Draft for Discussion - Grey Highlands

Draft for Discussion

Municipality of Grey Highlands Closed Landfill Study Eugenia Site

Prepared for Municipality of Grey Highlands

Submitted by Gartner Lee Limited

October, 2007

Gar tner Lee

Draft for Discussion

Municipality of Grey Highlands Closed Landfill Study Eugenia Site

Prepared for

Municipality of Grey Highlands

Reference: GLL 60-474

Distribution:

2 Municipality of Grey Highlands 1 Gartner Lee Limited

Gar tner Lee

Gartner Lee L imi ted

October 15, 2007

Mr. Geoff Aitken Public Works Manager 206 Toronto St. S. Unit 1, P.O. Box 409 Markdale, ON NOC 'I HO

d r a f t f o r d i s c u s s i o n

Dear Mr. Aitken:

Re: 60-474 - Municipality of Grey Highlands Closed Landfill Study - Eugenia Site

We are pleased to provide you with the enclosed draft report summarizing the results of the Eugenia closed landfill study.

Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly, GARTNER LEE LIMITED

Glenn W. Reynolds, M.Sc., P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist Director

GWR:pc Attach.

300Town Cent1.e Bo~~levarcl. Suite 300, ivlarkham. 0ntat.io. L3R 526 tel 905.477.8d00 fax 905.477.1456

www.gartnerlee.com

Gartner bee L imi ted

October 15. 2007

Mr. Geoff Aitken Public Works Manager 206 Toronto St. S. Unit 1, P.O. Box 409 Markdale, ON NOC 1 HO


Dear Mr. Aitken:

Re: 60-474 - Issuance of Draft Reports

A DRAFT is a rough copy of a report. The intent in issuing it is to allow other knowledgeable people associated with the project an opportunity to review the style and content prior to final issuance.

Since the FINAL report may differ from the draft, we think it is only prudent to collect all of the DRAFT reports prior to issuance of the FINAL report.

We would appreciate it if you would see that all copies of the DRAFT are returned to us and then we will issue our FINAL report.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours very truly, GARTNER LEE LIMITED

E. Grant Anderson, P.Eng. President

EGA:pc Attach.

300Town Centr-e Boule?iarcl, Suite 300. Mal.kliam, Ontat-lo. L3R 526 tel 905.477.8400 fax 93.5.1177.1456

www,gartnerlee.coni

Table of Contents d r a f t f o r d i s c u s s i o n

Letter of Transmittal

Page

Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1 . 1 Background .................................................................................................... 1

..................................................................... 1.2 Purpose. Scope and Limitations 1 ........................................................................................... . 1 2.1 Purpose and Scope 1

. ......................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Limitations 1 ................................................................................................... . 1 3 Methodology 2

....................................................... 1 . 3.1 Borehole Drilling and Test Pitting Program 2 .......................... 1.3.2 Well Development and In situ Hydraulic Conductivity Testing 2

................................ 1 . 3.3 Groundwater Sampling and Combustible Gas Monitoring 3 ................................................................................... . 1 3.4 Surface Water Sampling 3

Results .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site Setting. History and Condition ................................................................. 4

2.1 . 1 Site Setting ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1 . 2 Site History ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1 . 3 Site Condition .................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 Site Geology ...................................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity ...................................................................... 5

2.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 6 ............................................................................ 2.3.1 Groundwater Flow Directions 6

2.3.2 Groundwater Quality Results ............................................................................ 7

2.4 Surface Water ................................................................................................. 9

2.4.1 Surface Water Features .................................................................................... 9

............................................................................ 2.4.2 Surface Wter Quality Results 9 2.5 Combustible Gas Monitoring ......................................................................... 10

3 . Environmental Impact Assessment ......................................................... 11

.................................................................... 3.1 Corr~parison With Guideline B-7 '1 1 3.2 Water Supply Wells ..................................................................................... 13

............................................................................................... 4 . Conclusions 13

..................................................................................... 5 . Recommendations 14

6 . References .................................................................................................. 16

B] Gartner Lee

Munic/pa/i/i/y of Grey H/gh/ands C/osed LandM Study - Eugenh S/?e


1. Introduction

1 .I Background

On April 24,'2006 Gartner Lee Limited was authorized by The Municipality of Grey Highlands (Municipality) to conduct an environmental/hydrogeological investigation of the Eugenia closed landfill site located within the Municipality. This report provides the results of the investigation.

