26October 2,004.02 — 203.70 — 419.00 58.09 2,684.81November 1,623.36 — — — — 91.80 1,715.16December 842.10 — — — — 449.38 1,291.48TOTALS 28,044.46 0.00 2,780.14 1,479.87 5,797.00 1,411.91 39,513.42006 Totals 23,284.91 4,641.56 2,307.35 4,931.22 4,114.00 3,356.07 42,635.12005 Totals 8,505.31 6,266.09 3,725.26 3,105.26 5,570.50 3,226.96 30,399.4



TABLE 12B: LEACHATE MANAGEMENT 2008

MONTH 2008

TRUCKED OFF SITE

GREENFIELD LAND

TREATMENT

CELL 1 (SPRAY)

CELL 1 (BIO-REACTOR)

WEST CELL LAND

TREATMENT

WEST CELL RE-CIRCULATION TOTAL

(M3) January 2,108.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,108.63

February 2,408.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,408.03March 5,104.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,104.69

April 4,232.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,232.54May 6,029.43 269.00 425.20 0.00 279.00 0.00 7,002.63June 1,039.45 817.00 250.00 0.00 817.42 0.00 2,923.87July 0.00 533.00 0.00 0.00 490.16 0.00 1,023.16

August 1,367.11 1,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,674.89 4,392.00September 0.00 738.00 0.00 0.00 573.00 0.00 1,311.00

October 1,675.74 171.00 0.00 0.00 359.00 222.69 2,428.43November 3,375.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 290.49 3,665.98December 2,357.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 420.46 2,778.27

TOTALS 29,698.92 3,878.00 675.20 0.00 2,518.58 2,608.53 39,379.22007 Totals 28,044.46 0.00 2,780.14 1,479.87 5,797.00 1,411.91 39,513.42006 Totals 23,284.91 4,641.56 2,307.35 4,931.22 4,114.00 3,356.07 42,635.1

7.2 Leachate Quality

Leachate is produced primarily from the percolation of incident precipitation into the

refuse. Processes within the refuse degrade the quality of the percolating water,

creating the leachate. The chemical characteristics of the leachate can vary within the

refuse, depending on various factors, such as refuse composition and age; refuse

hydraulic conductivity, leachate residence time, and the leachate flow regime.

Samples of the leachate are collected for analysis of a range of general chemistry and

metal compounds from two locations within the leachate collection system as part of the

groundwater monitoring program detailed in Section 8.2 and the environmental

monitoring programs for the various leachate land treatment systems detailed in Section

7.9. The samples collected from Pump Station 1 (PS1) reflect the leachate generated by

waste in Cell 1 and Cell 2 of the Regional Landfill. Samples collected from PS3 reflect the

leachate from the West Cell of the former Essex County Landfill Site No. 1. Table 13

provides a summary of the analytical results from PS1 and PS3 for 2007 and 2008.

A review of the analytical results for leachate samples from PS1 in 2007 indicates that all

of the parameters were within their historic ranges. A review of the analytical results for



leachate samples from PS1 in 2008 indicates that the majority of the parameters were

within their historic ranges. There were two exceptions in 2008. Silver was detected in

one of the three samples above the minimum detection level for the first time since

leachate monitoring commenced in 1997. The concentration of Silver in that one sample

in 2008 was 0.024 mg/l. The other exception was Boron that had a new historic high of

7.3 mg/l compared to the previous high of 5.2 mg/l. Boron is often elevated in leachate

which makes it a good indicator parameter for potential leachate impacts on ground and

surface water.

A review of the analytical results for leachate samples collected from PS3 in 2007 shows

the continued declining trend in the concentration of general chemical parameters with

all parameters within their historic range. A review of the analytical results for leachate

samples collected from PS3 in 2008 also show a declining trend for the majority of the

parameters. The only exception was for Silver which was detected for the first time

above the minimum detection limits in 2008 during one of the three sample events. The

concentration of silver was measured at 0.024 mg/l.

The leachate from PS3 and PS1 are also analyzed for a suite of Base Neutral Extractible

compounds and Volatile Organic compounds. Samples were collected on May 10 and

August 1, 2007 and on May 15 and August 12, 2008. These dates have been selected

to represent peak flow and dry flow conditions in the leachate collection system in their

respective years. The results of the analysis for PS3 are shown in Table 14A and the

results from PS1 are shown in Table 14B.

The results from PS3 indicate that three volatile organic compounds were identified

above their limit of quantification in the leachate in 2007. All 3 parameters have been

historically detected in the leachate, and the 2007 results were all within their historical

range. In 2008 only one volatile organic compound, 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, was detected

above the limit of quantification. The results for PS3 in 2007 and 2008 are a reflection of

the age and stabilization of the waste in the West Cell of the former Landfill Site No. 1.

The results from PS1 in 2007 indicate that four base neutral extractible compounds were

detected. All four have been historically detected in the leachate, and all four were



within their historical range. There were also eight volatile organic compounds detected

in the leachate from PS1 in 2007. All eight compounds have been historically detected in

the leachate, but four out of the eight compounds, including: 1,1-Dichloroethane; 1,4-

Dichlorobenzene; o-Xylene; and Vinyl Chloride had new historical high concentrations in

the May 10, 2007 sample event. For the later two compounds the new high was just

slightly above the old high. The new high for o-Xylene, for example, was 22.1 ug/l

compared to the previous high of 21.9 ug/l. The new high for Vinyl Chloride was 2 ug/l

versus the previous high of 1.7 ug/l.

The results from PS1 in 2008 indicate that five base neutral extractible compounds were

detected. All five have been historically detected in the leachate at PS1 and all five were

within their historical range. There were also seven volatile organic compounds

detected in the leachate from PS1 in 2008. Again, all eight compounds have been

historically detected in the leachate, and all but one compound were detected within

their historic range. Chloroform had a new historical high of 6 ug/l compared to the

previous high of 2.1, although this compound seems to fluctuate significantly over time.

For example, Chloroform was not detected above its limit of quantification in the four

samples collected in 2005 and 2006.

Between 1997 and 2002 the majority of the leachate generated by the Regional Landfill

was managed on-site through the various land application and recirculation systems as

set out in Section 7.5 of this report. Since 2003, however a certain percentage of

leachate has been sent off-site for treatment at the Lou Romano Water Reclamation

Plant located in, and owned and operated by, the City of Windsor. The Reclamation

Plant randomly samples the delivered leachate and analyses it for a limited range of

general chemistry parameters and the full suite of metals. There is now a sufficient data

base to provide an analysis of the leachate over the course of a year in addition to the

snap shot quality of the leachate collected as part of the bi-annual monitoring program

when samples are collected from PS1 and PS3. The results of the leachate monitoring

for leachate delivered for treatment to the Reclamation Plan in 2007 and 2008 is set out

in Table 14.



The results from 2007, compared to the historical results from 2003 – 2006, show an

increasing trend in concentration of C.O.D., and 10 of the 27 metals, with new historical

high results for all 11 parameters. This is consistent with the age of the waste in Cells 1

and 2 of the Regional Landfill, which are the primary contributors to leachate

generation, and the increasing “contaminating source”, i.e. the additional 185,794

tonnes of waste disposed of at the Regional Landfill in 2007.

The results from 2008 were also compared to the historical results from 2003 – 2006. In

2008 two general chemical parameters, C.O.D. and Total Phosphorus, and 8 metals

exceeded the historical high concentrations; however the maximum concentration of

C.O.D. was 28% lower than in 2007. When compared to 2007 there were significant

shifts in metal concentrations, with 15 of the 27 metal parameters being higher than

2007, 9 metal parameters being lower than 2007, and 2 having the same concentration

as 2007. This indicates the spatial variability of the leachate.



