Appendix A Landfill Site Life Calculations

Transcription

1 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-i Appendix A Landfill Site Life Calculations 1. Executive Summary - Site Capacity Historical Waste Quantities Table A-i presents the types and quantities of solid non-hazardous waste disposed at the landfill since it opened. The waste quantities in these tables are broken into eight categories: residential, biosolids, ash, other municipal, contaminated soil, contaminated soil used as cover material, IC&l (industrial, commercial & institutional) waste and C&D (construction and demolition) recycling process residuals. These categories are based on the waste categories used to record waste received at the Wi2A Landfill. Approximately 8,22, tonnes of waste has been disposed of at the landfill since 1977 including 223, tonnes in 214. Estimated Remaining Disposal Volume Estimates of the volume of disposal capacity that has been consumed (including waste, daily/intermediate cover and final covet) for the period 1976 to 213 and for 214 as well as the capacity remaining as of January 215 are presented in Table A-2. Based on a topographic survey, it is estimated that the remaining disposal volume is 3,467, m3 as of January 215 (see Table A-3). After allowing for final cover (38, m3) and daily/ intermediate cover (assume 4 parts waste to 1 part soil), 2,47, m3 of disposal capacity is available for waste as of January 215. Estimated Remaining Site Life In the 214 Annual Status Report for W12A Landfill (March, 215), waste quantity projections for the City of London for the next 4 years were developed for four different scenarios. These waste quantity projections represent the likely range of waste quantities that can be expected taking into account: Population growth: Provincial waste diversion target of 6% for residential, IC&I and C&D waste: and Possible changes to the management of IC&I and C&D waste. The four scenarios and resulting site life estimates for the W12A Landfill are summarized in Table A-3. A fifth scenario has been added for the Environmental Screening Process to estimate the site life of the W12A Landfill if the proposed service area amendment takes effect. Complete details of the site life calculations are presented in Section 2.. The key assumptions and rationale for estimating the waste quantities for each scenario in Table A-4 are summarized in Table A-5. The waste quantity projections suggest that the W12A Landfill has between 8 and 14 years of capacity remaining depending on how residential, IC&I and C&D processing residual waste is managed in the future. With no changes to the existing waste management practices it is estimated that the W12A Landfill will have 1 to ii years of capacity. Increasing the service area to accept waste from the five locations listed in this document would decrease the W12A Landfill capacity to 9 to 1 years.

2 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-2 Table A-I: Historical Waste Quantities Disposed of at WI2A Landfill Year Residential lc&l1 C&D Other Contaminated Contaminated Biosolids Ash Total Waste & Light Process Municipal3 Soil Soil - Cover Landfllled Commercial Residuals2 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,123 32,93 3,86 56, ,722 81,687 26, , ,955 69,874 3, , ,995 7,721 52,83 212, ,81 71,451 47,888 22, ,249 71,267 44, , ,247 72,616 1,96 36, , ,438 8,522 5,247 51, , ,46 9,263 2,935 43, 261, ,81 11,816 2,275 49, , ,25 114,928 1,465 67,46 36, , ,943 2,711 16,886 33, , ,41 141,954 3,677 15,272 33, , ,79 125,27 8,161 7,366 3, , ,133 19,99 27,11 8,745 14,18 256, ,78 58,516 32,318 8,643 15, , ,397 37,191 33,923 11,389 14,44 19, ,3 32,7 34,15 14,359 15, , ,41 13,154 63,243 12,84 16, , ,96 6,118 44,756 11,19 22, , ,63 4,294 42,44 12,973 21, ,34 3,588 39,367 16,42 21, , ,622 2,192 57,925 7,861 19, , ,36 2,355 17,177 29,42 5, , ,856 2,436 38,716 6,62 4,93 144, ,194 2,861 72, ,861 5, , ,477 19,778 45, ,19 6,61 3, , ,559 36,947 39,41 1,54 12,355 2,913 5,351 29, ,26 47,921 44,437 5, ,411 6,69 25, ,44 47,346 61,753 9,925 5,4 6,1 23, ,437 64,178 69,981 4,689 17,3 23,851 2, , ,72 69,742 69,97 17,626 18, , ,693 72,436 41,453 6,185 42,41 4,121 6,67 266, ,435 85,244 31,966 15,8 13,187 1,317 25, ,911 54,445 23,43 31,95 18,528 4,511 4, , ,172 45,954 18,991 32,8 3,59 1,269 4,633 1,94 21, ,569 4,314 24,155 51,259 2,473 1,73 5,994 4, ,999 Total 3,392, 2,112, 67, 1,197, 11, 12, 719, 315, 8,22, Percent 42% 26% 1% 15% 1.3% 1.5% 9% 4% Notes 1. lc&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. Also includes charitable waste. 2. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition. From 1977 to 1991, C&D waste was included with IC&l waste. In 1991 C&D waste was banned. In 28 W12A started to receive C&D recycling process residuals. C&D recycling process residuals were recorded separately beginning in Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants.

3 Aoendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-3 Table A-2: Landfill Capacity Calculations Capacity Used Item Units Year Total Volume Used m3 9,975, 358, 1,333, Less Final Covet Installed m3 838, 7, 98, Volume Available for Waste & Daily Cover m3 9,137, 288, 9,425, Less Daily Cover Used m3 2,21, 75, 2,285, Volume Consumed by Waste m3 6,927, 213, 7,14, Tonnage Tonnes 7,472, 222, 7,694, Apparent Density (waste & cover material) Tonnes/m Waste Density Tonnes/m Cover Material Used m3 2,21, 75, 2,285, Waste to Cover Material Ratio Remaining Capacity Item - Units Quantity Comment Approved Capacity m3 13,8, Volume Used m3 1,333, Volume Remaining - January, 215 m3 3,467, Area to be capped covers 38 Less Final Cover Requirements m3 38, hectares Volume Available for Waste & Daily Cover m3 3,87, - Less Daily Cover Requirements m3 617, Based on a 4:1 waste to cover ratio Volume Available for Waste m3 2,47, - Estimated Remaining Capacity Tonnes 2,35, Based on Scenario A - Status Quo Estimated Closure Date Based on Scenario A - Status Quo Estimated Site Life Years 1 -

4 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-4 A B C D E Table A-3: Remaining Site Life of the WI2A Landfill Remaining Scenario Site Life Yeats Date Status Quo residential diversion rate of 45% no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in IC&l waste disposal rate (15% landfilled atwl2a) no unprocessed C&D waste 1% of C&D recycling process residuals goes to W12A Decrease in Residential Waste Quantities 6% diversion of residential waste by no change in waste from City operations no change in lc&l waste disposal rate (15% Iandfilled at W12A) no unprocessed C&D waste 1%_of_C&D_recycling_process_residuals_goes_to_W12A Decrease in Residential, IC&l and C&D Waste Quantities 6% diversion of residential waste by no change in disposal rate from City operations ICI disposal rate decreases (1% landfill atwl2a) no C&D waste; 5% of C&D recycling process residuals goes to W12A Increase in IC&l quantities and Status Quo for Residential Waste residential diversion rate of 45% no change in waste from City operations ICI disposal rate increases (limited export, 6% landfilled at W12A coupled with 4% diversion of IC&l waste) no unprocessed C&D waste 1%_of_C&D_recycling_process_residuals_goes_to_W12A Status Quo except for Increase in Service Area residential diversion rate of 45% no change in waste from City operations no change in IC&I waste disposal rate (15% landfilled at W12A) no unprocessed C&D waste 1% of C&D recycling process residuals goes to W12A Increase service area of landfill and accept o C&D recycling process residuals from TRY Recycling (average of 2, tonnes per year) o Residential waste from Thames Centre (8 tonnes per year) and TRY Recycling EnviroDepot (5 tonnes per year o Process residuals received from the water treatment plants (2, tonnes per year) are used for daily cover and therefore does not take up landfill capacity reserved for waste.

5 .8 Anoendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-5 Table A-4: Key Assumptions in Estimating Waste Quantities Waste Category Disposal Key Assumptions/Comments Needs1 (tonnes) Residential - scenarios A& D 4. million No change in per Capita generation rate Diversion rate of 45% 3. million No change in per capita generation rate in future New waste diversion initiatives increases waste diversion - scenarios B & C rates from 45% to provincial waste diversion target of 6% by 22 - scenario E 4. million No change in per capita generation rate Diversion rate of 45% Residential waste from Thames Centre (8 tonne per year) Residential waste from TRY Recycling EnviroDepot (5 additional tonnes per year) City Operations Biosolids are incinerated most of the year except when Biosolids- scenarios A to E.3 million incinerator is shut down for annual maintenance (Biosolids from Water Pollution Biosolids will be used as daily cover at the landfill or on Control Plants) agricultural land in the future Biosolids Ash - scenarios A to E. million Biosolids ash is used in cement making in the future (ash from the incineration of making disposal no longer required biosolids) Other Municipal - scenarios A to E 1.7 million No change in per capita generation rate in future (street sweepings, grit from sewage treatment plants, etc.) Water Plant Process Residuals million Process residuals from the water treatment plants scenario E (2, tonnes per year); used for daily cover and therefore does not take up capacity reserved for waste IC&l - scenarios A, B & E 1.3 million No change to existing situation; 15% IC&l waste generated goes to W12A Landfill, 85% is diverted/exported from W12A Landfill - scenario C.9 million 9% of waste is diverted/exported from W12A Landfill; 1% lc&l waste generated goes to W12A Landfill - scenario D 5. million gradual decrease in waste export until eliminated; gradual increase in waste diversion to 4% overall, gradual increase to 6% of IC&l waste going to W12A_Landfill C&D - scenarios A to B 1. million C&D waste is banned from W12A Landfill; C&D recycling process residuals are allowed for disposal No C&D waste; 1 % of C&D recycling process residuals going to W12A Landfill - scenario C.5 million C&D waste is banned from W12A Landfill; C&D recycling process residuals are allowed for disposal No C&D waste; 5% of C&D recycling process residuals going_to_w12a_landfill - scenario E 1.9 million C&D waste is banned from W12A Landfill; C&D recycling process residuals are allowed for disposal No C&D waste; 1% of C&D recycling process residuals going to W12A Landfill accept new C&D recycling process residuals from TRY Recycling (average of 2, tonnes per year) Notes: 1. Site life and waste quantity projections for the period 215 to 254 are presented in Tables A-16 to A-31. Totals may not match quantities in Table A-22 to A-26 due to rounding.

6 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-6 2, Calculation of Remaining Site Life 2.1 BA CKGROUND Waste quantity projections and disposal requirements for the City of London are updated on an annual basis using the following process: Step 1. Calculate historical per capita waste generation, diversion and disposal rates Step 2. Estimate future trends in per capita rates Step 3. Update population projections Step 4. Calculate future waste quantities Step 5. Determine remaining capacity of W12A Landfill Step 6. Determine landfill site life and future waste disposal requirements 2.2 STEP 1: Calculate Historical Per Capita Waste Generation, Diversion and Disposal Rates Historical waste quantity data for the City of London since the W12A Landfill opened in 1977 to 214 are presented in Tables A-5 to A-8 (at the end of the written text) as follows: Table A-6 Historical Residential Waste Diversion Quantities Table A-7 Historical Residential Waste Quantities Disposed of at Private Facilities Table A-8 Historical Waste Quantities Disposed of at W12A Landfill Table A-9 Historical Waste Quantities Disposed of at SE3 Landfill (City landfill whose operation overlapped with W12A Landfill in the late 7 s and early 8 s). The waste quantities in these tables are broken into eight categories; residential & light commercial; industrial, commercial & institutional (IC&l) waste; construction and demolition (C&D) waste; other municipal; contaminated soil; contaminated soil cover; biosolids and biosolids ash. These categories are based on the waste categories used to record waste received at the W12A Landfill. The sum of the waste quantities in Tables A-5 to A-8 is presented in Table A-9. These totals were divided by the population for each year to calculate the historical per capita waste diversion and disposal rates for residential waste as well as historical per capita waste disposal rates for the other six categories of waste. Historical population estimates are presented in Tables A-i and A-i 1. The calculated unit generation rates (or per capita rates) are presented in Table A-12. Additional information on historical IC&I and C&D waste generation, diversion and disposal rates are presented in Table A STEP 2: Estimate Future Trends In Per Capita Rates Residential and Light IC&I A review of the residential (& light IC&l) waste disposal, diversion and generation rates in Table A-12 shows: consistent downward trend in the residential waste generation rate from.49 tonne/year (i.e., 49 kilograms/year) per capita in the mid 198 s to.41 tonne/year per capita in the late 199 s. In the 2 s the residential waste generation rate increased slightly to.44 ton ne/year per capita and has since lowered to.42 tonne/year per capita

