REPORT ON Hydrogeological Investigation and Terrain ...

March 2012

REPORT ON

Hydrogeological Investigation and Terrain Analysis Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. Resource Recovery Centre, Carp, Ontario

RE

PO

RT

Report Number: 12-1125-0010/1000

Distribution:

2 copies - Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd.

6 copies - McIntosh Perry

2 copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

Submitted to:

Michael Walters Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd. 5597 Power Road Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3N4

HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION AND TERRAIN ANALYSIS

March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Site Description .................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 STUDY PROCEDURES .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Water Supply and Waste Water Requirements ................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Terrain Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Groundwater Supply Investigation ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.3.1 Groundwater Quantity .................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3.2 Groundwater Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Groundwater Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 4

3.0 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 5

3.1 Waste Water Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Water Supply Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 5

4.0 TERRAIN ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Class IV Sewage Disposal System ...................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 WATER SUPPLY .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

5.1 Groundwater Quantity .......................................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 7

6.0 GROUNDWATER IMPACT STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 9

6.1 C&D Waste Processing Facility ........................................................................................................................... 9

6.2 Waste Transfer Station ...................................................................................................................................... 10

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 11

8.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 12

9.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 ii

TABLES

Table 1: Water Quality Data

FIGURES

Figure 1: Key Plan

Figure 2: Site Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A MOE Well Record

APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports of Analyses

APPENDIX C Record of Test Pits

APPENDIX D Ontario Building Code Tables (Sewage Systems)

APPENDIX E Pumping Test Analysis


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder Associates) carried out a terrain analysis, hydrogeological investigation and

groundwater impact study for a proposed resource recovery centre located at 107, 111 and 117 Westhunt Road

and 2149 Richardson Side Road, Ottawa, Ontario (hereafter referred to as the “site”) as shown on Figure 1.

This report presents the results of a hydrogeological investigation and terrain analysis carried out to determine

the general soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions across the site by means of two test pits, an existing water

supply well and review of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Golder Associates, 2010) and a

Geotechnical Investigation (Golder Associates, 2012). A six hour pumping test was performed on the water

supply well to assess the available groundwater supply. During the pumping test two groundwater samples were

obtained and analyzed for chemical and physical parameters.

The terrain analysis and hydrogeological investigation was carried out with regard to the Ministry of the

Environment (MOE) guidelines entitled Procedure D-5-4 for individual on-site sewage systems water quality

impact risk assessments and the MOE guidelines for Procedure D-5-5 for private water well supply

assessments. Potential well interference with groundwater inputs due to on-site sewage systems operations are

addressed herein.

A groundwater impact study was conducted to assess potential to impact groundwater related to the Carp Road

Corridor Community Design Plan (City of Ottawa, 2004).

1.1 Site Description

The site consists of a parcel of land 4.7 hectares in size which is to be developed as a waste transfer facility and

a construction and demolition (C&D) waste processing facility (facilities). The facilities will be run by 15

employees who will have a portable building located at 2149 Richardson Side Road in which will be located a

lunch room and bathroom (“portable lunch building”). The portable lunch building will be serviced by an existing

water supply well and a new septic system.

The site and surrounding area is zoned for light industrial and the surrounding property use is mainly industrial

and commercial. The site is bordered to the southeast by Richardson Side Road, followed by

industrial/commercial properties. Industrial and commercial properties are also adjacent to the Site to the

southwest, northwest and northeast.

A drainage ditch runs along the southwest boundary of the site (along 107 Westhunt Road). The drainage ditch

crosses Westhunt Road and Richardson Side Road through culverts. Southeast of Richardson Side Road the

drainage ditch joins a small creek or stream that runs parallel and approximately 100 metres (m) southeast of

Richardson Side Road. A small tributary of the Carp River is located approximately 250 m north of the northern

corner of the site. The tributary joins the Carp River approximately 3 kilometres (km) to the northeast of the site.

The site and surrounding lands are relatively flat with a site elevation of approximately 113 to 114 m above mean

sea level (masl).

Based on previous subsurface investigation carried out at the site (Golder Associates, 2010), and a review of

published geology mapping, the subsurface conditions on this site are expected to consist of topsoil, fill (loose to

very dense brown silty sand, gravel and cobbles) overlying brown to grey, fine to coarse sand, silty sand, and/or

sandy silt, with variable amounts of gravel, overlying glacial till consisting of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel,


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 2

cobbles, and boulders in a matrix of silty sand with a trace of clay. The bedrock surface is at about 3 to 5 m

depth. Published bedrock geology maps indicate that the bedrock at this site consists of limestone bedrock of

the Bobcaygeon Formation.

