Comparative Evaluation - Option #1 & Option...

Development of Terms of Reference for an EA of Proposed New LandfillProposed West Carleton Environmental Centre

Comparative Evaluation -Option #1 & Option #2


Existing Landfill – Approx. 47 metres/14 storiesProposed Layout – Approx. 31 metres/9.5 stories

Existing Landfill – Approx. 47 metres/14 storiesProposed Layout – Approx. 33 metres/10 stories

Option #1

Option #2

25






Option #3

Option #4

26


Comparative Evaluation


Environ-mental

ComponentCriteria Indicators

Alternative Landfill Footprint OptionsOption #1Net Effects

Option #2Net Effects



Aboriginal Potential effects on Aboriginal communities

Potential effects on use of lands for traditional purposes.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

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

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Cultural and heritage resources

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

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

MODERATE NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 3rd Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as these options result in

minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features.

Archaeological resources

Presence of archaeological resources on-site.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

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

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

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

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

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

Biology -Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment

Terrestrial ecosystems

Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project.

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS



Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project.

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS



Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied 1st Tied 1st 4th 3rd

Criteria Rationale Options 1 and 2 are preferred as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of

wildlife habitat, including amphibian habitat and vegetated habitat for area sensitive birds.

Aquatic ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality.

LOW NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project.

LOW NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project.

LOW NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they do not include any streams (permanent or intermittent) and therefore no net

effects on aquatic habitat.Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd

27


Environ-mental






Atmospheric Air Quality

Modelled Landfill Gas Emissions: Vinyl Chloride; Benzene; Hydrogen Sulphide

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 2nd 4th 1st 3rd

Criteria Rationale No exceedances with modelled landfill gas emissions for any option; however, Option 3 is marginally preferred

because modelled emissions were slightly lower off-site with this option.

Modelled Dust Emissions: Total Suspended Particulate Matter; Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10); Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5)


NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS



NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 4th 1st 3rd 2nd

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

Modelled Combustion Emissions: Carbon Monoxide; Nitrogen Oxides

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

Criteria Rationale No exceedances with modelled combustion emissions for any option; however, Options 1 and 3 are marginally preferred because modelled impacts were slightly lower

off-site with these options.



28


Environ-mental






Atmospheric Odour Predicted odour emissions. LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

Criteria Rationale No exceedances with predicted odour emissions for any option; however, Option 1 is marginally preferred

because modelled emissions are slightly lower off-site with this option.

Noise Predicted site-related noise. MODERATE NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they will result in minimal site-related noise and affect the least amount

of off-site receptors (1).Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd 1st Tied for 2nd



29


Environ-mental






Economic Effects on the cost of services to customers

Ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil to be excavated and area of cell base and leachate collection system to be constructed.

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS



Criteria Ranking: 2nd 1st 3rd 4th

Criteria Rationale Option 2 is preferred as the ratio of airspace achieved to volume of soil to be excavated provides the maximum

benefit from a cost of service to customers perspective.Continuedservice to customers

Total optimized site capacity and site life.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS


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

Economic benefit to local municipality

Employment at site (number and duration).

MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT




Opportunities to provide products or services.

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTSCriteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

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

Effects on residential and commercial development

Residential development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

Commercial development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS


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

Effects on property tax revenue on the City of Ottawa

City of Ottawa. LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT



LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).






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

revenue.Environmental Component Ranking 2nd 1st 3rd 4th



30


Environ-mental






Land Use Effects on current and planned future land uses

Current land use. MODERATE NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS


Planned future land use. LOW NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

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


LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are slightly preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the loss of current land uses are marginally less, the

options are consistent with planned future land uses, and there are few sensitive land uses within 500 metres.

Displacement of agricultural land

Current land use. MODERATE NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS


Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the farm infrastructure is preserved west of William Mooney

Road, as well as the part-time beef farm.Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd

Site Design & Operations

Site design & operations characteristics

Complexity of site infrastructure.


LOW NET EFFECTS


HIGH NET EFFECTS

Operational flexibility. LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

Environmental Component Ranking 3rd 1st 2nd 4th



31


Environ-mental






Geology and Hydrogeology

Groundwater quality

Predicted effects to groundwater quality at property boundaries and off-site.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS


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

Groundwater flow

Predicted groundwater flow characteristics.

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS


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


Surface Water Resources

Surface water quality

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

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

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

Criteria Rationale Option 2 and 3 are preferred because they will both use groundwater infiltration as a method of discharge after TSS

removal by the sediment forebay.Surface water quantity

Change in drainage areas. NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects.

NO NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 1st 3rd 4th 2nd

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

Huntley Creek. Environmental Component Ranking 3rd 1st 2nd 4th



32


Environ-mental






Social Visual impact of the facility

Predicted changes in perceptions of landscapes and views.