1.2 Purpose, Scope and Limitations

1.2.1 Purpose and Scope

The purpose and scope of the study as outlined in the work plan submitted by Gartner Lee Limited and approved by the Municipality is as follows:

a) Determine if the former landfills are causing impacts to the groundwater on- site, and to what extent.

b) Assess the potential impacts the landfills may have on existing development adjacent to the site as per the requirements of Guideline D-4 for closed sites (i.e., methane gas migration, surface water impacts, and groundwater contamination).

1.2.2 Limitations

At the time work was awarded to Gartner Lee Limited by the Municipality, it was agreed that due to cost, scheduling and access limitations, the subsurface investigation would be limited to on-site work only. Therefore, any interpretations made regarding off-site subsurface conditions are inferred from data collected on-site and may not be representative of actual conditions.

It should be noted that the elevations of the groundwater monitors were not surveyed. As a result, the calculated elevations of the water table across the site are only based on estimated ground elevations from Ontario Base Mapping, and the inferred groundwater flow direction based on these elevations may not be what is actually occurring. Surveying the monitor elevations was a deliverable to be provided by the Municipality, however, they opted not to undertake the surveying at this time.

B Gartner Lee

Munic/@a/ify of GfeyH/gh/ands Closed L andh7/ S M y - Eugenia S/?e


Hydraulic conductivity testing of the wells was performed on December 1, 2006 by inserting a solid slug of a known volume, allowing the water level to reach equilibrium and then the slug was removed and the water level recovery was monitored over time (i.e., rising head test). The tests were terminated when the cumulative recovery of each well reached approximately two-thirds of the difference between the static water level recorded prior to testing and the initial displacement. The slug testing data analyses are presented in Appendix D.

The collected data were analyzed with the software package Aqtesolv using the Bouwer-Rice method for unconfined aquifers.

1.3.3 Groundwater Sampling and Combustible Gas Monitoring

Groundwater sampling was conducted on July 5 (representing dry conditions) and November 30, 2006 (representing wet conditions). During each monitoring event groundwater levels were collected from each monitoring well. Each monitor was purged of three wellbore volumes of water prior to sampling in order to clean out the screened interval, and ensure that a fresh groundwater sample is collected for analyisis. After each well volume, field measurements of pH, conductivity, temperature, oxidation-reduction potential (redox), and dissolved oxygen (DO) were collected.

Disposable nitrile gloves were worn during sampling and replaced between monitoring activities at each of the monitors in order to ensure the integrity of the samples. Samples were packed in ice as they were collected and delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours of collection. The samples were analyzed by Maxxam' Analytics Inc., a CAEAL (Canadian Association of Environmental Analytical Laboratories) accredited laboratory, for their RCAp Comprehensive groundwater package including total dissolved solids, major cations and anions, metals, dissolved organic carbon, phenols, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand and organic nitrogen. The groundwater was field filtered for metals analysis.

Combustible gas monitoring was conducted on the same day as groundwater monitoring prior to sampling the wells. The gas in each well was measured by connecting a Gastech gas meter to the barbed fitting on each well cap, and allowing it to draw out the air in the monitor.

1.3.4 Surface Water Sampling

Surface water sampling was conducted on July 7 (representing dry conditions) and November 28, 2006 (representing wet conditions). Field measurements of pH, conductivity, temperature, redox, and DO were collected.

Samples were packed in ice as they were collected and delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours of collection. The samples were analyzed by Maxxam Analytics Inc., a CAEAL (Canadian Association of Environmental Analytical Laboratories) accredited laboratory, for their Surface Water

(lralOlY6M74/1~rpls-07) 3 Gartner Lee

Mun/c/;oa/ify of Grey H/gh/ands C/osed L andfi// S M y - Eugenlb S/?e

d r a f t f o r d iscuss ion

the test pit locations. The waste is primarily comprised of cans, glass, scrap metal, and bricks with minor amounts of wood, wrappers, plastic bags and cloth. The presence of ash and cinders mixed in with the waste suggests that much of the garbage had been burned prior to burial.

2.2 Subsurface Conditions

2.2.1 Regional Geology

The Eugenia closed landfill site is situated on the upper portion of the eastern flank of the Beaver Valley, the most prominent geologic feature in the vicinity of the study area. The valley was eroded into the Niagara Escarpment during the last interglacial period and extends from Flesherton north to Georgian Bay. The valley sides range from vertical bedrock bluffs to steep slopes that are mantled with a thin covering of dense glacial silt and sand till (Chapman and Putnam, 1984).