The geotechnical investigation (Golder Associates, 2012) which was completed at the north corner of the site

found that the sand and silt deposits extend to depths of between 2 and 5 metres. The glacial till was

established to extend to depths of about 4.8 to 5.5 metres, prior to the boreholes encountering practical refusal.

Auger refusal may indicate the bedrock surface; however, it could also represent boulders within the glacial till.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 3

2.0 STUDY PROCEDURES

The objectives of the terrain analysis and hydrogeological investigation and groundwater impact study were to:

Determine the water supply and waste water requirements for fifteen employees;

Determine the shallow subsurface soil and groundwater conditions relative to the design of Class IV

sewage disposal systems;

Investigate the potential quantity and quality of groundwater available from a drilled well for a portable lunch

building water supply; and,

To determine potential impact to groundwater with respect to the Carp Road Corridor Community

Design Plan.

2.1 Water Supply and Waste Water Requirements

Based on the number of employees using the portable lunch building the water supply requirements and the

daily waste water flow volumes (for septic design) were calculated and then used for the terrain analysis and the

groundwater supply investigation.

2.2 Terrain Analysis

The terrain analysis involved the excavation of two test pits on February 15, 2012 in the area of the proposed

location for the leaching bed system (see Figure 2). The findings of the terrain analysis were used to evaluate

the suitability of the location for the construction of the leaching bed system.

2.3 Groundwater Supply Investigation

Procedures for the assessment of water supplies for developments with private individual wells are described in the

MOE guideline entitled, “Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply Assessment,” dated August 1996

(MOE Procedure D-5-5).

An existing domestic well located at 2149 Richardson Side Road was used to determine the quality and quantity of

groundwater available for water supply. The existing domestic well was drilled in 2004 by Capital Water Supply

Ltd. (Capital). The well location is shown on Figure 2, and the water well record is provided in Appendix A.

The well penetrates 6.7 metres of sand and glacial till before reaching bedrock. The well was terminated within

bedrock at a total depth of 83.2 metres below ground surface (mbgs). The well was cased into the bedrock to a

depth of approximately 7.6 mbgs.

2.3.1 Groundwater Quantity

A pumping test was carried out on February 15, 2012. The pumping test consisted of a pumping phase

(6 hours) followed by a recovery period. The pumping test was conducted using a pump supplied by Capital.

The pumping rate for the well was based upon the calculated peak water flow requirements. Groundwater levels

were recorded in the pumping well at selected time intervals. The water levels were measured manually, using

an electric water level tape, and electronically, using a pressure transducer logger which was set to take

measurements every minute. A barometric pressure logger was left on-site for post-processing barometric

compensation.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 4

2.3.2 Groundwater Quality

During the pumping test water samples were collected after one hour of pumping and at the end of the pumping

period, just before pump shut-off. The samples were preserved as necessary and submitted to Maxxam

Analytics (Maxxam) in Ottawa, Ontario for the chemical, physical and bacteriological analyses listed in the MOE

Procedure D-5-5 (MOE, 1996a). Due to laboratory error, the water supply sample was not analyzed for total

coliforms. An additional water sample was collected from the water supply well on March 5, 2012. A

submersible pump was disinfected and installed in the water supply well. Three well volumes of water were

removed from the well prior to collection of the additional sample. The sample was preserved as necessary and

submitted to Maxxam for the bacteriological analyses listed in D-5-5. The results of all analyses are summarized

in Table 1.

Field measurements of temperature, pH, conductivity, chlorine residual, turbidity and hydrogen sulphide were

taken at the time of sampling (Table 1). All analyses were compared to the applicable maximum acceptable

concentrations (MAC), interim maximum acceptable concentrations (IMAC), aesthetic objectives (AO) or

operational guidelines (OG) found in the Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Quality

Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (MOE, 2006). All laboratory method detection limits (MDLs) were less

than, or equivalent to, the respective criteria. Laboratory Reports of Analyses are provided in Appendix B.