TABLE 13: LEACHATE GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METAL ANALYSIS

Parameter N Avg Min Max N Avg Min Max N Avg Min Max N Avg Min MaxConductivity µmhos/cm 3 4206.7 2960 5190 2 4160 2720 5600 3 16100.0 12700.0 18200.0 2 15100.0 12100.0 18100.0

pH Units 3 7.5967 7.42 7.77 2 7.735 7.66 7.81 3 7.7 7.5 7.9 2 7.7 7.6 7.8

Chloride mg/L 3 405.33 244 559 2 424.5 236 613 3 2516.7 1910.0 2930.0 2 2830.0 2190.0 3470.0

Anions

Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/L 3 0.0667 BDL 0.2 2 0.095 BDL 0.19 3 BDL BDL BDL 2 1.7 BDL 3.3

Sulphate mg/L 3 242.33 205 264 2 256.5 237 276 3 47.7 15.0 86.0 2 36.0 26.0 46.0

Metals

Silver mg/L 3 0.008 BDL 0.024 2 BDL BDL BDL 3 BDL BDL BDL 2 BDL BDL BDL

Aluminum mg/L 3 BDL BDL BDL 2 0.025 BDL 0.05 3 0.5 0.3 0.9 2 0.5 0.5 0.5

Boron mg/L 3 2.0333 1.3 2.8 3 1.623 0.83 2.6 3 6.1 4.8 7.3 3 4.0 3.3 5.0

Barium mg/L 3 0.3 0.2 0.4 3 0.948 0.18 3 3 0.4 0.3 0.5 3 0.4 0.3 0.5

Calcium mg/L 3 182.33 161 204 3 132.000 151 196 3 182.7 158.0 225.0 3 207.8 237.0 335.0

Chromium mg/L 2 0.003 0 0.006 2 0.007 0.006 0.008 2 0.1 BDL 0.1 2 0.03 0.0 0.1

Copper mg/L 3 BDL BDL BDL 0 NA NA NA 3 BDL BDL BDL 0 NA NA NA

Iron mg/L 3 2.4 1.7 3.4 2 2.51 2.11 2.9 3 5.1 3.7 7.7 2 7.7 7.5 7.8

Potassium mg/L 3 110.33 70 140 3 79 57 182 3 533.0 459.0 634.0 0 NA NA NA

Magnesium mg/L 3 129 97 151 3 91.5 94 174 3 241.7 231.0 251.0 3 198.3 205.0 323.0

Manganese mg/L 3 0.3333 0.3 0.4 2 0.28 0.2 0.35 3 0.6 0.5 0.8 2 0.6 0.6 0.6

Sodium mg/L 3 294.33 171 396 3 196.25 167 432 3 1760.0 1420.0 2060.0 3 1385.8 1390.0 2370.0

Nickel mg/L 3 BDL BDL BDL 2 0.0050 BDL 0.01 3 0.2 0.1 0.2 2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Phosphorus mg/L 2 0.275 0.2 0.35 2 0.3300 0.13 0.53 2 2.7 1.8 3.6 2 4.0 3.9 4.0

Strontium mg/L 3 2.44 1.79 2.81 2 2.5400 2.3 2.78 3 3.8 3.6 4.0 2 4.1 4.0 4.2

Titanium mg/L 3 BDL BDL BDL 2 BDL BDL BDL 3 0.1 BDL 0.1 2 BDL BDL BDL

Vanadium mg/L 3 0.02 0.02 0.02 2 0.0130 0.006 0.02 3 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.1 BDL 0.1Zinc mg/L 3 BDL BDL BDL 2 0.0050 BDL 0.01 3 0.1 0.1 0.2 2 0.1 BDL 0.2

Year 2007 Analysis for PS1Year 2007 Analysis for PS3 2008 Summary for PS12008 Summary for PS3



TABLE 14A: POSITIVE MISA RESULTS (PS3)

10-May-04 17-Aug-04 12-Apr-05 23-Aug-05 8-May-06 31-Aug-06 10-May-07 1-Aug-07 15-May-08 12-Aug-08PS3 PS3 PS3 PS3 PS3 PS3 PS3 PS3 PS3 PS3

BASE NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES units

2,4-Dimethylphenol µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NA NA NA2,4-Dichlorophenol µg/L - - BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLBis(2-ethythexyl)Phthalate µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.6 0.6 BDL BDLDiethyl Phthalate µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.2 BDL BDL BDLDi-N-butyl Phtlalate µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLFlorene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NAm,p-Cresol µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NANaphthalene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLO-Cresol µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NAPhenanthrene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLPhenol µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

VOLATILE ORGANICS units

1,1 - Dichloroethane µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL1,4 Dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.2 0.5 BDL BDL BDL 0.6 0.5 BDL BDL 0.8Acetone µg/L BDL BDL 31 BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NABenzene µg/L 0.1 BDL 0.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLChlorobenzene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NAChloroethane µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLChloroform µg/L 0.1 0.8 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLcis 1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NAEthyl Benzene µg/L 0.2 BDL 0.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLmp-Xylenes µg/L 0.2 BDL 1 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLMethyl - t - Butyl Ether µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NAMethyl Ethyl Ketone µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NAMethyl Isobutyl Ketone µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NAo-Xylene µg/L 0.2 BDL 0.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLToluene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDLVinyl Chloride µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

NOTES: * indicates parameter concentration is below the est. quantitation limit but higher than the method detection limitTR = Trace, Results were above the method detection limit but less than the limit of quantification µg/L = Parts per Billion NA=Not Analyzed- = not historically detected ng/l = Parts Per Trillion NA = Not Analyzed BDL = Below Detection Limits mg/l = Parts Per Million



TABLE 14B: POSITIVE MISA RESULTS (PS1) 10-May-04 17-Aug-04 12-Apr-05 23-Aug-05 8-May-06 31-Aug-06 10-May-07 1-Aug-07 15-May-08 12-Aug-08

PS1 PS1 PS1 PS1 PS1 PS1 PS1 PS1 PS1 PS1

BASE NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES units

2,4-Dimethylphenol µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 5 BDL

1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NA NA NA

2,4-Dichlorophenol µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

bis(2-ethythexyl)Phthalate µg/L BDL 3.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1.4 BDL 0.7

Diethyl Phthalate µg/L BDL BDL 8* BDL BDL 2.7 1.5 1.8 BDL 1

Di-N-butyl Phtlalate µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

Florene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

m,p-Cresol µg/L 386 BDL 1820 BDL BDL 22 NA NA NA NA

Naphthalene µg/L BDL 0.3 BDL BDL 1 2 0.8 1.6 BDL 0

O-Cresol µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NA

Phenanthrene µg/L BDL 0.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

Phenol µg/L 16.7 1 233 BDL BDL BDL BDL 28 26 34

VOLATILE ORGANICS units

1,1 - Dichloroethane µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1.7 BDL BDL BDL

1,4 Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1.8 BDL BDL 1.4 BDL 5.3 6.3 BDL 5 BDL

Acetone µg/L 1470 BDL 6840 BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NA

Benzene µg/L 5.5 BDL 15.3 BDL 4.2 13.4 12.8 12 11 11

Chlorobenzene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL 1.3 0.7 NA NA NA NA

Chloroethane µg/L BDL BDL BDL NA BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

Chloroform µg/L BDL 1.5 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 6 BDL

cis 1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NA

Ethyl Benzene µg/L 16.4 BDL 39 0.8 18.9 46.4 38.6 26 26 25

mp-Xylenes µg/L 21.8 1.8 44.2 0.9 26.7 47 51.6 47 36 41

Methyl - t - Butyl Ether µg/L 4.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NA NA NA NA

Methyl Ethyl Ketone µg/L 1760 BDL 8740 35 267 700 NA NA NA NA

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 34 NA NA NA N

o-Xylene µg/L 8.6 1.2 15.7 BDL 9.8 19.8 22.1 19 14 15

Toluene µg/L 26.7 1.6 38 BDL 11.1 51.8 40.3 36 25 28

Vinyl Chloride µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.6 1.7 2 BDL BDL BDL