2.2.2 Site Geology

The site slopes towards the west following the profile of the Beaver Valley and has a 0.2-0.3 m thick layer of silty sand topsoil/cover at surface. A geologic cross-section of the site is presented in Figure 3. The subsurface soils consist of sand and gravel that ranges from 1.5 m in thickness at location E l -1 immediately upslope of the main waste area, to 4 m in thickness at location E3 immediately downslope of the waste area. Underlying the sand and gravel at these locations is a sand and silt till containing gravel and cobbles. At location E2 refuse was found to extend to a depth of 3 m. Below the waste is a 1 m thick layer of silty sand containing gravel and cobbles underlain by 0.6 m of fine sand. Below the fine sand is the same sand and silt till found at E l -1 and E3. Further downslope at location E4 in the northwest corner of the property the soil consists of fine sand underlain by sand and silt till.

2.2.3 Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity

The collected rising head test slug testing data were analyzed with the software package Aqtesolv using the Bouwer-Rice method for unconfined aquifers (Appendix D). The estimated hydraulic conductivity values are summarized in Table 1 below. Locations E2 and E4 were not tested due to insufficient water in the monitors.

Table 1. Summary of Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity Values

B] Gartner Lee

El-1 (deep)

El -2 (shallow)

E3

6.1

3.7

6.3

Unconfined

Unconfined

Unconfined

1.9E-5

2.9E-4

4.6E-4

Mun/i/$afi/y of Grey H/gh/ands C/osed L and'7/ S/udy - Eugenia S;/e


Groundwater levels were collected during July and November 2006 representing summer (drier) and fall (wetter) conditions respectively. The data was plotted and contoured, and is presented in Figures 4 (July) and 5 (~ovemberj. Contours representing equal water table elevations are shown as blue dashed lines. Groundwater flows horizontally in a direction perpendicular to these contours and is shown as dark blue arrows (groundwater flows from a line of higher elevation to one of lower elevation, i.e., from high groundwater pressure to low groundwater pressure).

The groundwater levels recorded at the Eugenia site vary seasonally, with water levels being up to about 1 m lower in the dry summer compared to the wet autumn. The exception to this was at location E l , where both monitors were dry in the summer, but contained water in the wet fall (- 4 m of water in the case of the deeper monitor El-1). It is suspected that the November results at location E l may not reflect the actual water table conditions. It is l~kely that a perched water table occurs in the thin surficial layer of sand and gravel at this location, and that this water is draining into and filling up the monitoring wells quicker than the water can drain out through the till. Despite the seasonal variance observed in water levels and the possible influence of perched conditions at E l , the horizontal groundwater flow direction beneath the site remained consistent and followed the topographic profile of the Beaver Valley toward the west.

2.3.2 Groundwater Quality Results

Groundwater sampling was conducted during July and November 2006. The sampling results are presented in Appendix E and are compared to the Ontario Drinking Water Standards. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 2. Each monitor at the site was sampled once except for location E4, which was sampled during both the summer and fall monitoring events due to its close proximity to the residential farm located on the adjacent property to the west. Groundwater monitors El-1 (deep) and E l -2 (shallow) represent background water quality at the site. Monitor E2 is installed through the waste and is representative of the leachate quality within the fill area. Monitor E3 is located adjacent to the western edge of the fill area and is representative of the leachate quality immediately downgradient of the waste. Based on the groundwater flow interpretation presented in Figures 4 and 5, monitor E4 does not appear to be directly downgradient of the main fill area. However, given the limited number of monitors and lack of survey data, it could potentially be downgradient with only a slight deviation in flow, and will therefore be treated as a downgradient monitor to assess potential impacts at the western site boundary.

The nature of certain chemical parameters based on their typical occurrence in landfill leachate at concentrations significantly higher than background are useful for examining the impact a landfill has on groundwater. Groundwater sampling results for these selected leachate indicator parameters are presented in Table 3.

H Gartner Lee

Mr/nc/pa/ify oaf Grey H/gh/ands C/osed L andfi7/Sfr/dy - Ergem2 SVe


2.4 Surface Water

2.4.1 Surface Water Features

At the Eugenia site there are two surface water features that are in the vicinity of the landfill and are shown on Figure 6. One is a small stream (E-SW1) with a spring close by as its headwaters, located cross gradient of the landfill approximately 300 m north of the main waste area. This stream is oriented in an east-west direction and flows west through a wooded area into the Beaver Valley. The other surface water feature is a seep (E-Seepl) located approximately 150 m southwest of the main waste area on the adjacent residential farm property. The seep emerges from the ground and flows west across scrubby pastureland. The respective landowners mentioned that both locations flow year round.