7 Aopendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-7 downward trend in the residential waste disposal rate from.47 tonne/year per Capita ifl the mid 198 s to.24 tonne/year per Capita today upward trend in the residential waste diversion rate from.2 tonnelyear per Capita fl 1989 to.18 tonne/year per Capita today the average waste generation, diversion and disposal rate over the last five years were.41 tonne/year per Capita,.17 tonne/year per Capita and.24 tonne/year per Capita, respectively The reduction in the overall waste generation rate in the 199 s is attributed to changing purchasing habits because of an increasing awareness of environmental issues during the 199 s and initiatives undertaken by industry (e.g., measures to reduce packaging). This trend reversed in 2 and waste generation rates have started to increase slowly which typically happens during strong economic times. In 29 and 21, the rate drop slightly from 28 which coincides a downturn in the economy. For the purpose of estimating future waste quantities it was assumed that the waste generation rate will average.41 tonnes/year per capita. The increase in the waste diversion rate is the result of the introduction of numerous diversion programs over the last twenty five years. These programs have included curbside recycling, depot recycling, backyard composting, leaf and yard waste collection, multi-residential recycling, electronics recycling and EnviroDepots. The Province announced a provincial waste diversion target of 6% for all waste sectors (residential, IC&l and C&D) in 24. In December 27 the document A Road Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London (Road Map) was released for public comment and input. This document looked at a wide range of program changes, initiatives and new measures to increase waste diversion. Following extensive consultation and feedback on the Road Map the Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Initiatives (Interim Business Plan) was developed and approved by Council in January 21. Initiatives under the interim business plan were to be implemented on a case by case basis with final approval by Council. Many of these initiatives were implemented which increased the residential diversion rate from 4% to 45%. The Green Bin Program was not implemented. In December 213, Road Map 2. The Road to Increased Resource Recovery and Zero Waste (Road Map 2.) was released which looked at numerous initiatives, including the Green Bin program, to increase waste diversion. These initiatives have the potential to reach 6% waste diversion. The earliest this could happen is in 5 years. In 214 it was decided to identify elements from Road Map 2. that can be initiated in the shorter term (214 to 215) at minimal cost because of potential pending changes to waste management and extended producer responsibility in the Province. A comprehensive community engagement program was conducted between January and April 214. Public comments were gathered through various means which included the City website, community events and outreach displays, social and traditional media and a public opinion survey. In July 214, the public feedback was used to prepare the Interim Waste Diversion Plan (the Interim Plan). There are nine initiatives identified in the Interim Plan and two of them were implemented in 214: providing two Blue Boxes (instead of one) to new homes and mixed polycoat and blister packaging were added to the Blue Box program. The proposed expansion of the service are would result in approximately 8 tonnes more per year of residential waste coming from Thames Centre. Very little new residential waste would come from the expansion of the service area to include the new EnviroDepot at TRY Recycling in Middlesex Centre. The majority of this waste is currently going to the W12A Landfill but the TRY depot will provide a more convenient location once it opens. Some waste will come from residents of Middlesex Centre.

8 and shows no overall increasing or decreasing trend Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-8 It is assumed that the waste generation rate for residential waste in the future will be.41 tonneslyear per capita and that the amount requiring disposal will range from a conservative estimate of a disposal rate of 55% (current situation) for the next forty years to a disposal rate starting at 55% and decreasing to 4% by 22. It is assumed that the amount of residential garbage accepted from Thames Centre will be 8 tonnes per year. It is estimated the amount of new residential waste from the TRY Recycling EnviroDepot will be 5 tonnes per year. Biosolids and Biosolids Ash Biosolids refers to dewatered sludge Cake from the Greenway Pollution Control Plant. Normally biosolids are incinerated but are taken to the landfill for disposal when the incinerator is shut down for repairs or maintenance. A review of biosolids disposal rates in Table A-12 shows: waste disposal rate has varied from. to.6 tonnes per capita over the last ten years; average disposal rate over the last five years (21 to 214) was.15 tonne/year per capita Until 28, biosolids were taken directly to the landfill when the incinerator was shut down for repairs. In 28, the biosolids were treated using a lime stabilization process. This process helps to reduce the odours generated by the biosolids and reduces the moisture content of the material such that the material may be able to be used as a soil amendment on agricultural land in the long term. It will be assumed that the biosolids will continue to be disposed of at the landfill indefinitely until such time that approval to land application has been received. Until 28, biosolids ash generated from the incinerator was taken to the landfill for disposal. In 28, some of the biosolids ash was taken to St. Marys Cement where the ash was successtully incorporated into the cement making process. In 29, 211 and 212 all of the biosolids ash was taken to St. Marys cement for beneficial use. In 21, biosolids ash was disposed at the W12A Landfill because of process issues at St. Mary s cement. Beginning in 213, ash was landlilled because St. Marys Cement no longer would accept it. The ash disposal rate in 214 was.5 tonne/year per capita. It is assumed that the disposal rate for biosolids and biosolids ash will be 15 tonne/year per capita and.5 tonnelyear per capita respectively in the future. Other Municipal Waste Other municipal waste includes waste generated by City programs and projects excluding biosolids and biosolids ash from the Greenway Pollution Control Plant. This includes street sweepings, non-recyclable waste from city projects (e.g., road construction projects, construction of new facilities, etc.), waste from City parks and grit from pollution control plants. A review of other municipal waste disposal rates in Table A-12 shows: waste disposal rate has varied from.8 to.19 tonnes per capita over the last ten years average disposal rate over the last five years was.1 tonne/year per capita Efforts will be made in the future to divert more of this material away from landfill or use the material as daily cover at the landfill. However, for the purpose of estimating future waste quantities it has been assumed that all other municipal waste would be landfilled as is the current practice.

9 Apoendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-9 It is assumed that the disposal rate for other municipal waste will be.1 tonnelyear per capita in the future. IC&l Waste IC&l waste comes from a diverse range of sources and unlike the previous categories of waste is not under municipal control. This makes obtaining information and the calculation of waste generation, disposal and diversion rates more difficult to determine. A review of IC&l waste generation, diversion and disposal rates in Tables A-12 and A-13 shows: estimates of lc&l waste generation for London from 1997 (.48 tonne/year per capita) and more recent estimates for the province (.53 tonne/year per capita) are similar some IC&l waste is currently exported or diverted average disposal rate at W12A Landfill over the last five years was.15 tonne/year per capita (excluding contaminated soil) approximately 4, tonnes of IC&l waste was disposed of atwl2a in 214 or.1 tonne/year per capita; this represents approximately 2% of the IC&l waste generated. The 2,5 tonnes of contaminated waste soil received in 214 was lower than average. The quantity of contaminated waste soil received in any year is highly variable and depends on several factors such as the amount and location of construction activity. The average quantity received over the last 5 years was 9,3 tonnes per year. The diversion rate for IC&l waste may increase in the future as the province announced a provincial waste diversion target of 6% for all waste sectors including IC&l waste. Considering the above, three scenarios were developed for estimating future lc&l waste disposal rates In the first scenario ( status quo ) it is assumed 15% of the lc&i waste will require disposal at the City s landfill. With the loss of a major lc&l customer, it is assumed that the 2% of IC&l waste going to landfill will reduce to 15% for 215 onward. The remaining waste will either continue to be exported and diverted. In the second scenario ( reduced IC&l quantities ), it is assumed the quantity of lc&l waste requiring disposal at the Wi 2A Landfill drops from 15% to 1% because of the increased waste diversion/export. The 85% of the IC&l waste not currently coming to the W12A Landfill will continue to be exported and diverted from the landfill. In the third scenario ( increased IC&l quantities ), it is assumed the export of IC&l waste will decrease with time while the diversion of IC&l waste increase. In this case it is assumed that the IC&l waste diversion rate will only reach 4% and not the provincial target of 6%. This will result in the amount of lc&i waste going to landfill to increase to 6% of the IC&I waste generated. It is assumed that the waste generation rate for lc&l waste in the future will be.5 tonneslyear per capita and that 1% to 6% of the IC&l waste generated will be disposed of at the WI 2A Landfill. C&D Waste C&D waste comes from a diverse range of sources and like IC&l waste is not under municipal control. This makes getting information and the calculation of waste generation, disposal and diversion rates more difficult to determine.

10 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-ia C&D waste is banned from the WJ2A Landfill because there are local recycling options. The landfill does accept process residuals generated at these facilities. It is estimated that C&D waste recycling facilities generate approximately 25% to 4% residual waste. A review of C&D waste generation, diversion and disposal rates in Tables A-12 and A-13 shows: estimates of C&D waste generation for London from 1997 (.18 tonne/year per capita) and more recent estimates for the province (.11 tonne/year per capita) are different all C&D waste is currently exported or diverted because of a disposal ban at the landfill the landfill received 24, tonnes of C&D processing residuals (.6 tonne/year per capita) last year; this represents all or nearly all of the recycling process residuals or 3% of the total C&D waste generated It is assumed that the waste generation rate for C&D waste in the future will be.18 tonneslyear per capita and that 3% of the C&D waste generated will be disposed of at the WI2A Landfill (in the form of C&D recycling process residuals). For the purpose of evaluating the impact of receiving C&D processing residuals from TRY Recycling, in Scenario E it is assumed that an additional 2, tonneslyear of C&D processing residuals is received at the landfill in the future. This translates to an additional.5 ton ne/year per capita. 2.4 STEP 3: Update Population Projections The most recent population projections for the City of London are contained in the report Employment, Population, Housing and Non-Residential Construction Projections, City of London, Ontario, 277 Update prepared by the Altus Group in 212 for the City of London. The update report provides population estimates for the years 216, 221, 226, 231, 221, 236 and 241. These population estimates were used to develop permanent population projections for the period 215 to 254. For the period 215 to 241, the report s estimates were used for the years that a population estimate existed. For other years, the population was estimated by interpolation. For the period 242 to 254, it was assumed the rate of population growth would be the same as the period 236 to 241. Seasonal population projections were developed to account for the large number of out of town students living off campus and attending University of Western Ontario (UWO) and Fanshawe College. It was assumed that each student living off campus would generate 2/3 s of the garbage of a permanent resident since they typically attend school for 8 months of the year. The growth in the number of students was assumed to match the growth in permanent population. The population projections for City of London for the period 215 to 254 are presented in Table A-14.

11 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-il 2.5 STEP 4: Calculate Future Waste Quantities Waste quantity projections for the City of London for the next 4 years were estimated and presented in Table A-i 5. These estimates were calculated by multiplying the waste generation rate for each category of waste (as discussed in Section 2.3) by the population projection (Table A-i4) for each year. Estimates for the portion of waste that will require disposal at the Wi 2A Landfill were developed for five different scenarios. These scenarios that take into account the possible range of residential, IC&I and C&D waste quantities that may require disposal. Waste diversion and disposal projections for the four scenarios are presented in Tables A-i 6 to A-25 as follows: Table A-i6 Waste Diversion Projections: Scenario A (Status Quo) Table A-i 7 Waste Diversion Projections: Scenario B (Decrease in Residential Waste) Table A-i8 Waste Diversion Projections: Scenario C (Decrease in Res., lc&i and C&D Waste) Table A-19 Waste Diversion Projections: Scenario D (Status Quo Res./lncrease in lc&i) Table A-2 Waste Diversion Projections: Scenario E (Status Quo except for Increase in Service Area) Table A-2i Waste Disposal Projections: Scenario A (Status Quo) Table A-22 Waste Disposal Projections: Scenario B (Decrease in Residential Waste) Table A-23 Waste Disposal Projections: Scenario C (Decrease in Res., lc&i and C&D Waste) Table A-24 Waste Disposal Projections: Scenario D (Status Quo Residential/Increase in IC&l) Table A-25 Waste Disposal Projections: Scenario E (Status Quo except for Increase in Service Area) The key assumptions of the five scenarios are summarized below. Assumptions for Different Scenarios for the Disposal of Waste at the WI2A Landfill Scenario A: Status Quo residential diversion rate of 45% no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in disposal rate of biosolids; no disposal of biosolids ash 15% of IC&l waste disposed of at Wi 2A Landfill no C&D waste; 1% of C&D recycling process residuals goes to Wi 2A Landfill Scenario B : Decrease in Residential Waste Quantities 6% diversion of residential waste by 22 no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in disposal rate of biosolids; no disposal of biosolids ash 15% of IC&l waste disposed of at Wi 2A Landfill no C&D waste; 1% of C&D recycling process residual goes to W12A Landfill Scenario C: Decrease in Residential, IC&l and C&D Waste Quantities 6% diversion of residential waste by 22 no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in disposal rate of biosolids; no disposal of biosolids ash IC&l waste disposal rate decreases due to increase diversion;1 % of IC&l waste goes to WJ2A Landfill no C&D waste; 5% of C&D recycling process residual goes to W12A Landfill Scenario D : Status Quo for Residential and Increase in IC&l Waste Quantities residential diversion rate of 45% no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in disposal rate of biosolids; no disposal of biosolids ash IC&l waste diversion rate increases to 4% but no export; 6% of IC&l waste goes to W12A Landfill no C&D waste; 1% of C&D recycling process residual goes to W12A Landfill

12 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-i 2 Scenario E: Status Quo except for Increase in Service Area residential diversion rate of 45% minor amounts of residential waste from Thames Centre & Middlesex Centre (85 tonnes/yr) no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in disposal rate of biosolids; no disposal of biosolids ash 15% of IC&l waste disposed of at Wi 2A Landfill no C&D waste; 1% of C&D recycling process residual goes to W12A Landfill accept C&D recycling process residuals from TRY Recycling (average of 2, tonnes/yr) process residuals received from the water treatment plants are used for daily cover and therefore does not take up capacity reserved for waste. 2.6 STEP 5: Determine Capacity WI2A Landfill The assumptions used to calculate the remaining site life of the landfill are described below: Item Quantity (m3) Source Remaining Volume as of 3,467, Estimated based on January, 215 Topographical Survey, Match, 215 Less Final Cover 38, Remaining area to be capped times 1 metre Less Daily Cover 617, Assume 4 parts waste to 1 part soil Remaining Disposal Volume 2,47, for Waste as of January, STEP 6: Determine Landfill Site Life & Future Waste Disposal Requirements Conversion of Projected Waste Tonnages to Waste Volumes The following densities were used to convert waste ton nages in Tables A-26 to A-3 to volumes: Waste Type Density Comment (kglm3) Residential/Light 8 Typical long term in-place density for residential waste IC&l Biosolids 1, Typical density of biosolids Biosolids Ash 1,4 Estimate based on quantity of ash in typical dump truck Other Municipal 1,5 Large portion of waste in this category is street sweepings, grit, contaminated soil and rubble which has a high density lc&l/c&d 8 Typical long term in-place density for IC&l and C&D recycling residuals Contaminated Soil 2, Typical density of soil The volume of waste requiring disposal is presented in Tables A-26 to A-3.