NOTES: * indicates parameter concentration is below the est. quantitation limit but higher than the method detection limitTR = Trace, Results were above the method detection limit but less than the limit of quantification NA=Not Analyzed- = not historically detected ng/l = Parts Per Trillion

.2

A



TABLE15: LEACHATE ANALYSIS RESULTS – WINDSOR POLLUTION CONTROL LABORATORY

Jan. – Dec. 2007 Jan. – Dec. 2008 Parameter Unit N Avg Min Max N Avg Min MaxpH Units 9 8.0 7.4 8.3 9 7.8 7.2 8.1C.O.D. mg/L 9 524.7 227 1,313 9 590. 9 307 940Ammonia + Ammonium mg/L 8 112.9 11.1 167.5 9 152.3 125.4 193.45TKN mgC/L 8 142.6 91.4 194.8 9 168.6 130.3 231.57Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NATotal Phosphorus mg/L 9 0.8 0.4 1.2 9 2.7 0.18 14.76TSS mg/L 9 120.9 27 472 9 71.3 36 116B.O.D. mg/L 9 179.1 20 705 9 151. 9 12 384Chlorides mg/L 6 708 450 1,300 9 929.5 769 2400METALS

Aluminum ppm 9 0.9 0.09 3.3 9 1.1 0.23 3.74Antimony mg/L 9 0.006 0.001 0.009 9 0.009 0.009 0.009Arsenic mg/L 9 0.006 0.001 0.01 9 0.01 0.009 0.0161Barium mg/L 9 0.2 0.09 0.71 9 0.27 0.108 0.766Beryllium ppm 9 0.014 0.001 0.1 9 0.003 0.003 0.0041Boron mg/L 9 1.5 0.57 2.68 9 2.1 1.33 3.47Cadmium ppm 9 0.001 0.001 0.001 9 0.007 0.001 0.0218Calcium mg/L 9 106.8 52.9 269 9 142.01 81.5 194Chromium ppm 9 0.002 0.001 0.006 9 0.019 0.002 0.11Cobalt mg/L 9 0.006 0.004 0.013 9 0.008 0.0036 0.0184Copper mg/L 9 0.01 0.005 0.32 9 0.08 0.001 0.273Iron ppm 9 2.18 0.68 6.5 9 3.31 1.06 6.34Lead ppm 9 0.07 0.001 0.36 9 0.04 0.0124 0.0684Lithium ppm 9 0.05 0.025 0.11 9 0.07 0.0394 0.188Magnesium ppm 9 118 50 196 9 140. 9 109 187Manganese mg/L 9 0.2 0.04 0.6 9 0.32 0.0506 0.662Mercury mg/L 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NAMolybdenum ppm 9 0.005 0.001 0.011 9 0.003 0.003 0.003Nickel ppm 9 0.06 0.03 0.12 9 0.08 0.043 0.148Potassium ppm 9 60 0.1 246 5 111.2 50 356Selenium mg/L 9 0.5 0.01 1.63 9 0.63 0.005 1.84Silver mg/L 9 0.005 0.001 0.029 9 0.216 0.002 0.673Sodium ppm 9 606 113 2,297 6 486 0.1 882Strontium ppm 9 1.55 0.85 3.03 9 3.2 1.72 11.8Thallium ppm 9 0.004 0.001 0.005 9 0.005 0.005 0.005Vanadium ppm 9 0.008 0.006 0.017 9 0.01 0.002 0.0145Zinc ppm 9 0.13 0.06 0.26 9 0.13 0.0357 0.348NA=Not Analyzed



7.3 Leachate System Maintenance

Condition 15.2 of the Certificate of Approval A-011101 for the Site requires that the

leachate collection system be flushed and cleaned at least once every two years. Benko

Sewer Systems Ltd. carried out the work in 2006 and again in 2008. There were no

significant problems detected with the system. The system is scheduled to be flushed

and cleaned out again in the year 2010.

Pump station repairs and preventative maintenance was carried out as required during

2007 and 2008. This included but was not limited to the following:

• Regular inspection and adjustments of the pumps as required,

• The removal and power washing of pumps,

• The painting and cleaning of electrical panels.

• Repaired north valve leading into Pump Station No.1

7 . 4 L e a c h a t e S p r i n g s a n d S t a i n s

A leachate stain is defined as a discolouration of the soil that extends no more than 1

metre from its source. A leachate spring is defined as an active movement of leachate

that extends beyond 1 metre from its source.

For 2007 three springs were identified and repaired. All three were located on the west

slope of Cell 1. Repairs consisted of excavating into the refuse at the spring location to

develop an adequate hydraulic connection within the refuse. The areas were then filled

in and capped with clean compacted clay soil. For 2008, two leachate stains and one

spring were identified. The stains were located on the west and south slope of Cell 1

whereas the spring occurred low on the west slope of Cell 1. Repairs were carried out as

soon as the springs/stains were identified.

7 . 5 L e a c h a t e L a n d T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m

In 1992 the Ministry of the Environment approved a four-year experimental program for

the land treatment of leachate at Landfill Site No. 1. In September of 1995 an



amendment to the Certificate of Approval was received from the Ministry of the

Environment lifting the four-year experimental requirement. This allowed for the

continuation of the system until such time that the land’s ability to treat the leachate has

been exhausted or when the land is required for other uses.

The current delivery system network configuration consists of 99 impact sprinklers,

which apply leachate across 1.0 ha, and 72 subsurface drip irrigation laterals, which

apply leachate to 0.8 ha.

In 2007 the leachate land treatment system was not operated. Analysis of the

monitoring results for 2006 suggested that the leachate renovation capacity of the Land

Treatment system had been reduced significantly. Based on these results Cuthill

Scientific recommended that a number of remedial measures be implemented to help

increase the leachate renovation capacity. To this end the Land Treatment area was not

operated during the 2007 treatment season.

In 2008 the Leachate Land Treatment System (LLTS) operated on 57 days (spray

system) and 51 days (trickle system) beginning May 2008 and ending October 2008.

During that period, 3,878 m3 of leachate was treated. Treatment area vegetation is

comprised mainly of reed canary grass, which was cut in June. Vegetation was then

baled and removed for composting. In May all the land application treatment areas

were aerated to promote healthier grass root systems.

The Certificate of Approval issued by the Ministry of the Environment for operation of

the Land Treatment System permits continued operation until environmental monitoring

indicates that the treatment capacity of the site has been exhausted.

7 . 6 W e s t C e l l L a n d T r e a t m e n t a n d R e c i r c u l a t i o n S y s t e m

Condition 21 of Certificate of Approval A011101 dated January 12th, 1996 authorizes

operation of the West Cell Leachate Land Treatment and Recirculation System (LTRS). A

subsequent amended C of A dated March 4, 2008 allows for the continued operation of

the LTRS until such time as environmental monitoring indicates that the treatment

capacity of the system has been exhausted. The LTRS integrates leachate land



treatment technology with leachate recirculation to dispose of leachate and accelerate

the rate of landfill stabilization. Recirculation of leachate into the West Cell occurs by

way of drip irrigation laterals that distribute leachate through 20 sand-filled trench

reservoirs constructed into the waste below the cap. The land treatment delivery

network is comprised of twelve distribution laterals supplying leachate to 120 impact

sprinklers.

The land treatment component of the LTRS was operated from May to October 2007 for

63 days. During this period, about 5,797.00 m3 of leachate was applied to the land

treatment area. Treatment area vegetation is comprised mainly of reed canary grass,

which was cut in June. Vegetation was then baled and removed for composting. The

recirculation component of the LTRS was operated on 22 days in 2007 and re-circulated

approximately 1,411.92 m3 of leachate.

In 2008 the land treatment component of the LTRS was operated from May to October

for 45 days. During this period, about 2,518.58 m3 of leachate was applied to the land

treatment area. The recirculation component of the LTRS was operated on 35 days

during 2008 and re-circulated approximately 2,608.54 m3 of leachate.