2.4.2 Surface Wter Quality Results

Surface water sampling was conducted during July and November 2006 in conjunction with the groundwater sampling. The surface water sampling results are presented in Appendix F and compared to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) and the Provincial Criteria for Livestock Watering. The water was clear and no vegetative stress or staining was observed at either monitoring location during each sampling event. Surface water sampling results for the selected leachate indicator parameters are presented below in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Surface Water Quality Results

None of the parameters sampled for at either monitoring location exceeded the PWQO or Provincial Criteria for Livestock Watering. Leachate indicator parameters at E-SW1 and E-Seep1

Boron (mglL)

Manganese (mgIL)

Chloride (mglL)

Alkalinity (mglL)

COD (mglL)

Barium (mgIL)

Iron (mgIL)

Ammonia (mgIL)

Gartner Lee

Notes: PWQO - Provincial Water Quality Objectives Livestock Watering - Provincial Criteria for Livestock Watering (L) ODWS - Ontario Drinking Water Standards

5.0 (L)

0.3

0.031

0.003

24

273

<4

0.014

10.05

<0.05

0.01 9

<0.002

23

278

6

0.01 2

10.05

0.1 1

0.02 1

<0.002

30

28 1

14

0.01 2

<0.05

<0.05

0.01 1

<0.002

2 9

287

4

0.01

<0.05

10.05

Mun/c/>a/ify of Grey H/gh/ands C/osed L andW/ Sfudy - Eugen/b S/?e


off-site. This latter situation often occurs during the winter when the ground surface becomes frozen, limiting the vertical venting and enchancing lateral migration.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment Guideline for Assessing Methane Hazards From Landfill Sites (1987) provides a "rule of thumb" for assessing a lateral migration distance from the waste to where methane has been reduced to an acceptable level (1 0% of the LEL). The distance is calculated by multiplying the thickness of the waste above the water table by 10. In the case of the Eugenia site,

the waste is approximately 3 m thick and is placed entirely above the water table, so the potential for subsurface gas migration beyond 30 m would be considered low.

The nearest buildings to the Eugenia site are a residence that is approximately 100 m northeast of the landfill and farm buildings/residence that are approximately 100 m to the west of the landfill. Given that most of the waste was burned, the measured levels of methane in and around the waste are low and the large distance to the nearest dwellings (approximately three times the "rule of thumb" distance), the potential for subsurface migration of combustible landfill gasses to these buildings is considered to be low. However, given that the soils at the site are permeable (and th&efore conducive to lateral gas migration, particularly during frozen ground conditions) and given the potential consequences should combustible gasses enter an adjacent building, we believe it is important to confirm the interpretation about gas migration through monitoring. Existing monitor E4 can be used to check for combustible gas near the farm west of the site. A new monitor (with the screened interval across the water table and extending up into the permeable' unsaturated zone) should be installed near the property boundary between the waste and the residence to the northeast. Both of these monitors should be tested for combustible gas during periods of frozen ground conditions when the potential for gas migration is greatest. The initial frequency of testing should be once or twice per month. Future frequency will depend on the results.

3. Environmental Impact Assessment

3.1 Comparison With Guideline 8-7

The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Guideline B-7 (formerly the Reasonable Use Policy) is used to determine whether operational landfills are having unacceptable impacts on adjacent

groundwater. Under this Guideline, if contaminant concentrations exceed the limits calculated for the site boundaries, the operation should be modified in order to meet the specified limits. While this landfill is no longer operational, this policy provides a good benchmark by which to judge the

magnitude of landfill effects on groundwater, and to determine if remedial measures are warranted. Maximum concentrations from background groundwater monitors E l -1 and E l -2 are used to calculate the maximum Guideline B-7 concentrations presented below in Table 6. To be conservative, background concentrations that were below detection limits were taken as zero.

Gartner Lee

Mun/c/pa/i/y of Grey H/gh/ands C/osed L andh7/ Study - Eugenia S'/e


3.2 Water Supply Wells

The primary groundwater receptors of concern within the 500 meter Guideline D-4 radius shown on Figure 6 are groundwater wells used for human and/or livestock consumption. There are four wells (#2514991, #2506690, #2500018, and #2506312) located within the 500 m Guideline D-4 radius on the upgradient side of the landfill. These wells are all drilled into bedrock at a depth ranging from about 25 to 40 m, with approximately 20 m of glacial till overburden above the bedrock. Groundwater at the landfill flows west and there is very little chance these wells will be impacted.