13 Aptendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-i Determine Site Life of WI2A Landfill and Future Disposal Requirements The remaining volume of 2,47, m3 available for the disposal of waste at the W12A Landfill was Compared against estimated volume of waste requiring disposal in Tables A-26 to A-3. These tables were also used to estimate the Capacity shortfall for the 4 year planning period. The results are presented below: A B C D E Five Scenarios for the Disposal of Waste at the WI2A Landfill 4 Year Remaining Capacity Scenario Site Life Shortfall Million Million Years Year Tonnes m3 Status Quo residential diversion rate of 45% no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in biosolids rate and no biosolids ash no Change in lc&l waste disposal rate C&D recycling process residual goes to Wi 2A Decrease in Residential Waste Quantities 6% diversion of residential waste by no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in biosolids rate and no biosolids ash no change in IC&l waste disposal rate (15%) C&D recycling process residual goes to W12A Decrease in Residential, IC&l and C&D Waste Quantities 6% diversion of residential waste by no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in biosolids rate and no biosolids ash lower IC&l waste disposal rate (1%); 9% of IC&l waste exported/diverted 5% of C&D recycling process residual goes to Wi 2A Increase in IC&I quantities and Status Quo for Residential Waste residential diversion rate of 45% no change in disposal rate from City operations no change in biosolids rate and no biosolids ash higher lc&l waste disposal rate (6%); 4% of IC&l waste exported/diverted C&D_recycling_process_residual_goes_to_W12A Status Quo except for Increase in Service Area residential diversion rate of 45% no change in disposal rate from City operations - no change in biosolids rate and no biosolids ash no change in lc&l waste disposal rate C&D recycling process residual goes to W12A accept C&D recycling process residuals from TRY Recycling_(average_of_2,_tonnes_per_year)

14 r Pido Sibiotsi Home Home Yard Materat Fat Coat Ctnistnros Subtotal WOES Riosaten Mete/late TonbielSowil HSW Broworo Sobiotei Residential Table A-5 City of London Historical Residential Waste Diversion Quantities Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A14 Year Btue Box Recycl_ Compostin Other Total RoaidontioI Ito,,, Reins 599r C,,ooag/ crocseig cotootion Trees eeoaeeri Depot RabiN Diversion gorwas) gormoc) /lonnsg/ pormeot (tenon,) (lowe.) (tenon,) (tonoes) poems) (tomes) - (lore..) heroes) (tome.) goosed (term..) (form..) (terms,) (tnrmaio (tarmac) ((arnie.) gonoes) ,9 4,9 4, , 5, 5, ,1 5,1 5, ,2 5,2 5, ,3 5,3 5, ,4 5,4 5, ,5 5,5 5, ,75 5, , ,5 5, , ,65 1, , , , , , , , , ,69 1,3 11 1, , ,76 2,8 1,25 1 4, , , ,57 4,8 2, 4,65 2, ,51 1,14 2, ,48 32, , ,75 5,5 3,5 3,52 3,4 3, ,22 1,16 2, , , ,68 5,6 3,5 4,8 5,22 4, ,47 1,18 1,8 11 3,9 43, ,89 1, 46 18,35 5,7 3,7 4,6 2,44 3, ,3 1,21 1, ,14 41, ,31 1, 38 18,69 5,7 3,7 6,2 1,54 3, ,98 1,23 1, ,2 42, ,22 1, ,37 5,3 3,7 5,55 2,4 3, ,21 1,24 1, , ,9 46, ,48 2, ,98 5,3 3,7 5,11 2,19 5, ,54 1,25 1, , , ,8 2, ,5 5,3 3, ,85 5, , , , ,38 49, ,11 2, ,89 5,3 3,8 5,5 2,75 4, ,26 1,27 1 1, ,5 51, ,22 2, ,96 5,3 3,8 5,35 4,47 4, ,7 1,26 1 2, ,61 54, ,47 2, ,25 5,3 3,85 4,51 4,45 4, , ,3 49 2, ,92 54, , ,3 3,85 5,63 5,52 4, , ,5 5 3, ,49 61, ,2 2, , ,95 4,54 5,39 4, ,25 1,43 5 2,7 53 3, ,97 9,99 61, ,27 3, ,61 5,34 3,95 5,3 6,42 6, ,56 1,3 5 2,9 6 4, ,9 1,48 65, ,57 3, ,98 5,36 3,95 7,27 8,29 6, ,2 1,3 5 2, , ,1 1,86 68, ,11 3, ,53 5,42 3,95 5,45 7,17 3, ,26 1,3 28 2,1 74 4, ,9 1,97 61, ,52 3, ,17 5,44 3,95 5, 1,61 3, , , , ,14 11,12 66, ,96 3, ,67 5,46 3,95 4,54 9,92 4, ,6 72 4, ,14 12,6 67, ,42 3, ,3 5,49 3,2 5,23 11,16 4, , , ,52 1, ,15 13,49 68, ,5 3, ,4 5,51 3,42 6,15 12,81 4, , , ,41 1, ,16 13,63 71,86 Totals 511,66 43,94 7, , 111,83 72,99 97,91 113,65 67,36 2,63 486,57 22,99 2, ,9 8,8 54,57 4, 4,31 23,41 162,54 1,213,11 Notes and Assumptions 1 Wmghed qeantities. 2. City EnviroDepats (Clarke Road & Oxford Sf) and depot at the W2A Landfill. 3. Estimate based on number of coils sold through City program. From 1993 tn 1999, it is assumed that 8% of the units are being used and these units dioert 135kg per unit. Beginning in 2 ills assumed each nomposferdivnrts 1 kg/yearto be consistent with GAP process. 4. Estimate assumes curbside grass ban introduce in 1995 reduces grass generation by 5%. 5. tnotcdes fall pompkin depot collection and pay per bag grass ctippings 6. Estimate based on the acfaal number of trees to fill a truck o # of trucks fitted o 8kg per tree. 7. Estimate based on generation rate of 12 kg per hh)d per year (e g., 3kg recycled every 25 years I. Ban on curbside collection of white goodsilarge metal items in effect as of Beginning in 21. arnt diverted by Ben reduced by quantities collected at Depots 8, Estimate based on one tire/capita/year and 116 bras pen lonne. It was assumed the recooery rate was 75% from 1985 to 1996 and 6% after iggy (tocal tire recyclen closed in 1997). Beginning in 212. as WOO Datacall GAP process t7.1 kilograms diverted/capital. 9. Estimate based on 8% of weighted materials fa City depots (assume 2% process residoals( plus 5% of aoailable material not taken to City depots. Generation role of scrap metal is estimated to be 2 4 hg/capita/yr Generation rate of wood/ceo waste is estimated to be 15 to. Estimates fmns op to 1999 based an 1 9kg/litre collected. 3kg/compressed cylinder collected at the HOW Depot. Estimates from 2 to 21 use cannon conversion Factors consistent with GAP process. Estimates from 211 onwards from Steward Ontario DataCat( for MHSW. 11 Brewers Retail deposit return reported effective 21 as porwog GAP process.

15 ,4nnnt1iy A Landfill Site Life fliniiifinn A-1 Table A-6 City of London Historical Residential and Light Commercial Waste Quantities Disposed of at Private Facilities Year EFW Transfer Landfills Total Stations (tonnes) ftonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,534 61,67 59,25 65,197 27,573 29,58 31,473 36,717 38,554 49,72 49,2 54,162 47,229 1,895 5,777 4,626 1,534 61,67 59,25 65,197 27,573 29,58 31,473 36,717 38,554 49,72 49,2 54,162 49,124 5,777 4,626 Total 56,57 7,672 4, ,868 Notes and Assumptions 1. EFW refers to the London Health Sciences Centre Energy From Waste facility. This facility closed in October From 1999 to 21, waste collected at night was taken to the Canadian Waste Transfer Station. In the fall of 21 night 2. Garbage collection was transferred to the day shift and disposed of at the W12A Landfill site. A month long strike of City of London outside workers in July/August 21 resulted in the City collecting 3,726 tonnes of garbage at numerous drop-off locations. This waste was taken to several different disposal facilities. In addition, some multi-residential building owners contracted garbage collection to private firms. It is estimated that 5% (8 te) of bulk 3. bin Waste and 2% (1 te) of rear packer waste from multi-residential buildings was sent directly to private landfills.

16 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-i 6 Table A-Z City of London Waste Quantities Disposed of at WI 2A Landfill Year Residential IC&11 C&D Other Contaminated Contaminated Biosolids Ash Total & Light Municipal3 Soil Soil - Cover Waste Commercial Landfilled (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,93 3, ,722 81,687 26, , , , , ,995 7,721 52,83 212, ,81 71,451 47,888 22, ,249 71,267 44, , ,616 1,96 36, , ,438 8,522 5,247 51, , ,46 9,263 2,935 43, 261, ,81 11,816 2,275 49, , ,25 114,928 1,465 67,46 36, , ,943 2,711 16,886 33, , ,41 141,954 3,677 15,272 33, , ,79 125,27 8,161 7,366 3, , ,133 19,99 27,11 8,745 14,18 256, ,78 58,516 32,318 8,643 15, , ,397 37,191 33,923 11,389 14,44 19, ,3 32,7 34,15 14,359 15, , ,41 13,154 63, , , ,96 6,118 44,756 11,19 22, , ,63 4,294 42,44 12,973 21,677 13, ,34 3,588 39,367 16,42 21, , ,622 2,192 57,925 7,861 19, , ,36 2,355 17,177 29,42 5, , ,856 2,436 38,716 6,62 4,93 144, ,771 2,519 56,478 5, ,993 5, , ,194 2,861 72, ,861 5, , ,477 19,778 45, , , , ,559 36,947 39,41 1,54 12,355 2,913 5,351 29, ,26 47,921 44,437 5, ,411 6,69 25, ,44 47,346 61,753 9,925 5,4 6,1 23, ,437 64,178 69,981 4,689 17,3 23,851 2, , ,72 69,742 69,97 17,626 18, , ,693 72,436 41,453 6,185 42,41 4,121 6,67 266, ,435 85,244 31,966 15,8 13,187 1,317 25, ,911 54,445 23,43 31,95 18,528 4,511 4, , ,172 45,954 18,991 32,8 3,59 1,269 4,633 1,94 21, ,569 4,314 24,155 51,259 2,473 1,73 5,994 4, ,999 Total 3,392, 2,112, 67, 1,197, 11, 12, 719, 315, 8,22, Percent 42% 26% 1% 15% 1.3% 1.5% 9% 4% Notes 1. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. Also includes charitable waste. 2. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. From 1977 to 211, C&D included with lc&l. 3. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants.

17 Annpndiy A I inhfihi Sitp I ifp fliciiitinn A-I 7 Table A-8 City of London Historical Waste Quantities Disposed of at SE3 Landfill Year Residential IC&l/C&D Biosolids Total Waste Landfilled (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,48 27,37 14, , ,9 7,435 19,216 85, ,887 9,179 24,132 87, ,925 5,626 2,3 4, ,81 2, ,675 Total 253,67 52,455 6, ,48 Notes IC&I/C&D is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste as well as Construction and Demolition waste.