2.4 Groundwater Impact Assessment

From a groundwater impact assessment perspective, an evaluation of how site activities may impact

groundwater in the recharge area (as identified in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan) was

completed. The existing Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment,

geotechnical investigation and information obtained during the leaching bed feasibility task were reviewed for an

understanding of soil and groundwater conditions at the site. A thorough description of the proposed on-site

activities and identification of what activities will be indoors and what will take place outdoors are presented.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 5

3.0 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Waste Water Requirements

It is understood that a portable lunch building is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of

2149 Richardson Side Road, servicing 15 employees. No showers will be included in this building. As per Table

8.2.1.3.B of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2006), the peak daily

sewage flow rate would be 1,125 Litres per day (L/d). The maximum floor space for this peak flow rate would be

139.5 m2.

3.2 Water Supply Requirements

The average flow rate for the portable lunch building is estimated based on the sewage design flows indicated

above. The water consumption in the trailer is assumed to be similar to a factory (excluding process and

cleaning water). The design flow for a factory per employee per 8 hour shift (no showers) is given in the code as

75 L/d (1,125 L/d total).

It was indicated that the work hours on the site could be longer than 8 hours (8-10 hours per day). To be

conservative and ensure that the water supply is adequate, the average flow rate was increased to 100 L/d per

employee or 1,500 L/d total.

The flow characteristics of water demand for such a small establishment is similar to small water works. Based on

the Guidelines for the Design of Water Supply Systems for Small Residential Developments” (March 1985,

Environmental Approvals and Project Engineering Branch) the peak factor is taken as 15. Using the average flow

rate of 1,500 L/d, and the peak factor of 15, the peak flow rate is calculated to be 15.6 Litres per minute (L/min).


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 6

4.0 TERRAIN ANALYSIS

4.1 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits are shown on the Record of Test Pits in Appendix C.

Two test pits were excavated on February 15, 2012 south of the existing dwelling, in the area of the proposed

septic system, as shown on Figure 2. No water table was found in either test pit; however, grey-brown sands

were found in test pit TP12-1 and test pit TP12-2 both at a depth of 2.0 metres (m), indicating a potential

seasonal high water table elevation. The test pits contained an organic brown fine to medium sand with some

gravel, cobbles and silt ranging up to 1.1 m in depth underlain by a brown medium to coarse sand with some

gravel, cobbles and silt ranging up to 2.0 m in depth. Below 2.0 m a grey brown sand with some silt was found

in test pit TP12-2 while a grey-brown sand with trace silt was found in test pit TP12-1. The test pits were

terminated at 2.3 m and 2.4 m for TP12-1 and TP12-2, respectively. The existing grade at each test pit was

estimated at approximately 115.85 m for TP12-1 and 116.40 m for TP12-2.

4.2 Class IV Sewage Disposal System

Procedures for the assessment of potential groundwater impact due to privately serviced sites are described in

the MOE Guideline entitled “Technical Guideline for Individual On-site Sewage Systems: Water Quality Impact

Risk Assessment”, dated August 1996 (Guideline D-5-4).

The following sewage system recommendations are based on a conventional Class IV Sewage System

comprised of a septic tank and an absorption trench leaching bed. Design parameters contained in this section

are derived from the 2006 Ontario Building Code (OBC), and are intended as guidelines only with respect to the

feasibility of constructing a system on the proposed site. Prior to construction of any sewage systems on the

proposed site, the system will have to be designed to meet the sites’ needs and the septic system contractor

would be responsible for ensuring all applicable regulations are met and required permits are obtained. Copies

of relevant OBC tables are provided in Appendix D.

In accordance with the OBC, a wide variety of treatment and disposal options are available, each with different land

area requirements. For the purpose of demonstrating that the site has adequate land area for sewage disposal, the

most conservative soil conditions and largest treatment and disposal area requirements were assumed.

Due to the water table elevation and space limitations on this site, an in ground system would be the preferred

alternative to minimize the required separation distances. The estimated percolation rate for the native soil

between 1.0 m and 2.0 m depth would be 8 to 20 min/cm as per SG-6 Table 2 of the OBC. The loading rate for

a fill based system on this type of soil would be 10 L/m2/d as per Table 8.7.4.1.A of the OBC. Based on the flow

rates above, this would result in a required area of 112.5 m2.