The wells of greater potential susceptibility are located downgradient (to the west) of the site. The nearest and only downgradient well within 500 m for which there is a record is #2514993. The location of this well places it approximately 300 m to the west in the middle of the valley slope, well

away from any nearby residences. It is suspected that this well is actually for the farm that this located about 100 m northwest of the waste. This well is drilled into bedrock at a depth of 58 m. The well record indicates that bedrock was encountered at a depth of about 14 m, with glacial till overburden above it.

It should be noted that the publicly available MOE water well records do not necessarily cover all existing wells, there may be wells within the 500 m zone for which well records were not available. As a result, it is recommended that a door to door survey be undertaken of residences within the 500 m zone to identify all of the wells and obtain information about the wells.

As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the strength of the leachate at the Eugenia site is weak compared to other similar landfills. Manganese was the only parameter to exceed the ODWS and only marginally. The exceedance occurred at location E3, which is within 10 m of the waste. Therefore, the possibility of any far reaching groundwater impacts either laterally or down through the till to the bedrock and into the nearest water supply wells is expected to be low. However, it should be noted that for this study, no monitors were installed into the deep overburden or bedrock that could be used to confirm geologic and groundwater conditions at the same depths as the nearest wells. As a result, water quality monitoring of the nearest water wells is recommended. These would include #2514993 and #2514991 and any other closer wells (e.g., wells at the farm northwest of the waste and at the residence northeast of the site).

4. Conclusions

Based on the above discussion of results, we conclude that:

a) Based on the sampling to date, the leachate being generated by the landfill appears to be relatively weak, and groundwater does not exceed the ODWS or Guideline B-7 based on monitor E4, which is located in the northwest

( I ~ ~ ~ O ~ Y G O ~ ~ ~ I I - r p ~ s . ~ 7 ) 13 Gartner Lee

Munic/Pa/ir'y of GrtyH/gh/mds Closed Land'7/ Sr'udy - Eugenia S/7e


f) The downgradient monitors and the nearest water wells to the site be sampled as outlined in Table 7 below.

Table 8. Recommended Monitoring Schedule

Spencer R. Bootsma, B.Sc. Junior Geoscientist

#2514991 or other close wells identified in well survey.

Total dissolved solids, E l -1 (for background), E3 (as

Glenn W. Reynolds, M.Sc., P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist, Director

early warning sentry well), monitor E4 and new monitoring nest at western property boundary (as downgradient compliance monitors).

Gartner Lee

Groundwater seasonally rotating basis metals, boron, and

chemical oxygen demand.

Figures

Gartner Lee

Basemappmg from Ontario M ln~s ty d Nalura Resources

Legend

Closed Waste S~te - (5m) Mun~c~pal~ty of Grey H~ghlands

Closed Landfill Study

Wooded Area Roads P

Waterbody Highway yc ,,urn

Site Location a 06 01 0 0 6

- - Stream Major Road

140,000 - Local Road October 2007

UTM Zone 17N. NAD 83 Project 60474 - Ra~lway

2 Gartner Lee Figure 1

i

Legend

Monitors

@ Groundwater Monitor*

Test Pit

= .I rn .I, Approximate : , , s Property Boundary

A A Transect of Geologic Cross-section

I - =-I Inferred Boundary , , - of Main Waste Area**

" The extent of the waste is inferred between test pit locations and could vary from that shown.

Draft for Discussion The site was not surveyed; the locations of features on this drawing are approximate and may vary from what is shown.

Basemaoplrg from OnMr,o Minslv of Natural Resources

1:1.000 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83

Municipality of Grey Highlands Closed Landfill Study

Eugenia Site Map

October 2007 Proiect 60474

H Gartner Lee Figure 2

(I) 6 E -

398 T (I) 6 E -

LEGEND

Topsoil d

Refuse

Sand & Gravel

I 1 Sand / Silty Sand

Clayey Silt - - - - -

Silt & Sand Till / / / / / / / /

d Borehole Location and

W Identif ication

r -Original Ground

- -1 - - - - - Inferred Stratigraphic Contact

S - Screened Interval

- t - x - - ~ a t e r Table (July 4/06) * (Dry)

STRATIGRAPHY BEWEEN BOREHOLES IS INFERRED I 1 I AND MAY VARY FROM THAT SHOWN.