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

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

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they have the least predicted net effects from a visual perspective.

Local residents Number of residences. HIGH NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 4th 2nd 3rd 1st

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

Recreational facilities

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

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS

NO NET EFFECTS


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

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

Transportation Effects on airport operations

Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area.

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS


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

Effects from truck transport along access roads

Potential for traffic collisions.

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTSDisturbance to traffic operations.

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTS

HIGH (POSITIVE)

NET EFFECTSProposed road improvement requirements.

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS

LOW NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to effects from truck transport along access roads. All options

include a northbound left turn lane on Carp Road into the site. The potential closure of William Mooney Road does not

impact on the criteria and indicators. All options rank the same.




33


Comparative Evaluation -Evaluation Conclusions

Comparative Evaluation -Evaluation Conclusions

Environmental Component Evaluation Conclusion

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as they result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features.

AtmosphericOption #3 is most preferred as it has the lowest potential effect on off-site receptors relating to odour, landfill gas, combustion, and noise emissions.

Aboriginal There is no distinction between the options as there are no current Aboriginal land claims related to any of the options.

Biology (Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment)

Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed; the least amount of wildlife habitat disturbed; and there are no permanent or intermittent streams flowing through them.

Geology & Hydrogeology

There is no distinction between the options as there are no off-site groundwater receptors predicted to be affected by any of the options in terms of groundwater flow or quality, given proposed mitigation measures and use of Ontario Regulation 232/98 - Generic Design Option II liner system.

Land Use Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as changes to current land uses are minimized.

Site Design & Operations

Option #2 is most preferred as it offers highest level of operational flexibility and ease of implementation.

Surface Water Resources

Option #2 is most preferred as it has the lowest net effect on surface water quality and quantity.

Economic Option #2 is most preferred as it provides the highest ratio of airspace to total soil excavated.

Social

Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as they have the fewest number of residences and recreational facilities within 500 m and the least predicted net effects from a visual perspective.

TransportationThere is no distinction between the options as they have the same net effects on airport operations and positive net effects on predicted truck transport along access roads.

34


Comparative Evaluation -Preferred Option #2

Comparative Evaluation -Preferred Option #2

The comparative evaluation of the footprint options was completed using a “Reasoned Argument” or “Trade-off” method. This method is based on the following two activities:

• Identify the predicted level of effect (‘No Net Effect’, ‘Low Net Effect’, ‘Moderate Net Effect’ or ‘High Net Effect’) associated with each alternative for each indicator; and,

• Rank each alternative from most preferred to least preferred based on the predicted level of effect at the criteria and environmental component level in order to determine an overall ranking for each alternative.

Option #2 was determined to be the most preferred option based on the following attributes:• It has the lowest predicted net effects on Archaeological & Cultural

Heritage;• It has the lowest predicted net effect on Biology (Terrestrial &

Aquatic environment);• It has the lowest predicted net effect on Land Use;• It has the lowest predicted net effect on Site Design and Operations;• It has the lowest predicted net effect on Surface Water; and• It has the lowest predicted net effect on Socio-Economic.

While Option #2 is the most preferred option, it should be noted that there are no off-site groundwater receptors predicted to be affected by any of the options in terms of groundwater flow or quality.

While Option #2 is the most preferred option, it should be noted that there are no predicted exceedences for any of the options in relation to odour, landfill gas, and combustion emissions.

35


Leachate Treatment Options


WMCC amended the ToR to include an assessment and evaluation of “alternative methods” for treating and disposing of leachate generated from the new landfill footprint as part of the EA.

Five Leachate Treatment Alternatives were identified by WMCC for assessment, based upon the company’s operating experience at other landfill sites across North America.


The new landfill footprint will be designed with the Generic II – Double Liner system, as specified in Ontario Regulation 232/98. This consists of (from top down):

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

• 0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay primary liner;• 0.3 m thick granular/perforated pipe secondary leachate collection

system;• 0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay secondary liner;• 1 m thick natural or constructed soil attenuation layer.

Leachate collected from within the lined landfill will be pumped from the primary drainage/leachate collection system. The potential location and size of leachate pumping station(s) required will be identified as part of the conceptual design for the preferred landfill footprint. Leachate will then be directed to pretreatment and/or treatment facilities in a manner dependent on the preferred leachate treatment alternative.

The volume of leachate to be managed will vary over the operational and post-closure period of the landfill and is influenced by factors including precipitation, degree of landfill development (e.g., area of landfill that is actively undergoing development versus areas where final cover has been placed), final cover design and cover installation progress, and other factors.