7 . 7 C e l l 1 L a n d T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m

Condition 21, which was added to Certificate of Approval A-011101 on January 25th,

2000, authorizes operation of the Cell 1 Leachate Treatment System (C1-LTS). The Cell

1 leachate treatment area was added in 2000. The area is slightly less than a hectare in

surface area and is situated on the landfill area designated as Cell 1 (immediately north

of the fill area). The C1-LTS employs the same spray technology as the other leachate

and treatment systems located on site. It is comprised of one block containing 8 laterals

supplying leachate to a total of 60 impact sprinklers.

The C1-LTS was operated from May 2007 to October 2007 for a total of 62 days.

During this period, approximately 2,780.14 m3 of leachate was applied to the land

treatment area.



In 2008 the C1-LTS was operated from May to June for a total of 14 days. During this

period, approximately 675.20 m3 of leachate was applied to the land treatment area. In

July of 2008 the C1-LTS was dismantled to allow for landfilling activities to be carried

out in the N/W corner of Cell 1.

7 . 8 C e l l 1 B i o - R e a c t o r

The Certificate of Approval No. A-011101 was amended again on October 31st, 2000 to

authorize operation of the Cell 1 Bio-Reactor. This five year, full scale, pilot project was

constructed in the southern portion of Cell 1 and commenced operation in March of

2001. The system is a multilevel leachate recirculation network with each level

comprised of horizontal infiltration trenches constructed within the refuse to provide

equitable leachate distribution for the purpose of enhancing waste biodegradation. A

gas management system has also been installed with the leachate delivery network for

the purpose of extracting and combusting landfill gas generated from the facility.

The current delivery system network configuration consists of three levels of drip

irrigation laterals that distribute leachate through sand filled trench reservoirs

constructed into the waste. The spacing between the levels is about 10 meters. Each

level is made up of approximately 16 trenches with an average of 2,408 emitters per

level.

The Cell 1 Bio-Reactor was not in operation for 2008.

7 . 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l M o n i t o r i n g o f L e a c h a t e L a n d T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m s

As required by the Ministry of the Environment, a detailed environmental monitoring and

data collection program was conducted for the LLTS, West Cell and Cell 1 Land

Treatment and Recirculation Systems for 2007 and 2008. In summary, ground water

quality showed no detectable effects from the operation of the leachate land treatment

areas. The results of the monitoring carried out by Jagger Hims Environmental

Consulting Engineers for 2007 and 2008 were as follows:

• During 2007, 2,891.79 m3 of leachate was re-circulated within the waste.

In addition, almost 8,577.14 m3 of leachate was disposed on the land



application areas for the West Cell (LTRS) and Cell 1 (C1-LTS). The Land

Treatment System (LTS) for the area south of the West Cell was not

operated in 2007.

• Leachate levels within the waste were not affected by leachate

recirculation or land application. Therefore, operation of the land

treatment areas does not generate additional leachate.

• Operation of the Leachate Management Program (LMP) in 2007 did not

affect groundwater quality at the landfill site property boundary.

• Surface water quality was also not affected by operation of the LMP in

2007.

• Soil chemical results continued to show variable heavy metal

concentrations with depth. One exception in 2007 was within the LTS

south of the West Cell where heavy metal concentrations may naturally

be greater with depth as a result of soil weathering. Shallow (0.15 in

depth) soil quality typically showed the greatest effect from chloride,

boron, and SAR, but concentrations decreased with depth based on test

results at 0.6 m, 0.9 m, and 1.25 m below grade.

• Soil quality within the LTS south of the West Cell varied between 2006

and 2007, with no consistent decrease in concentrations that could be

attributed to no leachate application in 2007.

• Soil quality typically satisfied the target guidelines established to maintain

a suitable growing media. Therefore, leachate land application should

continue in 2008.

• The instrumentation used to sample the shallow soil pore water within

the LTS and Environmental Control Area was determined to be in poor

condition in the spring of 2007. The instrumentation units were cleaned

and retrofitted to be pore water lysimeters. Despite several attempts to



collect pore water samples each month from July to November 2007, the

retrofitted lysimeters continued to collect insufficient sample volume for

submission for laboratory analysis for any of the required parameters.

Therefore, no pore water samples from either the LTS or the

Environmental Control Area were collected during 2007. To increase the

potential to collect sufficient shallow soil pore water samples, it is

recommended that each of the retrofitted lysimeters be assessed each

month during irrigation for acceptable negative pressure to extract pore

water.

• If it is determined that shallow soil pore water cannot be obtained during

one season of land application, the pore water assessment program

should be deactivated. Continued testing of the soil quality per Section

3.5 will allow for an ongoing assessment if the treatment capacity of the

LTS has been exhausted.

• Vegetation monitoring indicated that no leachate application resulted in a

reduction in biomass and some constituent concentrations within the

grass tissue for the spray irrigation area of the LTS. However, within the

subsurface trickle area of the LTS, biomass and constituent

concentrations continued to be elevated. It is interpreted that the

subsurface trickle area continued to benefit from nutrients within the

subsurface, whereas the vegetation in the spray area obtained most

water from the dilute precipitation.

• Combustible gas continued to be generated from the waste within the

West Cell.

The following conclusions are based on the results of the 2008 Monitoring Program for

the Leachate Monitoring Program (LPM) at the Regional Landfill:

• During 2008, 933.65 m3 of leachate was re-circulated within the waste.

In addition, almost 8,746.67 m3 of leachate was disposed on the land



application areas for the Land Treatment System (LTS) located south of

the West Cell, the West Cell (LTRS), and on Cell 1 (C1-LTS).

• Leachate levels within the waste were not affected by leachate

recirculation or land application. Therefore, operation of the land

treatment areas does not generate additional leachate.

• Operation of the Leachate Management Program (LMP) in 2008 did not

affect groundwater quality at the landfill site property boundary.

• Surface water quality was also not affected by operation of the LMP in

2008.

• Soil chemical results continued to show variable heavy metal

concentrations with depth. One exception in 2008 was within the LTS

south of the West Cell where heavy metal concentrations may naturally

be greater with depth as a result of soil weathering. Shallow (0.15 in

depth) soil quality typically showed the greatest effect from chloride,

boron, and SAR, but concentrations generally decreased with depth

based on test results at 0.6 m, 0.9 m, and 1.25 m below grade.

• Soil quality within the LTS south of the West Cell varied between 2007

and 2008, with no consistent increase in concentrations in the shallow

soil (15 cm depth) that could be attributed to the leachate application in

2008. However, quality at greater depths (60 cm and 125 cm) generally

showed an increase in heavy metal concentrations from 2007 and 2008.

• Soil quality typically satisfied the target guidelines established to maintain

a suitable growing media. Therefore, leachate land application should

continue in 2009.

• Despite several attempts to collect pore water samples each month from

July to November 2008, the retrofitted lysimeters continued to collect

insufficient sample volume for submission for laboratory analysis of the



required parameters. Therefore, no pore water samples from either the

LTS or the Environmental Control Area were collected during 2008. It is

recommended that the pore water assessment program be deactivated.

• Vegetation monitoring indicated that metal concentrations in vegetation

in the spray and subsurface trickle area increased slightly compared to

the 2007 concentrations, with a few exceptions. This increase may be

attributed to the irrigation of leachate in 2008 after no leachate irrigation

in 2007.

• No notable canary grass in areas sampled.

• Combustible gas continued to be generated from the waste within the

West Cell.

It is recommended that the LMP continue to be operated in 2009 and that the 2009

Monitoring Program is implemented. In addition, regular maintenance of the land

application areas of the LMP is recommended, and should include 1) regular cutting, 2)

enhancement of reed canary grass, and 3) removal of invasive species.