SITE NOT SURVEYED. ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE ESTIMATED FRDM ONTARIO BASE MAPPING. I 1

Municipality of Grey Highlands Abandoned Landfill Study

S HORlZONTAL 1:750

15rn 30rn

EUGENIA SITE CROSS SECTION A-A'

E s

1.5m 0 3rn 6rn VERTICAL 1:150

I Date Issued: OCTOBER 2007 I Proiect No.: 60-474 I I

Designed By: SB

1 Gartner Lee

Drown By: JEP

Checked Bv: SB 1 A ~ ~ r o v e d Bv: - 1

Legend

0 Groundwater Monitor*

= = Approximate : , Property Boundary

g - -, lnferred Boundary of - - Main Waste Area**

- - - Groundwater Contours (3m interval)***

lnferred Direction of -+ Groundwater Flow

Approximate groundwater table elevation mASL recorded on July 4/06 - monitors not surveyed


"' Groundwater flow contours are interpolated between monitoring well locations and may vary from what is shown.

Draft for Discussion The site was not surveyed, the locations of features on this drawing are approximate and may vary from what is shown.

BaSemaDDlng from Onmco hl~risln, of Natural Resources

e C r v r n 0 10 20 40 60 80 100

1 2,000 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83


Eugenia Site Groundwater Contours

July 2006 October 2007 Project 60474

Gartner Lee Figure 4

Legend

8 Groundwater Monitor*

I Q Approximate 2 , , s Property Boundary

4 - - , lnferred Boundary of - - Main Waste Area**

- - - Groundwater Contours (3m interval)***

lnferred Direction of -+ Groundwater Flow

Approximate groundwater table elevation mASL recorded on November 30106 - monitors not surveyed


"* Groundwater flow contours are interpolated between monitoring well locations and may vary from what is shown.

Draft for Discussion The site was not surveyed; the locations of features on this drawing are approximate and may vary from what is shown.

1:2,000 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83


Eugenia Site Groundwater Contours

November 2006 October 2007 Project 60474

Gartner Lee Figure 5

Eugenia Lake ; Water Well

Ground Water Monitor

Surface Water Station

a - ", Approximate

Inferred Boundary of Main Waste Area**

Cartographic Wetland

Intermittent Stream

Permanent Stream

" The extent of the waste is inferred between

Draft for Discussion The site was not surveyed: the locations of features on this drawing are approximate and may vary from what is shovjn.

Basemappmg from Onlar o hllr$slry olNuliira1 Resources

Municipality of Grey H~ghlands Closed Landfill Study

October, 2007 Project 60474

I BOREHOLE LOG I PROJECT: 60-474 I BOREHOLE:E2 1 o f 1 I Municipality of Grey Highlands Closed Landfill Study Eugenia Site FOR: Municipality of Grey Highlands

DATE: 29 May 2006 LOGGEDBY SB GROUND ELEV- 402 m ASL

'a3epns pun0~6 Mojaq sJajau, - s3gu

./anal eas anoqe sJajau, - 7s~~

'du!dde~ aseg o!Jejuo UOJ) pajepjsa ale pue

ajeqxo~dde a~e suo!jena/a pun013 ,paAalvns jou a~a~ s~oj!uou, ~aje~puno~3 e!uadng ayl :sajoN

Eugenia Closed Landfill Test Pitting Logs August 9,2006

Test Pit (max depth) Depth (m) Subsurface Stratigraphy

TPI (2.1) 0 - 1.5 Topsoil and cover 1.5 - 2.1 Silty sand and gravel with cobbles

TP2 (1.2) 0 - 0.9 Topsoil and cover 0.9 - 1.2 Silty sand and gravel with cobbles

TP3 (1.5) 0 - 0.1 Topsoil and cover 0.1 - 1.5 Very minor refuse

TP4 (0.9) 0 - 0.9 Topsoil and cover mixed with refuse

TP5 (0.9) 0 - 0.9 Silty sand and gravel with cobbles

TP6 (2.1 ) 0 - 2.1 Silty sand and gravel with cobbles

0 - 0.6 Topsoil and cover mixed with minor refuse 0.6 - 1.2 Silty sand and gravel with cobbles

TP8 (1.2) 0 - 0.5 Topsoil and cover mixed with refuse - 0.5 - 1.2 Silty sand with gravel and cobbles

0 - 1 .I Topsoil and cover 1 . I - 1.2 Refuse

TPl 0 (0.5) 0 - 0.3 Topsoil and cover 0.3 - 0.5 Refuse

TPI 1 (1.8) 0 - 0.3 Topsoil and cover 0.3 - 1.8 Very Minor refuse

TP12 (1.5) 0 - 0.9 Topsoil and cover 0.9 - 1.5 Refuse


Refuse Encountered (YeslNo)