18 Appendix A: Landfill Site life Calculations A-i 8 Table A-9 Total Waste Quantities1 Year Residential/Light Commercial Biosolids Ash Other IC&13 C&D4 Cont. Soil5 Total Disposal Disposal Municipal2 Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Diversion Total Disposal (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,2 113,2 18,5 32,1 163, ,7 117,7 45,7 81,7 245, ,8 125,8 55, 69,9 25, ,9 122,9 54,4 7,7 248, ,6 4,9 12,5 47,9 71,5 239, ,2 5, 115,2 44,3 71,3 23, ,2 5,1 118,3 36,7 1,1 72,6 228, ,4 5,2 127,6 51,4 5,2 8,5 264, ,5 5,3 13,8 43, 2,9 9,3 267, ,8 5,4 14,2 49,4 2,3 11,8 293, ,5 139,2 67, 1,5 114,9 322, ,3 5,8 143,1 16,9 2,7 126,9 289, ,7 5,5 146,2 15,3 3,9 3,7 142, 311, , 1,7 149,7 7,4 2,8 8,2 125, 293, ,7 12, 136,7 8,7 3,9 27,1 19,1 285, ,2 12,6 139,8 8,6 3,7 32,3 58,5 242, ,9 14,2 139,1 11,4 4,2 33,9 37,2 225, , 18, 141, 14,4 4, 34, 32, 225, ,6 32,6 141,2 12,8 3,6 63,2 13,2 234, ,8 38,5 139,3 11,2 5,3 44,8 6,1 26, ,1 43,2 141,3 13, 5,5 42,4 4,3 26, ,2 41,5 139,7 16, 4,8 39,4 3,6 23, ,7 42,9 141,6 7,9 3,8 57,9 2,2 213,4 2 97,1 46,7 143,8 29,4 5,4 17,2 2,4 288, ,5 48,7 146,2 6,6 4,1 38,7 2,4 198, 22 97,8 5, 147,8 16, 5,7 56,5 2,5 6,4 234, ,2 51,7 153,9 5,9 5,2 72,1 2,9 3 24, ,5 54,6 153,1 6,6 3,9 45,6 19,8 3,5 232, ,6 54,7 157,3 2,9 5,4 41, 36,9 22,4 265,9 26 1,2 61,7 161,9 6,1 45,8 47,9 5,4 267,1 27 1,4 61,4 161,8 6, 61,8 47,3 14,9 291, ,4 65,7 167,1 23,9 3, 7, , 35, ,7 68, 165,7 69,9 69,7 36,5 341, ,9 61,8 155,7 4,1 6,1 41,5 72,4 48,6 328, ,4 66, 16,4 1,3 32, 85,2 29, 316, ,6 67,4 159, 4,7 31,9 54,4 23,4 23, 296, ,2 68,9 162,1 4, , 46, 19, 4,9 27, ,6 71,9 165,5 6, 4,2 51,3 4,3 24,2 3,5 295, Notes: 1. EFW Ash is not included in the table because the ash is from residential waste quantities that are already included in the Residential Disposal column. The EFW facility closed in 1999 and no EFW Ash will be generated in the future. 2. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 3. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. 4. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. From 1977 to 211, C&D included with IC&l. 5. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover.

19 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-i 9 Table A-1O Seasonal Student Population Year Enrollment1 Equivalent Population Total Equivalent UWO Fanshawe UWO Fanshawe Population , 5,4 8,32 1,6 9, ,25 5,5 8,43 1,63 1, ,5 5,8 8,55 1,72 1, ,75 5,9 8,66 1,75 1, , 5,9 8,78 1,75 1, ,25 6,4 8,89 1,9 1, ,5 6,7 9,1 1,99 11, ,75 6,9 9,12 2,5 11, , 6,7 9,24 1,99 11, ,25 6,5 9,36 1,93 11, ,5 6,7 9,47 1,99 11, ,75 6,7 9,59 1,99 11, , 6,9 9,7 2,5 11, ,25 7,6 9,82 2,26 12, ,5 8,3 9,93 2,47 12, ,75 8,6 1,5 2,55 12, , 8,6 1,16 2,55 12, ,25 9,4 1,28 2,79 13, ,5 9,6 1,4 2,85 13, ,75 9,7 1,51 2,88 13, , 9,8 1,63 2,91 13, ,25 1, 1,74 2,97 13, ,5 1,5 1,86 3,12 13, ,75 1,6 1,97 3,15 14, , 1,9 11,9 3,24 14, , 12,2 12,1 3,62 15, , 12,8 12,94 3,8 16, , 13,2 13,4 3,92 17, ,3 13,8 13,54 4,1 17, ,6 14,2 13,68 4,22 17, ,9 14,8 13,81 4,4 18, ,2 15,5 13,95 4,6 18, ,9 15,88 14,28 4,72 19, 21 31,6 16,26 14,6 4,83 19, ,3 16,65 14,92 4,95 19, , 16,97 15,25 5,4 2, ,7 17,29 15,57 5,14 2, ,4 17,61 15,89 5,23 21,12 Notes 1. Enrollment from UWO and Fanshawe registry up to 28. Assumed to grow at same rate of population growth after The equivalent population was calculated using the following assumptions: a) 7% of UWO students are from out of town and live off campus; b) 45% of Fanshawe students are from out of town and lived off campus and d) they lived in London for 8 months or 66% of the year. Estimates of percentage of students living off campus are based on information provided by the UWO Housing Office.

20 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-2 Table A-Il Historical Population Year London Westminster2 Seasonal3 Total ,8 5,95 9,92 258, ,82 5,95 1,6 261, ,59 5,95 1,27 264, ,39 5,95 1,41 267, ,28 5,95 1,53 27, ,25 5,95 1,79 273, ,22 5,94 11, 277, ,19 5,94 11,17 28, ,16 5,94 11,23 283, ,15 5,93 11,29 286, ,95 6,1 11,46 293, ,75 6,27 11,58 3, ,55 6,45 11,75 37, ,35 6,64 12,8 315, ,17 6,83 12,4 322, ,2 7,3 12,6 325, ,28 12,71 328, ,37 13,7 332, ,55 13,25 335, ,65 13,39 339, ,82 13,54 341, ,99 13,71 343, ,16 13,98 346, ,33 14,12 348, ,5 14,33 35, ,7 15,63 355, ,9 16,74 359, ,1 17,32 363, ,3 17,64 366, ,4 17,9 37, ,1 18,21 373, ,8 18,55 376, ,5 19, 379, ,2 19,43 382, ,1 19,87 385, ,4 2,29 387, ,7 2,71 389, , 21,12 391,12 Notes 1. From City of London Planning Department documents. 2. Population includes the Township of Westminster prior to In 1993 the Township of Westminster became part of the City of London. 3. Equivalent seasonal population (students) is calculated in Table A-i 1.

21 ADgendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-21 Table A-12 Historical Unit Generation Rates Year Population1 Residential/Light_Commercial Biosolids Biosolids Other IC&12 C&D4 Cont. Soil5 Total Disposal Diversion Total Ash Municipal2 tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ tonne/ capita/year capita/year capita/year capita/year capita/year capita/year capita/year capita/year capita/year capita/year , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Avg Notes 1. Population includes the allowance for Township of Westminster prior to 1993 and for out-of-town post secondary students. In 1993 the Township of Westminster became part of the City of London. 2. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 3. IC&l/C&D is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste as well as Construction and Demolition waste. 4. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. From 1977 to 211, C&D included with IC&l. Average only includes 3 years. 5. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover.

22 Table A-13 Estimated IC&I and C&D Rates from Various Sources Generation. Rate Description Comments Tonnes ICapitalYear IC&I and C&D Waste Disposal Rate at the W12A Calculated from Landfill Weigh Scale Records; 1989 represents a year in which the local 46 Landfill, economy was strong and there were no/limited waste export options. IC&I Waste Disposal Rate at the W12A Landfill Based on Landfill Weigh Scale Records. Includes contaminated fill. Excludes C&D 15 (5 year average from 21 to 214) process residuals C&D Waste Disposal Rate at the W12A Landfill for Construction and Demolition waste is banned from the W12A Landfill. This quantity represents C&D process waste residuals received at the landfill in 214. ADpendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-22 IC&l Waste Generation Rate, Ontario, The Private Sector IC&l Waste Management System in Ontario (RIS International, 25) IC&I Waste Diversion Rate, Ontario, The Private Sector lc&l Waste Management System in Ontario (RIS International, 25) IC&l Waste Diposal Rate, Ontario, The Private Sector IC&l Waste Management System in Ontario (RIS International, 25) C&D Waste Generation Rate, Ontario, 22.1 The Private Sector IC&l Waste Management System in Ontario (RIS International, 25) C&D Waste Diversion Rate, Ontario, 22.1 The Private Sector IC&l Waste Management System in Ontario (RIS International, 25) C&D Waste Diposal Rate, Ontario, 22.9 The Private Sector IC&l Waste Management System in Ontario (RIS International, 25) IC&I Waste Generation Rate, London, Final Task 7 Report The Problem or Opportunity (London, 1997) C&D Waste Generation Rate, London, Final Task I Report The Problem or Opportunity (London, 1997) IC&I Waste Diversion Rate, London 24.7 Estimate of Blue Box Recyclables Generated by the IC&l Sector in the City of London (2cg, 25)

23 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations Table A-14 Population Projections for the City of London Year Permanent12 Equivalent Total Seasonal ,3 21,2 392, ,7 21,3 394, ,2 21,4 396, ,7 21,6 399, ,2 21,7 41, ,7 21,8 44, ,4 22, 47, ,5 22,2 411, ,6 22,5 416, ,7 22,7 42, ,8 22,9 424, ,7 23,2 428, ,9 23,3 432, ,1 23,5 435, ,3 23,7 439, ,5 23,9 442, ,9 24,1 446, ,5 24,3 449, ,1 24,5 453, ,7 24,7 457, ,3 24,9 461, ,8 25,1 464, ,4 25,3 468, , 25,5 472, ,6 25,7 476, ,2 25,9 48, ,6 26,1 483, ,3 26,3 487, , 26,5 491, ,8 26,8 495, ,6 27, 499, ,4 27,2 53, ,3 27,4 57, ,2 27,6 511, ,1 27,9 516, ,1 28,1 52, ,1 28,3 524, ,1 28,5 528, ,1 28,8 532, ,2 29, 537,2 Notes 1. Population projections for the period 26 to 241 from Employment, Population, Housing and Non-Residential Construction Projections, City of London, Ontario, 277 Update (Altus Group,21 2). 2. Population projections beyond 231 were extrapolated by assuming the same rate of growth rate after 241 as immediately prior to Equivalent seasonal population (students) is calculated assuming 66% of students enrolled in post secondary education are out of town students living off-campus for eight months of the year. Therefore each actual students represents 44% equivalent garbage of a permanent resident. 4. Growth in post secondary enrollment is assumed to match population growth.

24 Aooendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-24 Table A-15 Waste Quantity Projections1 Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other ic&t C&D4 Cont. Soilb Total Running Ash Municipal2 Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,2 5,6 1,9 37,1 185,7 66,8 22,3 471,6 471, ,8 5,6 1,9 37,3 186,4 67,1 22,4 473,5 945, ,8 5,6 1,9 37,5 187,6 67,5 22,5 476,4 1,421, ,9 5,7 1,9 37,8 188,9 68, 22,7 479,9 1,91, ,9 5,7 1,9 38, 19,1 68,4 22,8 482,8 2,384, ,9 5,7 1,9 38,3 191,4 68,9 23, 486,1 2,87, , 5,8 1,9 38,5 192,7 69,4 23,1 489,4 3,359, ,7 5,8 1,9 39, 194,8 7,1 23,4 494,7 3,854, ,4 5,9 2, 39,4 196,8 7,8 23,6 499,9 4,354, ,1 6, 2, 39,8 198,9 71,6 23,9 55,3 4,859, ,7 6, 2, 4,2 2,9 72,3 24,1 51,2 5,369, ,3 6,1 2, 4,6 22,9 73, 24,3 515,2 5,885, ,6 6,1 2, 4,9 24,5 73,6 24,5 519,2 6,44, , 6,2 2,1 41,2 26,1 74,2 24,7 523,5 6,927, ,3 6,2 2,1 41,5 27,7 74,8 24,9 527,5 7,455, ,6 6,3 2,1 41,9 29,3 75,3 25,1 531,6 7,986, , 6,3 2,1 42,2 211, 75,9 25,3 535,8 8,522, ,5 6,4 2,1 42,6 212,8 76,6 25,5 54,5 9,63, ,9 6,4 2,1 42,9 214,6 77,2 25,7 544,8 9,67, ,4 6,5 2,2 43,3 216,4 77,9 26, 549,7 1,157, ,9 6,5 2,2 43,6 218,2 78,5 26,2 554,1 1,711, ,3 6,6 2,2 44, 219,9 79,2 26,4 558,6 11,27, ,8 6,7 2,2 44,3 221,7 79,8 26,6 563,1 11,833, ,3 6,7 2,2 44,7 223,5 8,5 26,8 567,7 12,41, ,7 6,6 2,3 45,1 225,3 81,1 27, 572,3 12,973, ,2 6,8 2,3 45,4 227,1 81,8 27,3 576,9 13,55, ,6 6,9 2,3 45,8 228,8 82,4 27,5 581,3 14,131, ,1 6,9 2,3 46,1 23,7 83, 27,7 565,6 14, ,7 7, 2,3 46,5 232,5 83,7 27,9 59,6 15,38, ,2 7, 2,3 46,9 234,4 84,4 28,1 595,3 15,93, ,8 7,1 2,4 47,3 236,3 85,1 28,4 6,4 16,53, ,3 7,1 2,4 47,6 238,2 85,8 28,6 65, 17,18, ,9 7,2 2,4 48, 24,2 86,5 28,8 61, 17,718, ,5 7,3 2,4 48,4 242,1 87, , 18,333, ,1 7,3 2,4 48,3 244,1 87,9 29,3 619,9 18,953, ,8 7,4 2,5 49,2 246,1 88,6 29,5 625,1 19,578, ,4 7,4 2,5 49,6 248,1 89,3 29,8 63,1 2,28, , 7,5 2,5 5, 25,1 9, 3, 635,1 2,843, ,7 7,6 2,5 5,4 252,1 9,7 3,2 64,2 21,484, ,4 7,6 2,5 5,8 254,1 91,5 3,5 645,4 22,129, ,143,7 261,3 87,1 1,742,5 8,713, 3,136,4 1,45,5 22,129,5 Notes 1 Waste quantity projections were estimated by multiplying populations projections by the appropriate waste generation rate. 2. Other Municipal includes Street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants 3. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 4. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 5. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover. 6. Waste generation rates used to calculate projected waste quantities are summarized in table beside footnotes. 7. It was assumed that the unit generation rate will not change during the study period. I Category Rate London Residential Waste Generation Rate.41 tonne/capita/year IC&l Waste Generation Rate.5 tonne!capita/year C&D Waste Generation Rate.18 tonne/capita/year Cont. Soil Generation Rate.6 tonnefcapita/year Biosolids Ash Disposal Rate.5 tonne/capita/year Biosolids Disposal Rate.15 tonne/capita/year Other Municipal Waste Disposal Rate.1 tonne/capita/year