We understand that the existing grade in this area is proposed to be lowered to 114.75 m. The seasonal high

watertable has been estimated at 114.40 m at TP12-2. As the septic system is required to be constructed above

the high watertable elevation, the finished height of the system is estimated at 115.90 m. This results in a

partially raised system, 1.15 m above finished grade. Therefore, the separation distances are required to be

increased by 2.30 m. As well, a pump chamber will be required based on the finished floor elevation of the

building. Refer to Figure 2 for a conceptual layout of a conventional septic system in this area. The approximate

area required for a conventional septic system is 600 m2.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 7

5.0 WATER SUPPLY

A pumping test was conducted at the domestic well located at 2149 Richardson Side Road on February 15, 2012.

The results of the pumping test are presented in the following sections. The drawdown and recovery data for the

well is provided in Appendix E.

5.1 Groundwater Quantity

The static water level before the start of the test was at 8.4 m below the top of the casing. The well was pumped

at a minimum discharge rate of 15 L/min for 6 hours (a minimum of 5,400 L pumped from the well). At the

beginning of the 6 hour test, the pumping rate was set at 22.7 L/min for 1 hour and 20 minutes, however, the

water level within the water supply well had dropped below the installed datalogger and due to cascading water

a true water level during that time was difficult to obtain. As such, it was decided to reduce the pumping rate to

18.2 L/min for 1 hour and then to 15 L/min for the remainder of the 6 hour test. A total drawdown of 48.2 m was

measured at the end of the test. Approximately three hours after the pump shut-off, 100 percent recovery of the

imposed drawdown had been achieved.

Aquifer transmissivity was estimated using the Theis recovery method (Theis, 1935) to interpret recovery data

collected during the pumping test (see Appendix E). The transmissivity calculated using the recovery data is

7 x 10-7

m2/s

Based on the data obtained during the pumping test, it can be concluded that the domestic well located at

2149 Richardson Side Road is capable of supplying at least 1,500 L/day and the conservative peak of 15.6 L/min.

During the course of the six hour pumping test period, 58 percent of the available drawdown was utilized while

pumping at a rate of 15 L/min. As such, the yield of the well exceeds the required 13.7 L/min as specified in MOE

Procedure D-5-5 and meets the water supply requirements for the site.

It is Golder Associates’ professional opinion that the probable well yield determined on the basis of the pumping

test is representative of the yields that the future employees using the portable lunch building are likely to obtain

from the well in the long term.

5.2 Groundwater Quality

The field observations and the results of the laboratory chemical and physical analyses for the groundwater

samples collected from the well on February 15, 2012 and on March 5, 2012 are summarized in Table 1

following the text of this report. The certificates of laboratory analyses are included in Appendix B.

All laboratory results were compared to the applicable maximum acceptable concentrations (MAC), interim

maximum acceptable concentrations (IMAC), aesthetic objectives (AO) and operational guidelines (OG) found in

the Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (MOE, 2006).

Analytical results of the groundwater samples collected from the well on February 15, 2012 indicate an AO

exceedance for the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, which was measured at 2730 mg/L after 1 hour of

pumping and 2220 mg/L after 5.5 hours of pumping, just before pump shut-off. The AO for TDS is 500 mg/L

(MOE, 2006). The potential for corrosion or encrustation problems associated with elevated TDS was assessed

by calculating the Langelier Saturation Indices (LSI) for the 1 hour and 5.5 hour samples, which were 0.2 and

0.1, respectively. These LSI values are within the range generally considered stable (between -0.5 and +0.5)

and indicate that corrosion or encrustation problems are unlikely.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 8

The sodium concentrations were 750 mg/L and 600 mg/L after 1 hour and 5.5 hours of pumping, which is above

the aesthetic objective for sodium in drinking water of 200 mg/L.

The chloride concentrations were 1400 mg/L and 1100 mg/L after 1 hour and 5.5 hours of pumping, which is

above the AO of 250 mg/L.

The iron concentrations were 0.35 mg/L and 0.37 mg/L after 1 hour and 5.5 hours of pumping, greater than the

AO of 0.30 mg/L. In accordance with Procedure D-5-5, the treatability limit for iron is 10 mg/L.

The manganese concentration was 0.52 mg/L after 1 hour of pumping, greater than the AO of 0.5 mg/L but was

0.48 mg/L after 5.5 hours of pumping, below the AO.

The hardness concentrations were 610 mg/L and 540 mg/L after 1 hour and 5.5 hours of pumping, greater than

the OG of 100 mg/L.