Eugenia Closed Landfill Test Pitting Logs August 9,2006

Test Pit (max depth) Depth (m) Subsurface Stratigraphy



TP31 (1.5) 0 - 1.5 Silty sand with gravel and cobbles


TP33 (1.5) 0 - 1.5 Silty sand with gravel and cobbles

Refuse Encountered (YeslNo)

Time (sec)

ALYSIS

Data Set: N:\ ... \E l - I Rising Head Test.aqt Date: 1011 2707 Time: 16:25:15

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project: 60-474 Location: Eugenia Site Test Well: M- I Test Date: Dec 1/06

Saturated Thickness: 4.22 m

AQUIFER DATA

Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.

Initial Displacement: 0.72 m Static Water Column Height: 4.22 m Total Well Penetration bepth: 4.58 rn Screen Length: 4.58 m Casing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.1 m

Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3

Aquifer Model: Unconfined

K = - 1.898E-5 -. -- - .- mlsec

SOLUTION ~ -- -

Solution Method: --- Bouwer-Rice ~ . . . . .. . . .. . .. .

YO = P,_2!38 m

0.001 --

0. 16. 32. 48. 64. 80

Time (sec)

E l -2 RISING HEAD SLUG TESTING DATA ANALYSIS

Data Set: N:\ ... \El -2 Rising Head Test.aqt Date: 1011 2/07 Time: 15:38:25

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA

Anisotropy Ratio (KzIKr): 1

WELL DATA (El-2)

Initial Displacement: 0.72 m Static Water Column Height: 1.92 m Total Well Penetration Depth: 2.2 m Screen Length: 2.2 rn Casing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.1 m


Aquifer Model: Unconfined

K = 0.0002924 m/sec

SOLUTION

Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice

yo = - 0.3624 m

0.001 -. -

0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.

Time (sec)

LYSIS

Time: 17:29:32

PROJECT INFORMATION -

Project: 60-474 Location: Eugenia - Site -

Test Well: E3 Test Date: Dec - - - 1/06


AQUIFER DATA

Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.

WELL DATA (E3)

Initial Displacement: 0.72 m Static Water Column Height: 3.64 m Total Well Penetration Depth: 3.64 rn Screen Length: 3.64 m Casing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.1 m


Aquifer Model: Unconfined - -

K = 0.0004572 mlsec

SOLUTION -

Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice -

yo = 0.492 m

Nov 30106

Eugenia Closed Monitor Number

Date Sampled

Parameters

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Bismuth

Boron

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silicon

Silver

Sodium

Strontium

Thallium

Titanium

Uranium

Vanadium

Zinc

Ammonia

Hardness as CaC03

DOC

Sulphate

Alkalinity as CaC03

Chloride

Nitrite

Nitrate

Phosphorus

TDS

COD

TKN

Organic Nitrogen

Phenols

lonBalance(%Diff.)

Landfill

ODWS

0.1

0.006

0.025

1

5

0.005

0.05

1

0.3

0.01

0.05

0.01

200

0.02

5

80-1 00

5

500

30-500

250

1

10

500

0.15

Groundwater E l - I

Nov 30106

<0.005

<0.001

<0.001

0.01 1

<0.0005

<0.001

<0.01

<0.0001

74

<0.005

<0.0005

0.002

<0.5

<0.0005

27

<0.002

<0.001

<0.001

0.9

<0.002

2.4

<0.0001

16

0.063

0.00017

<0.005

0.0003

<0.001

0.007

0.21

300

2.1

12

293

21

<0.01

<O.l

<0.05

328

<4

2

1.9

<0.001

0.786

El-2

Nov 30106

<0.005

<0.001

<0.001

0.01

<0.0005

<0.001

<0.01

<0.0001

78

<0.005

<0.0005

0.002

<0.5

<0.0005

29

<0.002

<0.001

<0.001

0.8

<0.002

2.6

<0.0001

15

0.064

<0.00005

<0.005

0.0005

<0.001

0.009

0.14

310

2.3

14

300

18

<0.01

<0.1

<0.05

335

15

1.2

1 .I

<0.001

0.931

Sampling E2

July 5/06

0.007

<0.001

<0.001

0.016

<0.0005

<0.001

0.024

<0.0001

99

<0.005

0.0005

0.005

<0.05

<0.0005

28

0.049

0.003

0.001

1.6

<0.002

3.1

<0.0001

9.3

0.12

<0.00005

<0.005

0.001 1

<0.001

0.007

0.06

360

5

13

392

24

<0.01

0.2

<0.05

41 0

49

0.8

0.7

<0.001

6.95

Results E3

July 5106

0.006

<0.001

<0.001

0.031

<0.0005

<0.001

0.052

<0.0001

110

<0.005

<0.0005

0.007

<0.05

<0.0005

46

0.061

0.001

0.001

4.4

<0.002

3.3

<0.0001

15

0.18

<0.00005

<0.005

0.0005

<0.001

0.01

<0.05

460

2.7

28

423

25

<0.01

0.4

<0.05

484

20

0.3

0.3

<0.001

1 ~ 4 7

E'