25 AnnnHiy A I nhfihi Sit I ifp Ir.iiIitinn Table A-16 Waste Diversion Projections1: Scenario A (Status Quo) Year Residential IC&I C&D Total Running Exported/Diverted Exported/Diverted Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,8 67,1 67,5 68, 68,4 68,9 69,4 7,1 7,8 71,6 72,3 73, 73,6 74,2 74,8 75,3 75,9 76,6 77,2 77,9 78,5 79,2 79,8 8,5 81,1 81,8 82,4 83, 83,7 84,4 85,1 85,8 86,5 87,2 87,9 88,6 89,3 9, 9,7 91,5 157,8 158,4 159,5 16,5 161,6 162,6 163,8 165,5 167,3 169, 17,8 172,4 173,8 175,1 176,5 177,9 179,3 18,8 182,4 183,9 185,4 186,9 188,4 19, 191,5 193, 194,5 196,1 197,6 199,2 2,9 22,5 24,1 25,8 27,4 29,1 21,8 212,5 214,2 216, 44,6 44,7 45, 45,3 45,6 45,9 46,2 46,7 47,2 47,7 48,2 48,7 49,1 49,5 49,8 5,2 5,6 51,1 51,5 51,9 52,4 52,8 53,2 53,6 54,1 54,5 54,9 55,4 55,8 56,3 56,7 57,2 57,6 58,1 58,6 59,1 59,5 6, 6,5 61, 269,2 27,2 272, 273,8 275,6 277,4 279,4 282,3 285,3 288,3 291,3 294,1 296,5 298,8 31,1 33,4 35,8 38,5 311,1 313,7 316,3 318,9 321,4 324,1 326,7 329,3 331,8 334,5 337,1 339,9 342,7 345,5 348,2 351,1 353,9 356,8 359,6 362,5 365,4 368,5 269,2 539,4 811,4 1,85,2 1,36,8 1,638,2 1,917,6 2,199,9 2,485,2 2,773,5 3,64,8 3,358,9 3,655,4 3,954,2 4,255,3 4,558,7 4,864,5 5,173, 5,484,1 5,797,8 6,114,1 6,433, 6,754,4 7,78,5 7,45,2 7,734,5 8,66,3 8,4,8 8,737,9 9,77,8 9,42,5 9,766, 1,114,2 1,465,3 1,819,2 11,176, 11,535,6 11,898,1 12,263,5 12,632, Notes Waste diversion projections were estimated by multiplying population projections by the appropriate unit 1 waste diversion rate. 2. The following unit waste diversion rates were used in the calculation of the waste generation projections: IC&l C&D Category Residential Export/Diversion Export/Diversion Units Waste Diversion Rate in the Year tonne/capita/year Annual Change in Waste Diversion Rate.%.%.% Anticipated Long Term Diversion Rate tonne/capita/year IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste.

26 Aooendix A: Landfill Site Life CaIc.Lllations A-2R Table A-17 Waste Diversion Projections1: Scenario B (Decrease in Residential Waste) Year Residential IC&l C&D Total Running Exported/Diverted Exported/Diverted Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ftonnes) (tonnes) ,5 76,8 82,7 89,1 91,2 91,8 92,5 93,5 94,5 95,4 96,4 97,4 98,1 98,9 99,7 1,4 11,3 12,1 13, 13,8 14,7 15,6 16,4 17,3 18,1 19, 19,8 11,7 111,6 112,5 113,4 114,3 115,3 116,2 117,1 118,1 119,1 12, 121, 122, 157,8 158,4 159,5 16,5 161,6 162,6 163,8 165,5 167,3 169, 17,8 172,4 173,8 175,1 176,5 177,9 179,3 18,8 182,4 183,9 185,4 186,9 188,4 19, 191,5 193, 194,5 196,1 197,6 199,2 2,9 22,5 24,1 25,8 27,4 29,1 21,8 212,5 214,2 216, 44,6 44,7 45, 45,3 45,6 45,9 46,2 46,7 47,2 47,7 48,2 48,7 49,1 49,5 49,8 5,2 5,6 51,1 51,5 51,9 52,4 52,8 53,2 53,6 54,1 54,5 54,9 55,4 55,8 56,3 56,7 57,2 57,6 58,1 58,6 59,1 59,5 6, 6,5 61, 273,9 279,9 287,2 294,9 298,4 3,3 32,5 35,7 39, 312,1 315,4 318,5 321, 323,5 326, 328,5 331,2 334, 336,9 339,6 342,5 345,3 348, 35,9 353,7 356,5 359,2 362,2 365, 368, 371, 374, 377, 38,1 383,1 386,3 389,4 392,5 395,7 399, 273,9 553,8 841, 1,135,9 1,434,3 1,734,6 2,37,1 2,342,8 2,651,8 2,963,9 3,279,3 3,597,8 3,918,8 4,242,3 4,568,3 4,896,8 5,228, 5,562, 5,898,9 6,238,5 6,581, 6,926,3 7,274,3 7,625,2 7,978,9 8,335,4 8,694,6 9,56,8 9,421,8 9,789,8 1,16,8 1,534,8 1,911,8 11,291,9 11,675, 12,61,3 12,45,7 12,843,2 13,238,9 13,637,9 Notes 1 Waste diversion projections were estimated by multiplying population projections by the appropriate unit waste diversion rate. 2. The following unit waste diversion rates were used in the calculation of the waste generation projections: IC&l C&D Category Residential Export/Diversion Export/Diversion Units Waste Diversion Rate in the Year Annual Change in Waste Diversion Rate 7% % % tonne/capitalyear Anticipated Long Term Diversion Rate tanne/capit&year IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste.

27 .45 ADoendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-27 Table A-18 Waste Diversion Projections1: Scenario C (Decrease in Residential Waste, IC&I and C&D Waste) Year Residential IC&l C&D Total Running Exported/Diverted Exported/Diverted Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,5 76,8 82,7 89,1 91,2 91,8 92,5 93,5 94,5 95,4 96,4 97,4 98,1 98,9 99,7 1,4 11,3 12,1 13, 13,8 14,7 15,6 16,4 17,3 18,1 19, 19,8 11,7 111,6 112,5 113,4 114,3 115,3 116,2 117,1 118,1 119,1 12, 121, 122, 165,7 167,7 168,8 17, 171,1 172,2 173,4 175,3 177,1 179, 18,8 182,6 184, 185,4 186,9 188,3 189,9 191,5 193,1 194,7 196,3 197,9 199,5 21,2 22,8 24,4 25,9 27,6 29,3 211, 212,7 214,4 216,1 217,9 219,6 221,4 223,2 225, 226,8 228,7 46,8 49,3 52,1 55,1 57, 57,4 57,8 58,4 59, 59,7 6,3 6,9 61,3 61,8 62,3 62,8 63,3 63,8 64,4 64,9 65,4 66, 66,5 67,1 67,6 68,1 68,6 69,2 69,8 7,3 7,9 71,5 72, 72,6 73,2 73,8 74,4 75, 75,6 76,2 284, 293,8 33,6 314,2 319,3 321,4 323,7 327,2 33,6 334,1 337,5 34,9 343,4 346,1 348,9 351,5 354,5 357,4 36,5 363,4 366,4 369,5 372,4 375,6 378,5 381,5 384,3 387,5 39,7 393,8 397, 4, ,7 49,9 413,3 416,7 42, 423,4 426,9 284, 577,8 881,4 1,195,6 1,514,9 1,836,3 2,16, 2,487,2 2,817,8 3,151,9 3,489,4 3,83,3 4,173,7 4,519,8 4,868,7 5,22,2 5,574,7 5,932,1 6,292,6 6,656, 7,22,4 7,391,9 7,764,3 8,139,9 8,518,4 8,899,9 9,284,2 9,671,7 1,62,4 1,456,2 1,853,2 11,253,4 11,656,8 12,63,5 12,473,4 12,886,7 13,33,4 13,723,4 14,146,8 14,573,7 - Notes 1 Waste diversion projections were estimated by multiplying populations projections by the appropriate unit waste diversion rate. 2. The following unit waste diversion rates were used in the calculation of the waste generation projections: IC&l C&D Category Residential Export/Diversion Export/Diversion Units Waste Diversion Rate in the Year lonnelcapitaiyear Annual Change in Waste Diversion Rate 7% 5% 5% % Anticipated Long Term Diversion Rate tannelcapitaiyear 3. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 4. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste.

28 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-28 Table A-19 Waste Diversion Projections1: Scenario (Status Quo Res./Increase D in IC&I Waste) Year Residential IC&I C&D Total Running Exported/Diverted Exported/Diverted Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,8 142, 44,6 253,4 253, ,1 128,3 44,7 24,1 493, ,5 116,2 45, 228,7 722, , 15,3 45,3 218,6 94, ,4 95,4 45,6 29,4 1,15, ,9 86,4 45,9 21,2 1,351, ,4 78,3 46,2 193,9 1,545, , ,7 194,7 1,74, 223 7,8 78,7 47,2 196,7 1,936, ,6 79,5 47,7 198,8 2,135, ,3 8,4 48,2 2,9 2,336, , 81,1 48,7 22,8 2,539, ,6 81,8 49,1 24,5 2,743, ,2 82,4 49,5 26,1 2,949, ,8 83,1 49,8 27,7 3,157, ,3 83,7 5,2 29,2 3,366, ,9 84,4 5,6 21,9 3,577, ,6 85,1 51,1 212,8 3,79, ,2 85,8 51,5 214,5 4,4, ,9 86,5 51,9 216,3 4,221, ,5 87,3 52,4 218,2 4,439, ,2 88, 52,8 22, 4,659, ,8 88,7 53,2 221,7 4,881, ,5 89,4 53,6 223,5 5,14, ,1 9,1 54,1 225,3 5,329, ,8 9,8 54,5 227,1 5,557, ,4 91,5 54,9 228,8 5,785, , 92,3 55,4 23,7 6,16, ,7 93, 55,8 232,5 6,249, ,4 93,8 56,3 234,5 6,483, ,1 94,5 56,7 236,3 6,719, ,8 95,3 57,2 238,3 6,958, ,5 96,1 57,6 24,2 7,198, ,2 96,8 58,1 242,1 7,44, ,9 97,6 58,6 244,1 7,684, ,6 98,4 59,1 246,1 7,93, ,3 99,2 59,5 248, 8,178, , 1, 6, 25, 8,428, ,7 1,8 6,5 252, 8,68, ,5 11,6 61, 254,1 8,934,7 Notes Waste diversion projections were estimated by multiplying 1 populations projections by the appropriate unit waste diversion rate. 2. The following unit waste diversion rates were used in the calculation of the waste generation projections: IC&l C&D Category Residential ExpoWDiversion ExportiDiversion Units Waste Diversion Rate in the Year tonne/capita/year Annual Change in Waste Diversion Rate.% -1.%.% Anticipated Long Term Diversion Rate tonne/capita/year 3. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 4. C&D is an abbreviation for Constwction and Demolition waste.