All of the bacteriological parameters were below the detection limit in the sample collected after 5.5 hours of

pumping and on March 5, 2012 (see Table 1). The water supply well was chlorinated prior to testing. Chlorine

residual was not detected in the groundwater at the time of sampling for bacteriological parameters.

During sample collection at 1 hour and 5.5 hours of pumping, an odour thought to be potentially caused by

sulphur was detected in the discharge. This observation does not comply with the AO for odour, which indicates

that it should be inoffensive.

The field turbidity was 10.3 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and 11.6 NTU after 1 hour and 5.5 hours of

pumping, greater than the AO of 5 NTU.

All of the other results of chemical analysis were below the respective MACs, AOs and OGs (see Table 1).

Since the water quality exceeds numerous AOs but does not exceed any MACs (health related objectives), it is

recommended that the groundwater be used for sinks and toilets but not as a source of potable water as it would

likely not be palatable. It is proposed that the potable drinking water for employees, in the form of a water cooler

or bottled water, would be supplied at the portable lunch building.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 9

6.0 GROUNDWATER IMPACT STUDY

The site falls within the Carp Road Corridor and also lies within the study area of the Carp River

Watershed/Subwatershed Study. One of the objectives of the Carp Road Corridor is to “protect and enhance the

natural features” (City of Ottawa, 2004). According to Schedule 2 of the Carp Road Corridor Community Design

Plan, the site straddles areas of moderate and high recharge. There are no wetlands or woodlands greater than

50 years of age on the site or adjacent to the site.

The stormwater on site will be directed entirely by overland flow (no catchbasins or underground pipes are

proposed on site) toward proposed swales that surround the site. The swales will convey stormwater to one

major retention pond, located along the northwest property line, as well as one smaller retention ditch near

Richardson Side Road. The pond and ditch will provide storage of stormwater while it is being restricted to match

pre-development flow rates prior to leaving the site. Quality treatment will be accomplished by use of several in-

line sediment removal features, including rock check dams, grass lined stormwater swales and a plunge pool.

The site activities which have potential to impact the groundwater in the recharge area are the C&D waste

processing facility and the waste transfer station. Each activity is described below.

6.1 C&D Waste Processing Facility

The C&D Waste Processing Facility will receive waste material from construction and demolition sites to process

or sort the material such that its individual constituents can be recovered and re-used. The C & D processing

facility is located on an asphalt pad. It receives material in outside storage and then processes material through

a series of inside and outside processes.

Materials to be recovered during the sorting of the C&D waste include plastics, drywall, metal and cardboard and

paper products; post processing, these materials are placed in metal containers within the waste sorting area. It

is expected that there would be no adverse impact on groundwater or surface water quality from the material

stored in the metal containers due to the enclosed system and the regular removal of this material off-site once

the bins have reached a practical weight for shipment.

In addition, during the sorting process, asphalt, wood, wood chips, rubble/brick/block and mixed metals for re-

use and residual waste material for landfilling are stored in open piles within the waste sorting area. Any

residual waste material for landfilling is removed from the sorting area and taken to the waste transfer area daily.

The mixed metals in the open pile are sorted and placed into the appropriate metal containers. The

rubble/brick/block and asphalt are crushed on-site with a small crushing plant when quantities are sufficient.

This material is removed off-site when sufficient quantities to be transported are available. The clean wood is

separated from the remainder of the wood and is then sent through an inline grinder and sized to be used as

animal bedding, while the remaining wood waste is chipped and set aside for biomass fuel.

The potential for adverse impact on the surface water or groundwater quality as a result of leaching from the

open piles is considered to be negligible based on the type of material stored. Although it is acknowledged that

exposure of wood/wood chips to precipitation and atmospheric conditions over the long term can result in the

biodegradation of the material and the leaching of soluble compounds (such as tannins/lignins and phenols)

which could adversely impact water quality, the operation focuses on regular removal of these materials from the

C&D Waste Processing Facility in order to mitigate against such potential adverse impacts.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 10

6.2 Waste Transfer Station

The waste transfer station will accept industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste as well as residual waste

from on-site processing activities. The waste will be placed within the confines of a fully enclosed modern waste

transfer building which has a concrete floor. After receipt, the waste will be placed in bulking containers for

shipment off-site. The waste is expected to remain in the building for a maximum of 66 hours. The tipping floor will

be swept clean and absorbents will be used to remove any liquid that may occur from time to time. As such,

adverse impacts to the groundwater or surface from the waste transfer station are not expected.