8 MONITORING PROGRAMS

The CA requires that a number of additional monitoring programs be carried out at the

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill. These include monitoring of the ground and surface

water, precipitation, gas and woodlot monitoring. In September of 2003 Provisional

Certificate of Approval A011101 was amended to reflect the recommended monitoring

changes submitted by Jagger Hims Limited, for the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill in

their annual monitoring reports dated 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002.

The most significant changes were that Condition 18.1 (Monthly Operations Reports)

was amended from monthly to annual submissions and further, Condition 18.2 (Annual

Monitoring Reports) was amended from annual to biennial submissions. This meant that

only an Annual Operations Report and Biennial Monitoring Report would now be

required.



Each of the programs carried out in 2007 and 2008 is described in more detail in the

following sections.

8 . 1 S u r f a c e W a t e r a n d S e d i m e n t M o n i t o r i n g

The 2007 and 2008 surface water and sediment sampling programs consisted of the

following:

• Collection of samples from 5 surface water monitoring

locations (SW2, SW3, SW8, SW9 & SW12) was taken following

a “precipitation” event. A precipitation event is when 30 mm

or more of precipitation is received within a contiguous 24

hour period.

• Collection of sediment samples from 5 surface water

monitoring locations (SW2, SW3, SW8, SW9 & SW12) once

per year.

Also, monthly monitoring of surface water quality for field parameters within the West

Storm Water Management Pond was completed through 2007 and 2008 except for

January & February for both years when frozen conditions were observed. Field

parameters include conductivity, pH, temperature and turbidity, and are summarized in

Table E-3, Appendix E of the 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring Program prepared by

Jagger-Hims Ltd. The following is a discussion of the results from the report.

Four precipitation events occurred in 2007 and two in 2008. Precipitation event

surface water sampling was carried out on January 6, August 8, September 10 and

November 22, 2007 as well as on January 9 and July 3, 2008. Collection of water

samples was attempted for field and laboratory analysis within 24-hours of

achieving 30 mm of each precipitation event. However, insufficient water was

available for sample collection after select precipitation events at select monitoring

stations, which are identified as follows:



Precipitation Event Dry Monitoring Stations

January 6, 2007 None

August 8, 2007 SW2, SW3, SW8, SW9 & SW12

September 10, 2007 SW2, SW3, SW8, SW9 & SW12

November 22, 2007 SW8, SW9

January 9, 2008 None

July 3, 2008 None

There are two (2) flow routes for the site; one is along the County Road 18 drainage

ditch south of the landfill, while the other is along the White Drain to the north of the

landfill. Surface water flow within the two flow routes is precipitation dependent.

Typically, the flow rate increases in a downstream direction from the headwaters of the

watercourses. This increase in flow rate along each watercourse is attributed to

overland flow from agricultural fields and roads, field tile drainage, and surface water

runoff.

Within the County Road 18 drainage ditch, the 2007 and 2008 chemical

concentrations for downstream station SW2 were generally similar to or slightly

greater than chemical concentrations for upstream station SW9. One notable

exception is for the July 2008 sampling event when upstream water quality at

station SW9 typically showed higher concentrations than the downstream station

SW2. General chemical concentrations in the White Drain in 2007 and 2008 were

generally slightly lower downstream of the landfill (SW3) than chemical

concentrations at upstream station SW8, including elevated chloride concentrations

as a result of road salting at SW8. However, heavy metal concentrations typically

increased from SW8 to SW3.

The surface watercourse sediment sampling event was completed during the spring

of 2007 and the spring 2008. Sediment samples were obtained from surface water

stations SW2, SW3, SW8, SW9 and SW12. Partial sediment samples were collected on

March 19, April 17, and May 9, 2007 and combined to create a sample for laboratory

submission. However, the sediment sample from SW3 could not be analyzed due to

insufficient sample volume. In the spring of 2007 a larger sediment trap was installed at

SW3 and a sediment sample was collected on June 12, 2007. However, there was



insufficient sample volume for the analysis of boron. An additional sediment sample was

collected from SW3 on December 19, 2007 for boron analysis. Sufficient sediment

quantities were collected during the spring on May 15, 2008.

In 2007 and 2008 sediment chemical concentrations were generally within or

slightly greater than the historic concentration ranges at stations upstream of the

landfill (SW8 and SW9) and at the downstream stations (SW2 & SW3). Similarly,

chemical concentrations at station SW12 were generally within or greater than the

historic range.

In summary, the Sediment Standards are typically exceeded for chromium, copper,

iron and nickel at the upstream and downstream monitoring stations. Occasional

exceedances also occurred for cadmium, manganese, and zinc at upstream and

downstream stations. No chemicals were detected at concentrations greater than

the severe effect level. The sediment quality data indicate that the sediment

chemical concentrations were the result of natural sediment loading of the surface

water courses and were not affected by landfill leachate.

8 . 2 G r o u n d W a t e r M o n i t o r i n g

All routine ground water monitoring in 2007 and 2008 was carried out by Jagger Hims

Limited and consisted of the following activities:

• Measurement of ground water levels at 85 monitoring

locations.

• Collection of samples twice per year from 25 ground water

monitors in the Shallow Ground Water System and 5

ground water monitors in the Upper Sand Ground Water

System.

• Annual ground water monitoring from 21 monitors in the

Middle Aquitard, 10 in the Lower Sand Ground Water

System, 3 in the lower Aquitard, 24 from the Upper

Aquitard and 8 from the Bedrock Aquifer.



The parameter selection for the monitoring events included both organic and inorganic

parameters. Jagger Hims Limited collected the samples and prepared a separate interim

monitoring report for each of the monitoring events. The results are available in the

Biennial Monitoring Report 2007/2008 (under separate cover) but are discussed herein

as follows.

The spring sampling events were completed from April 8 to April 25, 2007 and from April

11 to May 3, 2008. The fall sampling events were conducted from October 2 to October

6, 2007 and from October 6 to October 10, 2008.

The shallow flow system consists of the waste and the brown zone of the clayey silt to

silty clay unit. As assessment of the leachate component, which represents the chemical

source, is provided in Section 4.2.1 of the 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring Report.

In general, the groundwater elevations fluctuated with weather conditions. Most of the

fluctuations showed higher elevations in the spring and early summer, likely due to the

greater amounts of precipitation received at the landfill at this time. However, Monitors

9-III, 21S-III, and 58-IV also showed general long-term increasing trends.

The lateral groundwater flow direction is in a southerly to southwesterly direction.

Anthropogenic features such as the deep ditches, the perimeter soil berms, the landfill

leachate collector systems, and the waste underdrains of Cell 1 and Cell 2 cause some

variation in the flow direction. The deep ditches may act as discharge boundaries in the

dry months and may represent recharge boundaries during the wetter months or

prolonged periods of precipitation, depending on the elevation of the surrounding

groundwater table. The leachate collector systems induce the movement of the

groundwater toward the waste, although an effect on natural water table fluctuations or

elevations was not apparent within 10 m to 20 m of Cells 1 and 2. This inward

groundwater movement results in the hydraulic containment of leachate within the

waste of Cells 1 and 2.

Three leachate springs were detected at the site during 2007, and one spring was

detected in 2008. Two leachate stains were also detected on Cell 1 during 2008. The



springs and stains were detected in Cell 1 and were over-excavated and backfilled with

clean gravel to reestablish connectivity and completed with a re-compacted clayey soil

cap. The leachate collector system was operated under normal operating conditions

during 2007 and 2008. It is noted that there was no detected landfill leachate effects on

the surface water or groundwater as a result of these minor leachate springs and stains.

Shallow Flow System

The shallow flow system consists of the waste and the brown zone of the clayey silt to

silty clay unit. As assessment of the leachate component, which represents the chemical

source, is provided in Section 4.2.1 of the 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring Report.

In general, the groundwater elevations fluctuated with weather conditions. Most of

the fluctuations showed higher elevations in the spring and early summer, likely

due to the greater amounts of precipitation received at the landfill at this time.