29 Apiendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-29 Table A-2 Waste Diversion Projections1: Scenario E (Status Quo except for Increase in Service Area) Year Residential lc&l C&D Total Running Exported/Diverted Exported/Diverted Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,8 157,8 26, 25,6 25, ,1 158,4 26,1 251,6 52, ,5 159,5 26,3 253,3 755, , 16,5 26,4 254,9 1,1, ,4 161,6 26,6 256,6 1,267, 22 68,9 162,6 26,8 258,3 1,525, ,4 163,8 27, 26,2 1,785, ,1 165,5 27,3 262,9 2,48, ,8 167,3 27,6 265,7 2,314, ,6 169, 27,8 268,4 2,582, ,3 17,8 28,1 271,2 2,853, , 172,4 28,4 273,8 3,127, ,6 173,8 28,6 276, 3,43, ,2 175,1 28,8 278,1 3,681, ,8 176,5 29,1 28,4 3,962, 23 75,3 177,9 29,3 282,5 4,244, ,9 179,3 29,5 284,7 4,529, ,6 18,8 29,8 287,2 4,816, ,2 182,4 3, 289,6 5,16, ,9 183,9 3,3 292,1 5,398, ,5 185,4 3,5 294,4 5,692, ,2 186,9 3,8 296,9 5,989, ,8 188,4 31, 299,2 6,288, ,5 19, 31,3 31,8 6,59, ,1 191,5 31,5 34,1 6,894, ,8 193, 31,8 36,6 7,21, ,4 194,5 32, 38,9 7,51, , 196,1 32,3 311,4 7,821, ,7 197,6 32,6 313,9 8,135, ,4 199,2 32,8 316,4 8,451, ,1 2,9 33,1 319,1 8,77, ,8 22,5 33,3 321,6 9,92, ,5 24,1 33,6 324,2 9,416, ,2 25,8 33,9 326,9 9,743, ,9 27,4 34,2 329,5 1,73, 25 88,6 29,1 34,4 332,1 1,45, ,3 21,8 34,7 334,8 1,739, , 212,5 35, 337,5 11,77, ,7 214,2 35,3 34,2 11,417, ,5 216, 35,6 343,1 11,76,7 Notes Waste diversion projections were estimated by multiplying populations projections by the appropriate unit 1 waste diversion rate. 2. The following unit waste diversion rates were used in the calculation of the waste generation projections: lc&l C&D Category Residential Export/Diversion Export/Diversion Units Waste Diversion Rate in the Year tonne/capita/year Annual Change in Waste Diversion Rate.%.% -5.% Anticipated Long Term Diversion Rate tonne/capita/year 3. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 4. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste.

30 Apiendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A3 Table A-21 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Weight: Scenario A (Status Quo) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other 1 lc&l C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal Residual Soil4 Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,4 5,6 1,9 37,1 27,9 22,2 22,3 22,4 22, ,7 5,6 1,9 37,3 28, 22,4 22,4 23,3 45, ,3 5,6 1,9 37,5 28,1 22,5 22,5 24,4 61, ,9 5,7 1,9 37,8 28,4 22,7 22,7 26,1 816, ,5 5,7 1,9 38, 28,5 22,8 22,8 27,2 1,23, , 5,7 1,9 38,3 28,8 23, 23, 28,7 1,232, ,6 5,8 1,9 38,5 28,9 23,2 23,1 21, 1,442, ,6 5,8 1,9 39, 29,3 23,4 23,4 212,4 1,654, ,6 5,9 2, 39,4 29,5 23,6 23,6 214,6 1,869, ,5 6, 2, 39,8 29,9 23,9 23,9 217, 2,86, ,4 6, 2, 4,2 3,1 24,1 24,1 218,9 2,35, ,3 6,1 2, 4,6 3,5 24,3 24,3 221,1 2,526, , 6,1 2, 4,9 3,7 24,5 24,5 222,7 2,748, ,8 6,2 2,1 41,2 31, 24,7 24,7 224,7 2,973, ,5 6,2 2,1 41,5 31,2 25, 24,9 226,4 3,199, ,3 6,3 2,1 41,9 31,4 25,1 25,1 228,2 3,428, ,1 6,3 2,1 42,2 31,7 25,3 25,3 23, 3,658, ,9 6,4 2,1 42,6 32, 25,5 25,5 232, 3,89, ,7 6,4 2,1 42,9 32,2 25,7 25,7 233,7 4,123, ,5 6,5 2,2 43,3 32,5 26, 26, 236, 4,359, ,4 6,5 2,2 43,6 32,8 26,1 26,2 237,8 4,597, ,1 6,6 2,2 44, 33, 26,4 26,4 239,7 4,837, , 6,7 2,2 44,3 33,3 26,6 26,6 241,7 5,79, ,8 6,7 2,2 44,7 33,5 26,9 26,8 243,6 5,322, ,6 6,8 2,3 45,1 33,8 27, 27, 245,6 5,568, ,4 6,8 2,3 45,4 34,1 27,3 27,3 247,6 5,815, ,2 6,9 2,3 45,8 34,3 27,5 27,5 249,5 6,65, ,1 6,9 2,3 46,1 34,6 27,6 27,7 251,3 6,316, , 7, 2,3 46,5D 34,9 27,9 27,9 253,5 6,57, ,8 7, 2,3 46,9 35,2 28,1 28,1 255,4 6,825, ,7 7,1 2,4 47,3 35,4 28,4 28,4 257,7 7,83, ,5 7,1 2,4 47,6 35,7 28,6 28,6 259,5 7,342, ,4 7,2 2,4 48, 36,1 28,9 28,8 261,8 7,64, ,3 7,3 2,4 48,4 36,3 29,1 29,1 263,9 7,868, ,2 7,3 2,4 48,8 36,7 29,3 29,3 266, 8,134, ,2 7,4 2,5 49,2 37, 29,5 29,5 268,3 8,42, ,1 7,4 2,5 49,6 37,3 29,8 29,8 27,5 8,673, , 7,5 2, ,6 3, 3, 272,6 8,945, , 7,6 2,5 5,4 37,9 3,2 3,2 274,8 9,22, ,9 7,6 2,5 5,8 38,1 3,5 3,5 276,9 9,497, ,7,3 261,3 87,1 1,742,5 1,38,2 1,45,6 1,45,5 9,497,5 Notes 1. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. lc&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover.

31 Apoendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-31 Table A-22 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Weight: Scenario B (Decrease in Residential Waste) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other 1 lc&l C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal Residual Soil4 Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ftonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,9 37,1 27,9 22,2 22,3 197,7 197, , 5,6 1,9 37,3 28, 22,4 22,4 193,6 391, ,1 5,6 1,9 37,5 28,1 22,5 22,5 189,2 58, ,8 5,7 1,9 37,8 28,4 22,7 22,7 185, 765, ,7 5,7 1,9 38, 28,5 22,8 22,8 184,4 949, ,1 5,7 1,9 38,3 28,8 23, 23, 185,8 1,135, ,5 5,8 1,9 38,5 28,9 23,2 23,1 186,9 1,322, ,2 5,8 1,9 39, 29,3 23,4 23,4 189, 1,511, ,9 5,9 2, 39,4 29,5 23,6 23,6 19,9 1,72, ,7 6, 2, 39,8 29,9 23,9 23,9 193,2 1,895, ,3 6, 2, 4,2 3,1 24,1 24,1 194,8 2,9, ,9 6,1 2, 4,6 3,5 24,3 24,3 196,7 2,287, ,5 6,1 2, 4,9 3,7 24,5 24,5 198,2 2,485, ,1 6,2 2,1 41,2 31, 24,7 24,7 2, 2,685, ,6 6,2 2,1 41,5 31,2 25, 24,9 21,5 2,886, ,2 6,3 2,1 41,9 31,4 25,1 25,1 23,1 3,9, ,7 6,3 2,1 42,2 31,7 25,3 25,3 24,6 3,294, ,4 6,4 2,1 42,6 32, 25,5 25,5 26,5 3,51, ,9 6,4 2,1 42,9 32,2 25,7 25,7 27,9 3,79, ,6 6,5 2,2 43,3 32,5 26, 26, 21,1 3,919, ,2 6,5 2,2 43,6 32,8 26,1 26,2 211,6 4,13, ,7 6,6 2,2 44, 33, 26,4 26,4 213,3 4,344, ,4 6,7 2,2 44,3 33,3 26,6 26,6 215,1 4,559, , 6,7 2,2 44,7 33,5 26,9 26,8 216,8 4,775, ,6 6,8 2,3 45,1 33,8 27, 27, 218,6 4,994, ,2 6,8 2,3 45,4 34,1 27,3 27,3 22,4 5,214, ,8 6,9 2,3 45,8 34,3 27,5 27,5 222,1 5,437, ,4 6,9 2,3 46,1 34,6 27,6 27,7 223,6 5,66, ,1 7, 2,3 46,5 34,9 27,9 27,9 225,6 5,886, ,7 7, 2,3 46,9 35,2 28,1 28,1 227,3 6,113, ,4 7,1 2,4 47,3 35,4 28,4 28,4 229,4 6,342, , 7,1 2,4 47,6 35,7 28,6 28,6 231, 6,573, ,6 7,2 2,4 48, 36,1 28,9 28,8 233, 6,86, ,3 7,3 2,4 48,4 36,3 29,1 29,1 234,9 7,41, , 7,3 2,4 48,8 36,7 29,3 29,3 236,8 7,278, ,7 7,4 2,5 49,2 37, 29,5 29,5 238,8 7,517, ,3 7,4 2,5 49,6 37,3 29,8 29,8 24,7 7,758, , 7,5 2, ,6 3, 3, 242,6 8,, ,7 7,6 2,5 5,4 37,9 3,2 3,2 244,5 8,245, ,4 7,6 2,5 5,8 38,1 3,5 3,5 246,4 8,491, ,1,4 261,3 87,1 1,742,5 1,38,2 1,45,6 1,45,5 8,491,6 Notes 1. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Covet.

32 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-32 Table A-23 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Weight: Scenario C (Decrease in Residential Waste, lc&l and C&D Waste) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other 1 lc&l C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal Residual Soil4 Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) 215 8,7 5,6 1,9 37,1 2, 2, 22,3 187,6 187, , 5,6 1,9 37,3 18,7 17,8 22,4 179,7 367, ,1 5,6 1,9 37,5 18,8 15,4 22,5 172,8 54, ,8 5,7 1,9 37,8 18,9 12,9 22,7 165,7 75, ,7 5,7 1,9 38, 19, 11,4 22,8 163,5 869, ,1 5,7 1,9 38,3 19,2 11,5 23, 164,7 1,34, ,5 5,8 1,9 38,5 19,3 11,6 23,1 165,7 1,199, ,2 5,8 1,9 39, 19,5 11,7 23,4 167,5 1,367, ,9 5,9 2, 39,4 19,7 11,8 23,6 169,3 1,536, ,7 6, 2, 39,8 19,9 11,9 23,9 171,2 1,77, ,3 6, 2, 4,2 2,1 12, 24,1 172,7 1,88, ,9 6,1 2, 4,6 2,3 12,1 24,3 174,3 2,54, ,5 6,1 2, 4,9 2,5 12,3 24,5 175,8 2,23, ,1 6,2 2,1 41,2 2,7 12,4 24,7 177,4 2,47, ,6 6,2 2,1 41,5 2,8 12,5 24,9 178,6 2,586, ,2 6,3 2,1 41,9 21, 12,5 25,1 18,1 2,766, ,7 6,3 2,1 42,2 21,1 12,6 25,3 181,3 2,947, ,4 6,4 2,1 42,6 21,3 12,8 25,5 183,1 3,131, ,9 6,4 2,1 42,9 21,5 12,8 25,7 184,3 3,315, ,6 6,5 2,2 43,3 21,7 13, 26, 186,3 3,51, ,2 6,5 2,2 43,6 21,9 13,1 26,2 187,7 3,689, ,7 6,6 2,2 44, 22, 13,2 26,4 189,1 3,878, ,4 6,7 2,2 44,3 22,2 13,3 26,6 19,7 4,69, , 6,7 2,2 44,7 22,3 13,4 26,8 192,1 4,261, ,6 6,8 2,3 45,1 22,5 13,5 27, 193,8 4,455, 24 77,2 6,8 2,3 45,4 22,7 13,7 27,3 195,4 4,65, ,8 6,9 2,3 45,8 22,9 13,8 27,5 197, 4,847, ,4 6,9 2,3 46,1 23,1 13,8 27,7 198,3 5,45, ,1 7, 2,3 46,5 23,2 13,9 27,9 199,9 5,245, ,7 7, 2,3 46,9 23,4 14,1 28,1 21,5 5,447, ,4 7,1 2,4 47,3 23,6 14,2 28,4 23,4 5,65, , 7,1 2,4 47,6 23,8 14,3 28,6 24,8 5,855, ,6 7,2 2,4 48, 24,1 14,5 28,8 26,6 6,61, ,3 7,3 2,4 48,4 24,2 14,6 29,1 28,3 6,27, , 7,3 2,4 48,8 24,5 14,7 29,3 21, 6,48, ,7 7,4 2,5 49,2 24,7 14,8 29,5 211,8 6,692, ,3 7,4 2,5 49,6 24,9 14,9 29,8 213,4 6,95, , 7,5 2,5 5, 25,1 15, 3, 215,1 7,12, ,7 7,6 2,5 5,4 25,3 15,1 3,2 216,8 7,337, ,4 7,6 2,5 5,8 25,4 15,3 3,5 218,5 7,555, ,1,4 261,3 87,1 1,742,5 873,8 544,2 1,45,5 7,555,8 Notes 1. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. lc&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover.