The site activities are not expected to adversely impact groundwater in the recharge area (as identified in the

Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan).


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 11

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the terrain evaluation, groundwater supply investigation and groundwater impact study carried out by

Golder Associates at the site, the following summary and conclusions are provided:

a) The septic system at the site must be constructed in accordance with the 2006 Ontario Building Code

(OBC). Section 4.2 provides general septic leaching bed design considerations. These design

considerations are intended as guidelines only with respect to the feasibility of constructing a system on the

site. Prior to construction of any septic system, the system will have to be designed for the site conditions.

The septic system contractor would be responsible for ensuring all applicable regulations are met;

b) The water quality exceeds numerous AOs but does not exceed any MACs (health related objectives), it is

recommended that the groundwater be used for sinks and toilets but not as a source of potable water as it

would likely not be palatable. It is proposed that the potable drinking water for employees in the form of a

water cooler or bottled water would be supplied at the portable lunch building;

c) A pumping test conducted at the water supply well located at 2149 Richardson Side Road suggests that a

sufficient quantity of water is available in the bedrock to satisfy the required daily water consumption of

1,500 L/day. It is Golder Associates’ professional opinion that the probable well yield determined on the

basis of the pumping tests is representative of the yields that the future employees are likely to obtain from

the well in the long term; and,

d) The site activities are not expected to adversely impact groundwater in the recharge area (as identified in

the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan).


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 12

8.0 LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Tomlinson Environmental Services Inc. Should additional

parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder Associates) will

be required. The report, which specifically includes all tables, figures and appendices is based on data and

information collected during the site investigation conducted by Golder Associates and is based solely on the

conditions of the property at the time of the field investigation, supplemented by historical information and data

obtained by Golder Associates and others as described in this report.

The services performed as described in this report were conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care

and skill normally exercised by other members of the engineering and geoscience professions currently

practising under similar conditions, subject to the time limits and financial and physical constraints applicable to

the services.

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made based on it, are the

responsibilities of such third parties. Golder Associates accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered

by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

The findings and conclusions of this report are valid only as of the date of this report. If new information is

discovered in future work, including excavations, borings, or other studies, Golder Associates should be

requested to re-evaluate the findings of this report, and to provide amendments as required.


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000 14

REFERENCES

City of Ottawa, 2004. Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

Driscoll, F. 2003. Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition, Johnson Screens, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Golder Associates Ltd., 2010. Report on Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment, Goulbourn Recycling

and Waste Control Ltd., 106 Westhunt Road, Carp, Ontario. Golder Associates Ltd. Project number 10-

1122-0050. March 2010.

Golder Associates Ltd., 2012. Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd.

Resource Recovery Centre – Carp, Ontario. Golder Associates Ltd. Project number 11-1121-0087.

March 2012.

Ministry of the Environment, 1996a. Procedure D-5-5, Technical Guideline for Private Wells: Water Supply

Assessment, Revised August 1996. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Ministry of the Environment, 1996b. Procedure D-5-4, Technical Guideline for Individual On-site Sewage

Systems: Water Quality Impact Risk Assessment, Revised August 1996. Ontario Ministry of the

Environment.

Ministry of the Environment, 2006. Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines, June

2003, Revised June 2006. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2006. 2006 Building Code Compendium.

Theis, C.V. 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of

discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.

March 2012Table 1

Water Quality Data12-1125-0010(1000)