Leachate Treatment Characteristics

36


Leachate Treatment Option #1


On-site Tree Irrigation

This alternative would involve irrigation of trees (typically poplar and/or willow) in order to dispose of the leachate. May require partial or full on-site treatment using chemical and/or biological processes to treat the leachate prior to irrigation. Treated leachate will be stored in a pond and then discharged to a tree plantation during days with suitable weather conditions. No liquid effluent would leave the WCEC site.

37


On-site Leachate EvaporationThis alternative would involve use of evaporator technology to dispose of leachate. Leachate from the landfill would be pumped to an equalization tank that will provide storage to handle peaks in leachate generation. Leachate would then be fed to the evaporator for processing. The evaporator system may utilize landfill gas as the energy source to evaporate the leachate or waste heat from the landfill gas co-generation facility. Depending upon the strength of the leachate and the resulting air quality emissions, the leachate may have to be pretreated using a chemical and/or biological process prior to evaporation. These units have been widely used in the U.S. for a number of years for leachate disposal.



38


Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water

This alternative would involve disposal of fully treated leachate by discharging it to a nearby surface watercourse. Collected leachate would be treated on-site using chemical and/or biological processes to meet Provincial Water Quality Objectives followed by storage of the treated effluent. Stored effluent would then be discharged to a surface watercourse. The nearest surface watercourse is the southern branch of the Huntley Creek which drains to the Carp River.



39


Off-site Effluent Discharge to Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

This alternative would involve disposal of leachate through discharging it to the City of Ottawa sanitary sewer system. Collected leachate may require pretreatment on-site using either chemical and/or biological processes in order to meet the City’s sewer use bylaw. Leachate effluent would then be discharged to an existing forcemain at Carp Road and Highway 417. Effluent would be further treated at the City’s Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC) facility.



40


Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

This alternative would involve trucking of the leachate to one or more wastewater treatment plants outside Ottawa for disposal. Collected leachate may require pretreatment using chemical and/or biological processes if required to meet the quality parameters of the receiving wastewater treatment plant(s). Potential options for receiving the leachate in the surrounding area are not currently known.



41


Leachate Treatment Options Evaluation Methodology

Leachate Treatment Options Evaluation Methodology

The comparative evaluation of leachate treatment alternatives will be completed using a “Reasoned Argument” or “Trade-off” method. This method is based on the following two activities:

• Identify the predicted level of effect (‘No Net Effect’, ‘Low Net Effect’, ‘Moderate Net Effect’ or ‘High Net Effect’) associated with each alternative for each indicator; and,

• Rank each alternative from most preferred to least preferred based on the predicted level of effect at the criteria and environmental component level in order to determine an overall ranking for each alternative.

Criteria and indicators under the following environmental components are proposed in order to comparatively evaluate the leachate treatment alternatives:

• Atmospheric Environment• Geology and Hydrogeology• Surface Water Resources• Biology• Transportation• Land Use• Social• Site Design and Operations

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Methodology

42


Workshop #3

• A future Workshop #3 is planned for November 23rd , 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Carp Agricultural Hall (3790 Carp Road, Carp).

• The purpose of Workshop #3 is to provide the public with an opportunity to give input on the comparative evaluation of alternative landfill footprints and the identification of a preferred landfill footprint.

• Please sign-up at this Open House if you wish to be involved in Workshop #3.

• Notification of Workshop #3 was published in local newspapers along with the advertisement for this Open House and will be published again two weeks prior to the event. Reminders will be provided to persons who have signed-up at Open House #3.

Technical Sessions

• As requested by the community, Technical Sessions will be held on the subjects of air, groundwater, and property value impacts.

• The Air Technical Session is scheduled for November 16, 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at WMCC’s Ottawa Office (254 Westbrook Road, Ottawa).

• The Groundwater Technical Session is scheduled for November 30, 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at WMCC’s Ottawa Office (254 Westbrook Road, Ottawa).

• The Property Value Impact Technical Session(s) will be scheduled in the upcoming weeks. Notification will be provided on the project website and by email to stakeholders registered on our project contact list.

Next StepsNext Steps

43


Get involved and make your views known:

Over the coming months, we will continue working on the EA for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa WMF.

There are many opportunities for you to get involved in the process and make your views known.

When you sign-in to any WCEC EA consultation event, please include your email address if you wish to receive further information.

Please try and attend future Open Houses, Workshops, and Technical Sessions.

Meet with us individually or in groups to ask questions, express your viewpoints or provide your input.

Visit our website http://WCEC.wm.com to get more information or to provide your comments.

Next StepsNext Steps

44

Comparative Evaluation - Option #1 & Option...

Documents

Transcript of Comparative Evaluation - Option #1 & Option...