July 5/06

0.009

<0.001

<0.001

0.013

<0.0005

<0.001

0.01 1

<0.0001

80

<0.005

<0.0005

0.005

<0.05

<0.0005

31

0.008

<0.001

<0.001

1.4

<0.002

2.4

<0.0001

12

0.087

<0.00005

<0.005

<0.0001

<0.001

0.006

<0.05

330

0.1

7

290

30

<0.01

<O.l

<0.05

336

14

0.2

0.2

<0.001

2.01

Notes: All values reported in mglL unless otherwise noted

PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Objectives

Livestock = Provincial Criteria for Livestock Watering

Shaded values exceed Livestock Water Quality or PWQO

E-Seep1

July 7106

0.019

<0.001

cO.001

0.012

<0.0005

0.021

<0.0001

72

c0.005

cO.0005

<0.001

~ 0 . 0 5

<0.0005

25

~0.002

c0.001

cO.001

0.71

cO.002

2.5

cO.0001

22

c0.00005

~0 .001

0.0005

cO.001

cO.005

cO.001

~ 0 . 0 5

280

13.8

cO.002

7

28 1

30

cO.01

cO.1

c4

0.2

0.2

cO.001

< I

12.63

424(570Lab)

7.78(8.2Lab)

103.3

10.83

Surface

PWQO

0.1

0.001

0.0009

0.005

0.3

0.025

0.1

0.0001

0.03

0.001

6.5-8.5

Eugenia Closed Monitor Number

Date Sampled

Parameters

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Boron

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silicon

Silver

Sodium

Thallium

Tungsten

Uranium

Vanadium

Zinc

Zirconium

Ammonia

Hardness

TOC

Phosphorus

Sulphate

Alkalinity as CaC03

Chloride

Nitrite

Nitrate

COD

TKN

Organic Nitrogen

Phenols

TSS

Field Measured

Water Temp. (oC)

Conductivity ()~Slcrn)

pH (pH units)

Redox (mV)

DO

Nov 28106

cO.005

cO.001

<0.001

0.01

cO.0005

0.01 1

<0.0001

76

cO.005

cO.0005

cO.001

c0.05

c0.0005

28

~0.002

cO.001

cO.001

0.77

<0.002

2.6

cO.0001

20

cO.00005

cO.001

0.0006

<0.001

c0.005

cO.001

~ 0 . 0 5

280

1.3

~0.002

10

287

29

cO.01

c0.1

4

0.3

0.2

cO.001

7

7.96

373(587Lab)

7.87(8.3Lab)

79.8

9.4

Water E-SW1

July 7106

0.029

cO.001

~0.001

0.014

<0.0005

0.031

<0.0001

71

cO.005

<0.0005

0.001

~ 0 . 0 5

cO.0005

27

0.003

<0.001

<0.001

0.96

cO.002

2.8

<0.0001

14

~0.00005

cO.001

0.0005

cO.001

<0.005

cO.001

~ 0 . 0 5

280

1.2

cO.002

12

273

24

cO.01

0.4

c4

0.3

0.3

cO.001

< 1

12.75

420(546Lab)

7.89(8.4Lab)

100.5

10.82

Landfill

Livestock

5

0.1

5

0.02

1000

1

1

0.5 - 5

0.1

0.5

1

50

1000

10

Sampling Results

Nov 28106

0.006

cO.001

cO.001

0.012

<0.0005

0.019

<0.0001

72

cO.005

cO.0005

0.002

~ 0 . 0 5

cO.0005

27

~ 0 . 0 0 2

~0.001

c0.001

1

cO.002

2.7

cO.0001

13

cO.00005

<0.001

0.0004

cO.001

cO.005

cO.001

0.1 1

270

1.2

~0 .002

12

278

23

0.01

0.3

6

0.3

0.2

cO.001

c l

7.58

356(560Lab)

7.92(8.3Lab)

35.8

8.06

Documents

Draft for Discussion - Grey Highlands