PARAMETER ODWQS

2/15/2012 2/15/2012 3/5/2012

1 hour 5.5 hours re-sample

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 30-500 (OG) -- 312 294 --

Ammonia (as N) -- -- <0.05 0.11 --

Calcium -- -- 190 170 --

Chloride (lab) 250 (AO) 250 1400 1100 --

Free Chlorine Residual >2.2 0 0

Colour (TCU) 5 (AO) 7 <2 3 --

Conductivity - field (uS/cm) -- -- >3999 >3999 3805

Conductivity - lab (uS/cm) -- -- 4960 4180 --

Dissolved Organic Carbon 5 (AO) 10 3.2 2.8 --

Fluoride 1.5 b (MAC) -- 0.14 0.15 --

Hardness (as CaCO3) 80-100 c (OG) -- 610 540 --

Hydrogen Sulphide (field) -- -- 0 0.3 0.3

Hydrogen Sulphide (lab) 0.05 (AO) 2.5 <0.02 0.09 --

Iron 0.30 (AO) 10 0.37 0.35 --

Magnesium -- -- 30 28 --

Manganese 0.05 (AO) 1 0.052 0.048 --

Nitrate (as N) 10 d (MAC) -- 0.5 0.5 --

Nitrite (as N) 1 d (MAC) -- <0.01 <0.01 --

pH (field) 6.5-8.5 (OG) -- 7.14 7.11 7.3

pH (lab) 6.5-8.5 (OG) -- 7.65 7.78 --

Phenols -- -- 0.019 <0.001 --

Potassium -- -- 5 4.6 --

Sodium 200 e (AO) 200 750 600 --

Sulphate 500 f (AO) 500 120 110 --

Tannin and Lignin -- -- <0.2 <0.2 --

Temperature (field) 15 (AO) -- 9.8 8.9 6.2

Total Dissolved Solids 500 (AO) -- 2730 2220 --

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen -- -- 0.2 0.4 --

Turbidity - field (NTU) 5 g (AO) 5 10.3 11.6 10.1

Turbidity - lab (NTU) 5 g (AO) -- 4.1 1 --

Total Coliforms (ct/100ml) not detected h (MAC) -- -- -- 0

Escherichia coli (ct/100ml) not detected (MAC) -- 0 0

Fecal Coliforms (ct/100ml) -- -- 0 0

Heterotrophic Plate Count (ct/ml) 500 (MAC) -- -- 0 0

Depth of Well (m) -- --

Depth to Water Bearing Zone(s) (m) -- --

Notes:

Criteria from “Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines”, Ministry of the Environment,

June 2003, Revised June 2006

OG = operational guideline

AO = aesthetic objective

MAC = maximum allowable concentration

Values are reported in mg/L unless otherwise noted

nd = below detection limit

-- = not measured or no value derived

Exceeds ODWQS (maximum acceptable concentration or aesthetic criteria)

Bold Exceeds Treatability Limit (MOE Guideline D-5-5)

a - Treatability Limit from MOE Guideline D-5-5

b - Where fluoride is added to drinking water, it is recommended that the concentration be adjusted to 0.5 – 0.8 mg/L, the optimum level for control of tooth

decay. Where supplies contain naturally occurring fluoride at levels higher than 1.5 mg/L but less than 2.4 mg/L, the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

recommends an approach through local boards of health to raise public and professional awareness to control excessive exposure to fluoride from other sources.

c - Hardness in excess of 500 mg/L in drinking water is unacceptable for most domestic purposes.

d – Where both nitrate and nitrite are present, the total of the two should not exceed 10 mg/L (as nitrogen).

e -The aesthetic objective for sodium in drinking water is 200 mg/L. The local Medical Officer of Health should be notified when the sodium concentration

exceeds 20 mg/L so that this information may be communicated to local physicians for their use with patients on sodium restricted diets.

f - When sulphate levels exceed 500 mg/L, water may have a laxative effect on some people.

g - Applicable for all waters at the point of consumption.

h - For private water wells Total Coliform counts of less than 6 per 100 ml of sample are considered indicative of acceptable water quality (Table 1 of

MOE Guideline D-5-5).

TREATABILITY LIMIT a

Water Supply Well at 2149 Richardson Side Road

83

42 and 82

N:\Active\2012\1125 - Environmental and Civil Engineering\12-1125-0010 Tomlinson Westhunt Hydrogeology\Report\Table 1 Water Quality - 12-1125-0010.xlsx

Golder Associates Entered by: TO

Checked by: MKF


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000

APPENDIX A MOE Well Record


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000

APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports of Analyses


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000

APPENDIX C Record of Test Pits


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000

APPENDIX D Ontario Building Code Tables (Sewage Systems)


March 2012 Report No. 12-1125-0010/1000

APPENDIX E Pumping Test Analysis

Golder Associates Ltd.

32 Steacie Drive

Kanata, Ontario, K2K 2A9

Canada

T: +1 (613) 592 9600

Caption Text

REPORT ON Hydrogeological Investigation and Terrain ...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT ON Hydrogeological Investigation and Terrain ...