However, Monitors 9-III, 21S-III, 22-III, 31-II, and 58-IV also showed general

long-term increasing trends.

The lateral groundwater flow direction is in a southerly to southwesterly direction.

Anthropogenic features such as the deep ditches, the perimeter soil berms, the

landfill leachate collector systems, and the waste underdrains of Cell 1 and Cell 2

cause some variation in the flow direction. The deep ditches may act as discharge

boundaries in the dry months and may represent recharge boundaries during the

wetter months or prolonged periods of precipitation, depending on the elevation of

the surrounding groundwater table. The leachate collector systems induce the

movement of the groundwater toward the waste, although an effect on natural

water table fluctuations or elevations was not apparent within 10 m to 20 m of

Cells 1 and 2. This inward groundwater movement results in the hydraulic

containment of leachate within the waste of Cells 1 and 2.

With respect to groundwater quality, the chemical results at the reference monitor

locations indicate naturally poor quality. Sulphate and sodium concentrations

typically exceeded the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (2006) (ODWQSs).

These parameters are related to the aesthetic quality of groundwater. Occasionally



alkalinity exceeded the ODWQSs for select monitors. Only boron exceeded the

health-related objective at background Monitor 25-V in 2007 and 2008. As

discussed, boron concentrations have been elevated at Monitor 25-V since before

the Regional Landfill was approved.

Concentrations of indicator parameters and annual average concentrations

continued to show chemical variability with time, and relative to adjacent monitors.

This variability is consistent with the shallow flow system groundwater quality

characteristics identified in the hydrogeologic assessment report for the landfill.

Chemical trends were generally not indicative of groundwater quality degradation

as a result of the waste or the land treatment systems. Chloride concentration

changes of note occurred at Monitors 8-III, 18-III, 58-IV, 59-III, and 108-III.

The increasing chloride concentrations at Monitors 8-III and 18-III are not

attributed to landfill leachate owing to the direction of groundwater movement and

the distance of the two monitoring wells from landfill waste. The chloride

concentration increase at Monitor 18-III may be a result of road salting effects

near Ferris Road, but the source of chloride effects at Monitor 8-III required

further investigation.

At Monitor 58-IV, long-term concentration changes continue to suggest an

influence from the landfill. However, chloride concentrations continued to decrease

for chloride through 2007 and 2008. This decreasing concentration trend at

Monitor 58-IV is likely a result of the ditch base improvements made by the Waste

Authority in July 2001 to reduce surface water leakage into the collector system

around the northern portion of Cell 1.

At Monitor 59-III chloride concentrations have been fluctuating and increasing

since 2000 which could suggest a possible landfill effect on groundwater at this

location.

Decreasing chloride concentrations at Monitor 108-IV may be a result of the slow

response of the monitoring well to natural groundwater quality changes.



Monitor 60-III continued to be dry in 2007 and 2008, which is consistent with

monitoring results obtained since 2003. As recommended in 2005/2006, a deeper

monitoring well (Monitor 5-II) was monitored to evaluate potential landfill effects in

the vicinity of Monitor Location 60A. Chemical results for Monitor 5-II indicate no

landfill leachate effects.

Most chemical concentrations complied with Guideline B-7 criteria, except for a few

parameters at select locations upgradient and downgradient of the existing waste.

The exceedances, however, were generally in the range of the reference

(background) concentrations. Thus, it is concluded that the chemical

concentrations that exceeded Guideline B-7 criteria were not a result of the landfill

leachate. As noted previously, one possible exception continued to occur at

Monitor 58-IV. However, groundwater quality is improving as a result of collector

system modifications. Interpretation of the chemical results by assessing

concentrations trends with time, mean concentration trends with time,

concentration spatial distribution, and chemical proportions (Piper Plots)

substantiate this conclusion.

The elevated boron concentration and Guideline B-7 criteria exceedance for boron

at Monitor 25-V is not landfill leachate related as this monitor is upgradient and

distantly removed from the landfill waste. The chemical results reflect the naturally

poor groundwater quality in the area.

Upper Aquitard

The upper aquitard is comprised of the grey zone of the upper clayey silt to silty

clay stratigraphic unit. Groundwater flow within the upper aquitard is dominantly

vertical in a downward direction. The downward hydraulic gradients are

accentuated below the West Cell and the northern portion of Cell 1 by the leachate

mounding. It is noted, however, that upward hydraulic gradients occurred in the

vicinity of the perimeter leachate collector system of Cell 1. Based on low leachate

levels in the southern portion of Cell 1 and within Cell 2, upward groundwater

movement into the landfill below the two cells is inferred. There continued to be a



southwesterly slope to the potentiometric surface, which reflects the shallow

groundwater flow direction.

The groundwater elevation trend within the upper aquitard was similar to the

elevation trend within the shallow groundwater flow system. Generally,

groundwater elevations showed seasonal fluctuations with higher elevations

following periods of greater amounts of precipitation, which occurred during the

spring and early summer. Exceptions occurred for Monitor 28-IV which showed

decreasing elevations, while elevations at Monitors 58-II and 58-III showed

increasing elevations. Also, as of 1999 groundwater elevations at Monitor 41-1

showed a constant elevation trend.

The water quality at the reference locations in the upper aquitard is naturally poor.

Sulphate and sodium typically exceeded the ODWQSs at several monitoring

locations. These parameters are related to the aesthetic quality of water. No

health related parameters were exceeded.

Based on concentration trends for the indicator parameters and annual

concentration averages, the upper aquitard water quality is generally consistent

with historic results. Chemical variations and differences can be attributed to

natural soil quality and groundwater quality differences. In general, chemical

concentrations fluctuated or remained constant in the long–term. A decrease in

chloride concentrations was observed for Monitor 25-IV since 1995.

One concentration trend of note is elevated boron concentrations at Monitor 23-II

since 2004. Based on the distance of the monitoring well from landfill waste, the

direction of groundwater movement, and acceptable chloride concentrations, the

elevated boron concentrations are not related to landfill leachate. The boron

concentrations may be related to a compromised monitoring well seal. A detailed

assessment of the monitor well should be completed in 2009.

Water quality at Monitor 41-I, which is developed below the waste of the West Cell,

showed elevated chloride concentrations in 2001 and 2002 relative to historic



results. Since 2003, chemical concentrations have remained within the historical

range, which indicates that there is no landfill effect on groundwater quality

immediately below the waste of the West Cell.

Guideline B-7 calculations indicate that groundwater quality at monitors located

upgradient, downgradient, and laterally removed from the landfill waste continued

to satisfy the regulatory criteria, except for select parameters which showed

naturally elevated concentrations.

Upper Sand Groundwater System

The upper sand groundwater system consists of the upper sand stratigraphic unit

and the sand or silt layers or lenses within the upper 2 m of the silt till unit. The

upper sand groundwater system is discontinuous below the landfill and was not

detected below Cell 1 or Cell 2 during construction. The lateral groundwater flow

is interpreted to be in a southerly to southwesterly direction. Vertical groundwater

movement is in a downward direction, but the rate of movement is limited by the

underlying middle aquitard.

The groundwater elevations for monitors developed in the upper sand groundwater

system generally showed seasonal fluctuations. These seasonal fluctuations also

showed an overall decreasing trend since 1991 at most monitoring wells.

With respect to groundwater quality, the chemical results at the reference monitors

indicated naturally poor water quality. Similar to overlying units, only the aesthetic

parameter sulphate exceeded the ODWQSs at the monitoring locations. No health

related parameters were exceeded.

Over the long-term, parameter concentrations were generally constant with time,

with some fluctuations. Guideline B-7 criteria were satisfied, except for select

naturally elevated concentrations upgradient and downgradient of the existing

landfill. There was no landfill leachate effect on the groundwater quality.



Middle Aquitard

The middle aquitard consists of the silt till. As noted for the upper aquitard,

groundwater flow through the middle aquitard is dominantly downward.