33 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-33 Table A-24 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Weight: Scenario D (Status Quo Residential Wastellncrease in lc&i Waste) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other 1 lc&l C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal Residual Soil4 Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ftonnes) (tonnes) ftonnes) ftonnes) (tonnes) ,4 5,6 1,9 37,1 43,7 22,2 22,3 218,2 218, ,7 5,6 1,9 37,3 58,1 22,4 22,4 233,4 451, ,3 5,6 1,9 37,5 71,4 22,5 22,5 247,7 699, ,9 5,7 1,9 37,8 83,6 22,7 22,7 261,3 96, ,5 5,7 1,9 38, 94,7 22,8 22,8 273,4 1,234, 22 88, 5,7 1,9 38,3 15, 23, 23, 284,9 1,518, ,6 5,8 1,9 38,5 114,4 23,2 23,1 295,5 1,814, ,6 5,8 1,9 39, 116,9 23,4 23,4 3, 2,114, ,6 5,9 2, 39,4 118,1 23,6 23,6 33,2 2,417, ,5 6, 2, 39,8 119,4 23,9 23,9 36,5 2,724, ,4 6, 2, 4,2 12,5 24,1 24,1 39,3 3,33, ,3 6,1 2, 4,6 121,8 24,3 24,3 312,4 3,345, , 6,1 2, 4,9 122,7 24,5 24,5 314,7 3,66, ,8 6,2 2,1 41,2 123,7 24,7 24,7 317,4 3,977, ,5 6,2 2,1 41,5 124,6 25, 24,9 319,8 4,297, ,3 6,3 2,1 41,9 125,6 25,1 25,1 322,4 4,62, ,1 6,3 2,1 42,2 126,6 25,3 25,3 324,9 4,945, ,9 6,4 2,1 42,6 127,7 25,5 25,5 327,7 5,272, ,7 6,4 2,1 42,9 128,8 25,7 25,7 33,3 5,63, ,5 6,5 2,2 43,3 129,9 26, 26, 333,4 5,936, ,4 6,5 2,2 43,6 13,9 26,1 26,2 335,9 6,272, ,1 6,6 2,2 44, 131,9 26,4 26,4 338,6 6,61, , 6,7 2,2 44,3 133, 26,6 26,6 341,4 6,952, ,8 6,7 2,2 44,7 134,1 26,9 26,8 344,2 7,296, ,6 6,8 2,3 45,1 135,2 27, 27, 347, 7,643, ,4 6,8 2,3 45,4 136,3 27,3 27,3 349,8 7,993, ,2 6,9 2,3 45,8 137,3 27,5 27,5 352,5 8,345, ,1 6,9 2,3 46,1 138,4 27,6 27,7 355,1 8,7, , 7, 2,3 46,5 139,5 27,9 27,9 358,1 9,59, ,8 7, 2,3 46,9 14,6 28,1 28,1 36,8 9,419, ,7 7,1 2,4 47,3 141,8 28,4 28,4 364,1 9,783, ,5 7,1 2,4 47,6 142,9 28,6 28,6 366,7 1,15, ,4 7,2 2,4 48, 144,1 28,9 28,8 369,8 1,52, ,3 7,3 2,4 48,4 145,3 29,1 29,1 372,9 1,893, ,2 7,3 2,4 48,8 146,5 29,3 29,3 375,8 11,269, ,2 7,4 2,5 49,2 147,7 29,5 29,5 379, 11,648, ,1 7,4 2,5 49,6 148,9 29,8 29,8 382,1 12,3, , 7,5 2,5 5, 15,1 3, 3, 385,1 12,415, , 7,6 2,5 5,4 151,3 3,2 3,2 388,2 12,83, ,9 7,6 2,5 5,8 152,5 3,5 3,5 391,3 13,194, ,7,3 261,3 87,1 1,742,5 5,5,5 1,45,6 1,45,5 13,194,8 Notes 1. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover.

34 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-34 Table A-25 Future Waste Disposal Requirements (Status Quo except for Increase by Weight: Scenario in Service Area) E Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other 1 lc&i C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal Residual Soil4 Total (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) ,4 5,6 1,9 37,1 27,9 4,8 22,3 221, 221, ,7 5,6 1,9 37,3 28, 41, 22,4 221,9 442, ,3 5,6 1,9 37,5 28,1 41,2 22,5 223,1 666, ,9 5,7 1,9 37,8 28,4 41,6 22,7 225, 891, ,5 5,7 1,9 38, 28,5 41,8 22,8 226,2 1,117, , 5,7 1,9 38,3 28,8 42,1 23, 227,8 1,345, ,6 5,8 1,9 38,5 28,9 42,4 23,1 229,2 1,574, ,6 5,8 1,9 39, 29,3 42,8 23,4 231,8 1,86, 223 9,6 5,9 2, 39,4 29,5 43,2 23,6 234,2 2,4, ,5 6, 2, 39,8 29,9 43,8 23,9 236,9 2,277, ,4 6, 2, 4,2 3,1 44,2 24,1 239, 2,516, ,3 6,1 2, 4,6 3,5 44,6 24,3 241,4 2,757, , 6,1 2, 4,9 3,7 45, 24,5 243,2 3,, ,8 6,2 2,1 41,2 31, 45,4 24,7 245,4 3,246, ,5 6,2 2,1 41,5 31,2 45,7 24,9 247,1 3,493, ,3 6,3 2,1 41,9 31,4 46, 25,1 249,1 3,742, ,1 6,3 2,1 42,2 31,7 46,4 25,3 251,1 3,993, ,9 6,4 2,1 42,6 32, 46,8 25,5 253,3 4,246, ,7 6,4 2,1 42,9 32,2 47,2 25,7 255,2 4,51, ,5 6,5 2,2 43,3 32,5 47,6 26, 257,6 4,759, ,4 6,5 2,2 43,6 32,8 48, 26,2 259,7 5,19, ,1 6,6 2,2 44, 33, 48,4 26,4 261,7 5,28, , 6,7 2,2 44,3 33,3 48,8 26,6 263,9 5,544, ,8 6,7 2,2 44,7 33,5 49,2 26,8 265,9 5,81, ,6 6,8 2,3 45,1 33,8 49,6 27, 268,2 6,78, ,4 6,8 2,3 45,4 34,1 5, 27,3 27,3 6,349, ,2 6,9 2,3 45,8 34,3 5,4 27,5 272,4 6,621, ,1 6,9 2,3 46,1 34,6 5,7 27,7 274,4 6,896, , 7, 2,3 46,5 34,9 51,1 27,9 276,7 7,172, ,8 7, 2,3 46,9 35,2 51,6 28,1 278,9 7,451, ,7 7,1 2,4 47,3 35,4 52, 28,4 281,3 7,732, ,5 7,1 2,4 47,6 35,7 52,5 28,6 283,4 8,16, ,4 7,2 2,4 48, 36,1 52,9 28,8 285,8 8,32, ,3 7,3 2,4 48,4 36,3 53,3 29,1 288,1 8,59, ,2 7,3 2, ,7 53,7 29,3 29,4 8,88, ,2 7,4 2,5 49,2 37, 54,2 29,5 293, 9,173, ,1 7,4 2,5 49,6 37,3 54,6 29,8 295,3 9,468, , 7,5 2,5 5, 37,6 55, 3, 297,6 9,766, , 7,6 2,5 5,4 37,9 55,4 3,2 3, 1,66, ,9 7,6 2,5 5,8 38,1 55,9 3,5 32,3 1,368, ,7,3 261,3 87,1 1,742,5 1,38,2 1,916,9 1,45,5 1,368,8 Notes 1. Other Municipal includes street sweepings, waste from City projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover.

35 AoDendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-35 Table A-26 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Volume: Scenario A (Status Quo) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other IC&14 C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal1 Residual Soil4 Total fm3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) fm3) ,8 17,1 17,9 18,6 19,4 11, 11,8 112, 113,3 114,4 115,5 116,6 117,5 118,5 119,4 12,4 121,4 122,4 123,4 124,4 125,5 126,4 127,5 128,5 129,5 13,5 131,5 132,6 133,8 134,8 135,9 136,9 138, 139,1 14,3 141,5 142,6 143,8 145, 146,1 5,6 5,6 5,6 5,7 5,7 5,7 5,8 5,8 5,9 6, 6, 6,1 6,1 6,2 6,2 6,3 6,3 6,4 6,4 6,5 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,7 6,8 6,8 6,9 6,9 7, 7, 7,1 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,3 7,4 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,6 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 1, 1, 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 24,7 24,9 25, 25,2 25,3 25,5 25,7 26, 26,3 26,5 26,8 27,1 27,3 27,5 27,7 27,9 28,1 28,4 28,6 28,9 29,1 29,3 29,5 29,8 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 31, 31,3 31,5 31,7 32, 32,3 32,5 32,8 33,1 33,3 33,6 33,9 34,9 35, 35,1 35,5 35,6 36, 36,1 36,6 36,9 37,4 37,6 38,1 38,4 38,8 39, 39,3 39,6 4, 4,3 4,6 41, 41,3 41,6 41,9 42,3 42,6 42,9 43,3 43,6 44, 44,3 44,6 45,1 45,4 45,9 46,3 46,6 47, 47,4 47,6 27,8 28, 28,1 28,4 28,5 28,8 29, 29,3 29,5 29,9 3,1 3,4 3,6 3,9 31,3 31,4 31,6 31,9 32,1 32,5 32,6 33, 33,3 33,6 33,8 34,1 34,4 34,5 34,9 35,1 35,5 35,8 36,1 36,4 36,6 36,9 37,3 37,5 37,8 38,1 11,2 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,4 11,5 11,6 11,7 11,8 12, 72,1 12,2 12,3 12,4 12,5 12,6 12,7 12,8 12,9 13, 13,1 13,2 13,3 13,4 13,5 13,7 13,8 13,9 14, 14,1 14,2 14,3 14,4 14,6 14,7 14,8 14,9 15, 15,1 15,3 212, 212,8 214, 215,8 216,9 218,5 22, 222,4 224,7 227,2 229,1 231,5 233,2 235,4 237,2 239, 24,8 243, 244,8 247, 248,9 25,9 253, 255, 257,2 259,2 261,2 263,1 265,5 267,5 269,7 271,6 274, 276,3 278,5 281, 283,2 285,4 287,8 289,9 212, 424,8 638,8 854,6 1,71,5 1,29, 1,51, 1,732,4 1,957,1 2,184,3 2,413,4 2,644,9 2,878,1 3,113,5 3,35,7 3,589,7 3,83,5 4,73,5 4,318,3 4,565,3 4,814,2 5,65,1 5,318,1 5,573,1 5,83,3 6,89,5 6,35,7 6,613,8 6,879,3 7,146,8 7,416,5 7,688,1 7,962,1 8,238,4 8,516,9 8,797,9 9,81,1 9,366,5 9,654,3 9,944, ,9,6 261,3 44,8 1,161,7 1,635,5 1,37,4 523,9 9,944,2 Notes 1 Other Municipal waste includes street sweepings, waste from city projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. lc&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Covet. 5. Waste densities used to calculate landfill volumes are summarized in the table beside footnotes. Waste Type Densit1 (k/m I Residential, IC&I, C&D Residual 8 Other Municipal 1,5 Biosolids 1, Biosolids Ash 1,4 Contaminated Soil 2,