Groundwater elevations at most monitors showed seasonal fluctuations.

It is noted that at Monitors 9-I, 11-III, and 54-I some of the groundwater levels for

2007/2008 were anomalous. This could indicate that the integrity of the surface

seal of the three monitoring wells may be compromised and should be assessed in

2009.

The groundwater quality for the middle aquitard is naturally poor, based on the

reference monitors. Sulphate concentrations exceeded the ODWQSs at several

monitoring locations. Also, an exceedance of pH was noted for Monitor 61-I and

an exceedance of sodium for Monitor 11-III.

The concentration for most parameters at background locations, on-site, and

downgradient of the landfill continued to show generally constant trends in the

long-term, with some fluctuating concentrations. Concentrations comply with

Guideline B-7 criteria, except for naturally elevated aesthetic related parameter

concentrations of select chemicals. A landfill leachate effect on groundwater

quality was not detected.

It is also noted that anomalous concentration patterns continued to be evident at

Monitors 9-I and 24-I. It is recommended that both monitoring wells be

reassessed in detail in 2009.

Lower Sand Groundwater System

The lower sand groundwater system is associated with the discontinuous lower

sand hydrostratigraphic unit. Groundwater movement is interpreted to be

dominantly lateral in a southerly direction. Groundwater elevations generally

fluctuated with seasonal trends. Increasing trends were also noted at Monitors 10-

II, 16-II, 20-I, and 108-II since 2000.



Groundwater chemical results indicated naturally fair water quality with occasional

chemical concentrations that exceeded the ODWQSs. The only health-related

parameter that exceeded the ODWQS was boron at Monitor 107-II, which is greater

than 500 m from landfill waste.

Concentrations were generally constant or fluctuating over the long-term, with the

exception of a decreasing trend in chloride concentrations at Monitor 107-II since

2001. Also, fluctuating and decreasing boron concentrations within Monitors 10-II

and 28-III were noted. Most chemical concentrations within the lower sand

groundwater system comply with the Guideline B-7 criteria, except for occasional

naturally elevated concentrations. There is no landfill leachate affect on the

groundwater quality.

Lower Aquitard

The lower aquitard consists of the interbedded unit underlying the lower sand

groundwater system. The groundwater flow direction in the lower aquitard is

dominantly vertical. Over the long-term, seasonal fluctuations in groundwater

elevations were apparent. These seasonal fluctuations also showed an overall

increasing trend since 2000.

Based on patterns established in the overlying units, it is assumed that

potentiometric pressures in the lower aquitard slope in a southwesterly direction.

The groundwater quality in the lower aquitard generally satisfied in the ODWQSs

with the exception of sulphate at Monitor 11-I. Sulphate affects only the aesthetic

quality of groundwater.

Long-term concentration trends are observed to be fluctuating. The parameter

concentrations comply with the Guideline B-7 criteria. A landfill leachate effect was

not detected.

Bedrock Aquifer

The bedrock aquifer groundwater system, which consists of the fractured and

broken portion of the bedrock, averages about 2 m in thickness. Groundwater



movement within the bedrock aquifer is dominantly lateral in a westerly to

southwesterly direction.

Groundwater potentiometric elevations fluctuated and increased since 1999, except

for Monitors 28-I and 107-I where groundwater pressures were not increasing.

Since 2004 the average elevations have been greater than historic elevations and

reflect the natural repressurization of the bedrock aquifer. The repressurization is

a result of the reduced use by domestic wells in the bedrock aquifer in the area.

Similar bedrock aquifer repressurization has been noted elsewhere in southwestern

Ontario. Based on the 2008 average elevations, bedrock aquifer potentiometric

pressures suggest that a downward hydraulic gradient will occur. However, below

Cells 1 and 2 the low leachate levels in the cells will induce upward groundwater

pressures that will hydraulically contain leachate within the landfill waste.

Groundwater chemical results for the bedrock aquifer indicated that the health

related parameter barium at Monitor 108-I is the only parameter which exceeded

the ODWQS. Monitor 108-I is a background monitor, therefore the exceedance is

not landfill leachate related.

Over the long-term, the parameter concentrations were mostly fluctuating with

constant concentrations noted at select monitors. The bedrock aquifer

groundwater quality complied with Guideline B-7 criteria. A landfill leachate effect

on groundwater quality was not detected.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007-2008

The following conclusions are based on the results of the 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring

Program.

The following conclusions were submitted for consideration:

• Existing lateral shallow groundwater movement is regionally in a

southwesterly direction within the upper 2 m to 4 m of the soil, but is locally

influenced by existing features such as the leachate collector systems, the

waste underdrains in Cells 1 and 2, field tiles, ditches, perimeter soil berms,



and landfill construction activities. Lateral groundwater flow in the

underlying upper and lower sand groundwater systems is dominantly

southerly. Within the upper and middle aquitards, long-term groundwater

elevation trends vary. Most long-term elevation trends within the lower

aquitard have been increasing since 2000. Within the bedrock aquifer,

groundwater flow is westerly to southwesterly. The hydraulic gradients

around the waste footprint continue to be predominantly downward within

the aquitards.

• Observed leachate levels in Cells 1 and 2, and the local groundwater levels

and pressures indicate that leachate is hydraulically contained within the

waste in Cells 1 and 2. Within the old waste the leachate is mounded above

natural groundwater elevations, but lateral leachate movement is controlled

by the perimeter leachate collector systems.

• On-site leachate management procedures vary the amount of leachate stored

on-site from year to year, but leachate production rates were about 11 % of

total precipitation in 2007 (about 2.2 L/min/ha) and 13 % in 2008, (about 2.1

L/min/ha). The leachate volumes managed/disposed in 2007 and 2008 are

within the historic range of leachate managed/disposal volumes.

• The leachate chemical characteristics were typical of other municipal solid

waste landfills in southern Ontario. Leachate quality in Cells 1 and 2 shows

typically greater concentrations than detected in the West Cell, which reflects

the leaching of the recent waste.

• Leachate constituents from the waste are migrating laterally and vertically.

Lateral migration is controlled by the perimeter leachate collector system and

naturally attenuated by the local soils. Downward leachate movement

continues to be within 2 m of the soil/waste interface based on findings

below the West Cell. Groundwater quality in the underlying

hydrostratigraphic units is not adversely affected by the landfill leachate.



• Operation of the leachate land application systems had no detectable effect

on the groundwater or surface water quality.

• The shallow groundwater quality at Monitors 8-III and 18-III showed

increasing chloride concentrations. However, owing to the groundwater flow

direction toward the landfill waste in the area of the two monitoring wells

and the distance of the monitoring wells from the waste, the changing

chloride concentrations are not a result of landfill leachate effects. Chloride

concentrations at Monitor 18-III are likely a result of road salting on Ferris

Road, whereas the source of the increasing chloride concentrations at

Monitor 8-III requires further investigation.

• Shallow groundwater quality at Monitor 58-IV continues to be degraded

relative to historic conditions. However, chloride concentrations continued to

decrease as a result of the 2001 modifications to the adjacent landfill ditch

and leachate collector system backfill.

• At Monitor 59-III, long-term concentrations of chloride have been increasing

since 2000, which suggests a possible a landfill effect on groundwater quality

at this location, however, boron concentrations are not increasing. An

assessment of the increasing chloride concentrations at 59-III is

recommended.

• Groundwater quality within the overburden and bedrock continues to reflect

naturally poor quality and variability, with some parameter concentrations

naturally exceeding the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (2006).

Concentrations of these parameters tend to decrease with depth.

• Surface water quality within the County Road 18 drainage ditch and within

the White Drain was influenced from natural surface water runoff and

overland flow from County Road 18 and the surrounding land use. A landfill

leachate effect on the surface water quality was not detected.



• Sediment quality is generally related to the amount and origin of sediment

loading from surface water runoff. A landfill leachate effect on the sediment

quality was not detected in 2007 and 2008.

• Combustible gas was detected within the waste of Cell 1 and the West Cell at

least once during 2007 and 2008. Combustible gas was also detected within

the surrounding shallow native soil at low concentrations during January

2007. There was no potential explosive hazard for residences or structures

in the area related to landfill gas during the monitoring period.

• The 2007/2008 Monitoring Program findings were consistent with

hydrogeologic interpretations presented in the hydrogeologic assessment

report for the landfill (October 1993). No remedial measures are

recommended at this time based on the 2007/2008 monitoring results.

The following recommendations were submitted for consideration:

• Implement the 2009/2010 Monitoring Program as outlined in Section 5.0 of

the 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring Report.

• Evaluate the condition of Monitors 9-I, 11-III, 23-II, and 24-I, in 2009

and the rehabilitated or replaced monitoring wells, as required.

• Investigate the potential source of increasing chloride concentrations at

Monitor 8-III and 59-II.

8 . 3 W e a t h e r M o n i t o r i n g

A complete weather station is located at the Regional Landfill. It collects wind speed

and direction, temperature and precipitation measurements. The wind information is

used to direct litter control operations and to assist in investigating odour complaints.

The information obtained through precipitation measuring is used to facilitate the

surface water sampling program carried out at the Site, and to calculate the appropriate

application rate for the leachate land application/recirculation systems.



The total amount of precipitation received at the Landfill in 2007 was 764.1 mm. The

total amount received in 2008 was 897.8; this is an increase of 17.5% compared to

2007. The monthly precipitation rates are shown in Table 15 and Figure 1.

TABLE 15: PRECIPITATION 2007-2008

2007

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

110.2 11 68.7 87 25 40.4 26.6 169.3 72.2 43.4 44.2 66.1 764.1 mm

2008

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

67.6 77.1 62.7 21.3 43.8 153.9 104.7 15.2 146.5 29.5 84.5 91 897.8 mm

FIGURE 1: PRECIPITATION MONITORING 2007-2008 COMPARISON

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

2007 - 764.1 mm 2008 - 897.8 mm

8 . 4 L e a c h a t e L e v e l M o n i t o r i n g

Monthly leachate level monitoring was conducted throughout the year on all

maintenance holes and the pump stations on the perimeter leachate collector system



and all refuse monitors. The leachate collector system is typically operated with either

off-site leachate haulage or on-site land treatment/recirculation to maintain gravity

drainage of the collector system. Leachate elevations within the perimeter collector

system are typically maintained below the surrounding shallow groundwater elevations

to maintain groundwater movement toward the Landfill. The leachate level monitoring

results for 2007 and 2008 indicated that in general the collector system was typically

operated as designed.

8 . 5 G a s M o n i t o r i n g

Results of the combustible gas monitoring indicated that combustible gas is present

within the old waste of Cell 1. The reported combustible gas measurements were

below or at, and possibly greater than, the lower explosive limit for methane.

Access to the area in proximity to monitors should continue to be restricted to

adequately-trained site personnel. Additionally, low concentrations of combustible

gas was detected within the waste of the West Cell and around the waste footprint

in Monitors 21S-II, 40, 42, 59-III, and 62-III during January 2007. Combustible

gas was not detected in February at these monitoring locations. Based on the

combustible gas results, there was no potential hazard for residences or structures

in the area as a result of landfill gas migration during the monitoring period.

Ionizable organic vapours were not detected greater than 1ppm. This pattern is

comparable to historic results with variable detectable concentrations with time.

8 . 6 O t h e r M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m s

Water level monitoring is carried out on all leachate monitors on-site and all ground

water monitors both on-site and off-site, on a quarterly basis. The measurements are

taken in conjunction with the leachate level monitoring program to aid in the

interpretation of the regional groundwater flow relative to fluctuations in the hydraulic

head.

8 . 7 W o o d l o t M o n i t o r i n g

Condition 16.2 of the Certificate of Approval requires that a woodlot monitoring program

be implemented for the on site Central and Eastern Woodlots. The monitoring program



was to be carried out for a minimum of three years, at which time the program was to

be evaluated and modified accordingly. To this end, Mr. Gerry Waldron, M.Sc.,

Consulting Ecologist, was awarded a three year contract to carry out the necessary

work.

The purpose of the woodlot monitoring program was to establish several permanent

sample plots and develop a database over a three year period in order to monitor the

long term health of the onsite woodlots.

Over the past 12 years, detailed monitoring of the central and eastern woodlots for the

Regional Landfill has been carried out a total of eight seasons. The studies completed

during September 1996 through September 1998, established benchmark conditions

prior to any landfill activities being carried out in the vicinity of the central woodlot. For

1999 trough 2002, detailed monitoring was discontinued since the woodlots had

remained virtually unchanged over the previous three monitoring seasons. Provided no

significant changes were made to the surrounding water table, surface or internal

drainage, previous monitoring indicated that the woodlots would continue to prosper.

In 2002, the northern portions of Cells 2 and 3 were developed as a waste cell and

borrow pit. As the excavation of these cells had the potential of affecting the drainage

pattern for the central woodlot, the woodlot monitoring program was re-established in

2003 and ended in October 2007. These subsequent monitoring reports concluded that

with the exception of tree mortality due to Dutch Elm Disease and the Emerald Ash

Borer, the health of the woodlots continued to remain virtually unchanged.

Based on these observations, the Consulting Ecologist, noted that as of September

2007, the landfill operations have not impacted the health of the two woodlots over the

past 12 years and further, there was no reason to believe that the development of the

landfill would have any adverse impacts on the woodlots as long as landfilling activities

were confined to the waste footprint and not the buffer zones located south and west of

these woodlots. Mr. Waldron went on to conclude that provided the buffer lands remain

undisturbed, there was no need to carry out any additional monitoring of the central and

eastern woodlots of the Regional Landfill Site.




In November 2008, the Landfill Liaison Committee approved a staff recommendation

that the formal woodlot monitoring program for the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill be

concluded and further, that the woodlots be visually examined on an annual basis and if

unjustifiable stress and decline of the woodlot trees is observed, then the monitoring

program be reestablished.

8 . 8 A q u a t i c B i o l o g y M o n i t o r i n g

Condition 16.4 of the Certificate of Approval, requires that an Aquatic Biology Monitoring

program be implemented for the on-site storm water management pond. The original

intention of the monitoring program was to establish representative background

conditions prior to the discharge of treated leachate and to monitor any impact from the

operation of a leachate treatment facility following its establishment. To date, seven

years of background conditions have been documented.

In February 2004, the Landfill Liaison Committee approved the staff recommendation

that the monitoring program be discontinued until either an onsite leachate treatment

facility is constructed and discharges treated leachate to the stormwater management

pond or the monthly pond chemistry results indicate the pond is being adversely

affected as a result of landfill operations.

Ralph C. Reiser, Todd R. Pepper MANAGER, WASTE DISPOSAL GENERAL MANAGER

Report prepared by: Margaret Shires Administrative Assistant

APPENDIX A

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring Report

Jagger Hims Limited

(under separate cover)

APPENDIX B

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site Plan

(modified to fit report page size)

APPENDIX C

Ministry of the Environment Site Inspection Reports

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill 2007-2008 Biennial Operations Report: Appendix C













APPENDIX D

Analysis Results of Ontario Regulation 558 Schedule IV

Inorganics and PCBs Analysis Reports

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill: 2007-2008 Biennial Operations Report Appendix D













APPENDIX A

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site 2007/2008 Biennial Monitoring Report

Jagger Hims Limited

(under separate cover)

APPENDIX B

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site Plan

(modified to fit report page size)

APPENDIX C

Ministry of the Environment Site Inspection Reports














APPENDIX D

Analysis Results of Ontario Regulation 558 Schedule IV

Inorganics and PCBs Analysis Reports














Documents

Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site · Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site. ... 1.1 Certificate of Approval.....1 1.2 Purpose