36 Annndix k I indfihi Sit I if flin,iitions A-SR Table A-27 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Volume: Scenario B (Decrease in Residential Waste) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids MOther lc&l C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal1 Residual Soil4 Total (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) ,9 95, 88,9 82,3 8,9 81,4 81,9 82,8 83,6 84,6 85,4 86,1 86,9 87,6 88,3 89, 89,6 9,5 91,1 92, 92,8 93,4 94,3 95, 95,8 96,5 97,3 98, 98,9 99,6 1,5 11,3 12, 12,9 13,8 14,6 15,4 16,3 17,1 18, 5,6 5,6 5,6 5,7 5,7 5,7 5,8 5,8 5,9 6, 6, 6,1 6,1 6,2 6,2 6,3 6,3 6,4 6,4 6,5 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,7 6,8 6,8 6,9 6,9 7, 7, 7,1 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,3 7,4 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,6 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 24,7 24,9 25, 25,2 25,3 25,5 25,7 26, 26,3 26,5 26,8 27,1 27,3 27,5 27,7 27,9 28,1 28,4 28,6 28,9 29,1 29,3 29,5 29,8 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 31, 31,3 31,5 31,7 32, 32,3 32,5 32,8 33,1 33,3 33,6 33,9 34,9 35, 35,1 35,5 35,6 36, 36,1 36,6 36,9 37,4 37,6 38,1 38,4 38,8 39, 39,3 39,6 4, 4,3 4,6 41, 41,3 41,6 41,9 42,3 42,6 42,9 43,3 43,6 44, 44,3 44,6 45,1 45,4 45,9 46,3 46,6 47, 47,4 47,6 27,8 28, 28,1 28,4 28,5 28,8 29, 29,3 29,5 29,9 3,1 3,4 3,6 3,9 31,3 31,4 31,6 31,9 32,1 32,5 32,6 33, 33,3 33,6 33,8 34,1 34,4 34,5 34,9 35,1 35,5 35,8 36,1 36,4 36,6 36,9 37,3 37,5 37,8 38,1 11,2 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,4 11,5 11,6 11,7 11,8 12, 12,1 12,2 12,3 12,4 12,5 12,6 12,7 12,8 12,9 13, 13,1 13,2 13,3 13,4 13,5 13,7 13,8 13,9 14, 14,1 14,2 14,3 14,4 14,6 14,7 14,8 14,9 15, 15,1 15,3 26,1 2,7 195, 189,5 188,4 189,9 191,1 193,2 195, 197,4 199, 21, 22,6 24,5 26,1 27,6 29, 211,1 212,5 214,6 216,2 217,9 219,8 221,5 223,5 225,2 227, 228,5 23,6 232,3 234,3 236, 238, 24,1 242, 244,1 246, 247,9 249,9 251,8 26,1 46,8 61,8 791,3 979,7 1,169,6 1,36,7 1,553,9 1,748,9 1,946,3 2,145,3 2,346,3 2,548,9 2,753,4 2,959,5 3,167,1 3,376,1 3,587,2 3,799,7 4,14,3 4,23,5 4,448,4 4,668,2 4,889,7 5,113,2 5,338,4 5,565,4 5,793,9 6,24,5 6,256,8 6,491,1 6,727,1 6,965,1 7,25,2 7,447,2 7,691,3 7,937,3 8,185,2 8,435,1 8,686, ,752,3 261,3 44,8 1,161,7 1,635,5 1,37,4 523,9 8,686,9 Notes 1 Other Municipal waste includes street sweepings, waste from city projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. IC&I is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover. 5. Waste densities used to calculate landfill volumes are summarized in the table beside footnotes. Waste Type Density (kqlm Residential, IC&I, C&D Residual 6 Other Municipal 1,5 Biosolids 1, Biosolids Ash 1,4 Contaminated Soil 2,

37 Aøoendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-37 Table A-28 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Volume: Scenario C (Decrease in Residential Waste, IC&l and C&D Waste) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other lc&l C&D3 Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal Residual Soil4 Total (m3) fm3) (m3) (m3) (m3) fm3) (m3) (m3) (m3) ,9 95, 88,9 82,3 8,9 81,4 81,9 82,8 83,6 84,6 85,4 86,1 86,9 87,6 88,3 89, 89,6 9,5 91,1 92, 92,8 93,4 94,3 95, 95,8 96,5 97,3 98, 98,9 99,6 1,5 11,3 12, 12,9 13,8 14,6 15,4 16,3 17,1 18, 5,6 5,6 5,6 5,7 5,7 5,7 5,8 5,8 5,9 6, 6, 6,1 6,1 6,2 6,2 6,3 6,3 6,4 6,4 6,5 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,7 6,8 6,8 6,9 6,9 7, 7, 7,1 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,3 7,4 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,6 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 24,7 24,9 25, 25,2 25,3 25,5 25,7 26, 26,3 26,5 26,8 27,1 27,3 27,5 27,7 27,9 28,1 28,4 28,6 28,9 29,1 29,3 29,5 29,8 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 31, 31,3 31,5 31,7 32, 32,3 32,5 32,8 33,1 33,3 33,6 33,9 25, 23,4 23,5 23,6 23,8 24, 24,1 24,4 24,6 24,9 25,1 25,4 25,6 25,9 26, 26,3 26,4 26,6 26,9 27,1 27,4 27,5 27,8 27,9 28,1 28,4 28,6 28,9 29, 29,3 29,5 29,8 3,1 3,3 3,6 3,9 31,1 31,4 31,6 31,8 25, 22,3 19,3 16,1 14,3 14,4 14,5 14,6 14,8 14,9 15, 15,1 15,4 15,5 15,6 15,6 15,8 16, 16, 16,3 16,4 16,5 16,6 16,8 16,9 17,1 17,3 17,3 17,4 17,6 17,8 17,9 18,1 18,3 18,4 18,5 18,6 18,8 18,9 19,1 11,2 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,4 11,5 11,6 11,7 11,8 12, 12,1 12,2 12,3 12,4 12,5 12,6 12,7 12,8 12,9 13, 13,1 13,2 13,3 13,4 13,5 13,7 13,8 13,9 14, 14,1 14,2 14,3 14,4 14,6 14,7 14,8 14,9 15, 15,1 15,3 193,4 183,4 174,6 165,3 162,4 163,5 164,6 166,3 168, 169,9 171,4 173, 174,6 176,2 177,4 178,8 18, 181,8 183, 184,9 186,4 187,6 189,3 19,7 192,4 194, 195,6 196,9 198,5 2,1 21,8 23,3 25, 26,9 28,5 21,3 211,8 213,6 215,2 217, 193,4 376,8 551,4 716,7 879,1 1,42,6 1,27,2 1,373,5 1,541,5 1,711,4 1,882,8 2,55,8 2,23,4 2,46,6 2,584, 2,762,8 2,942,8 3,124,6 3,37,6 3,492,5 3,678,9 3,866,5 4,55,8 4,246,5 4,438,9 4,632,9 4,828,5 5,25,4 5,223,9 5,424, 5,625,8 5,829,1 6,34,1 6,241, 6,449,5 6,659,8 6,871,6 7,85,2 7,3,4 7,517, ,752,3 261,3 44,8 1,161,7 1,92,6 68,8 523,9 7,517,4 Notes 1. Other Municipal waste includes street sweepings, waste from city projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover. 5. Waste densities used to calculate landfill volumes are summarized in the table beside footnotes. Waste Type Density (kqlm I Residential, IC&I, C&D Residual 8 Other Municipal 1,5 Biosolids 1, Biosolids Ash 1,4 Contaminated Soil 2,

38 Annendix A: LndfilI Site I lie CIr.ijltinn A-3R Table A-29 Future Waste Disposal Requirements (Status Quo Residential Wastellncrease by Volume: Scenario in IC&l Waste) D Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other IC&14 C&D3 Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal1 Residual Soil4 Total fm3) (m3) (m3) (ms) fm3) (m3) fm3) (m3) fm) ,8 17,1 17,9 18,6 19,4 11, 11,8 112, 113,3 114,4 115,5 116,6 117,5 118,5 119,4 12,4 121,4 122,4 123,4 124,4 125,5 126,4 127,5 128,5 129,5 13,5 131,5 132,6 133,8 134,8 135,9 136,9 138, 139,1 14,3 141,5 142,6 143,8 145, 146,1 5,6 5,6 5,6 5,7 5,7 5,7 5,8 5,8 5,9 6, 6, 6,1 6,1 6,2 6,2 6,3 6,3 6,4 6,4 6,5 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,7 6,8 6,8 6,9 6,9 7, 7, 7,1 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,3 7,4 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,6 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 24,7 24,9 25, 25,2 25,3 25,5 25,7 26, 26,3 26,5 26,8 27,1 27,3 27,5 27,7 27,9 28,1 28,4 28,6 28,9 29,1 29,3 29,5 29,8 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 31, 31,3 31,5 31,7 32, 32,3 32,5 32,8 33,1 33,3 33,6 33,9 54,6 72,6 89,3 14,5 118, , 146,1 147,6 149,3 15,6 152,3 153,4 154,6 155,8 157, 158,3 159,6 161, 162,4 163,6 164,9 166,3 167,6 169, 17,4 171,6 173, 174,4 175,8 177,3 178,6 18, ,1 184,6 186,1 187,6 189,1 19,6 27,8 28, 28,1 28,4 28,5 28,8 29, 29,3 29,5 29,9 3,1 3,4 3,6 3,9 31,3 31,4 31,6 31,9 32,1 32,5 32,6 33, 33,3 33,6 33,8 34,1 34,4 34,5 34,9 35,1 35,5 35,8 36,1 36,4 36,6 36,9 37,3 37,5 37,8 38,1 11,2 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,4 11,5 11,6 11,7 11,8 12, 12,1 12,2 12,3 12,4 12,5 12,6 12,7 12,8 12,9 13, 13,1 13,2 13,3 13,4 13,5 13,7 13,8 13,9 14, 14,1 14,2 14,3 14,4 14,6 14,7 14,8 14,9 15, 15,1 15,3 231,7 25,4 268,2 284,8 299,7 313,8 326,9 331,9 335,4 339,1 342,1 345,7 348,2 351,2 354, 356,7 359,5 362,6 365,5 368,8 371,5 374,5 377,7 38,7 383,9 387, 389,9 392,8 396,3 399,3 42,7 45,6 49, 412,5 415,7 419,3 422,7 426, 429,5 432,9 231,7 482,1 75,3 1,35,1 1,334,8 1,648,6 1,975,5 2,37,4 2,642,8 2,981,9 3,324, 3,669,7 4,17,9 4,369,1 4,723,1 5,79,8 5,439,3 5,81,9 6,167,4 6,536,2 6,97,7 7,282,2 7,659,9 8,4,6 8,424,5 8,811,5 9,21,4 9,594,2 9,99,5 1,389,8 1,792,5 11,198,1 11,67,1 12,19,6 12,435,3 12,854,6 13,277,3 13,73,3 14,132,8 14,565, ,9,6 261,3 44,8 1,161,7 6,257, 1,37,4 523,9 14,565,7 Notes 1. Other Municipal waste includes street sweepings, waste from city projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover. 5. Waste densities used to calculate landfill volumes are summarized in the table beside footnotes. Waste Type Density5 (kq/m3) Residential, IC&l, C&D Residual 8 Other Municipal 15 Biosolids 1, Biosolids Ash 1,4 Contaminated Soil 2,

39 Aøøendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations A-39 Table A-3 Future Waste Disposal Requirements by Volume: Scenario E (Status Quo except for Increase in Service Area) Year Residential Biosolids Biosolids Other lc&l C&D Cont. Total Running Ash Municipal1 Residual Soil4 Total (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) ,8 17,1 17,9 18,6 19,4 11, 11,8 112, 113,3 114,4 115,5 116,6 117,5 118,5 119,4 12,4 121,4 122,4 123,4 124,4 125,5 126,4 127,5 128,5 129,5 13,5 131,5 132,6 133,8 134,8 135,9 136,9 138, 139,1 14,3 141,5 142,6 143,8 145, 146,1 5,6 5,6 5,6 5,7 5,7 5,7 5,8 5,8 5,9 6, 6, 6,1 6,1 6,2 6,2 6,3 6,3 6,4 6,4 6,5 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,7 6,8 6,8 6,9 6,9 7, 7, 7,1 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,3 7,4 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,6 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 24,7 24,9 25, 25,2 25,3 25,5 25,7 26, 26,3 26,5 26,8 27,1 27,3 27,5 27,7 27,9 28,1 28,4 28,6 28,9 29,1 29,3 29,5 29,8 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 31, 31,3 31,5 31,7 32, 32,3 32,5 32,8 33,1 33,3 33,6 33,9 34,9 35, 35,1 35,5 35,6 36, 36,1 36,6 36,9 37,4 37,6 38,1 38,4 38,8 39, 39,3 39,6 4, 4,3 4,6 41, 41,3 41,6 41,9 42,3 42,6 42,9 43,3 43,6 44, 44,3 44,6 45,1 45,4 45,9 46,3 46,6 47, 47,4 47,6 51, ,5 52, 52,3 52,6 53, 53,5 54, 54,8 55,3 55,8 56,3 56,8 57,1 57,5 58, 58,5 59, 59,5 6, 6,5 61, 61,5 62, 62,5 63, 63,4 63,9 64,5 65, 65,6 66,1 66,6 67,1 67,8 68,3 68,8 69,3 69,9 11,2 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,4 11,5 11,6 11,7 11,8 12, 12,1 12,2 12,3 12,4 12,5 12,6 12,7 12,8 12,9 13, 13,1 13,2 13,3 13,4 13,5 13,7 13,8 13,9 14, 14,1 14,2 14,3 14,4 14,6 14,7 14,8 14,9 15, 15,1 15,3 235,2 236,1 237,4 239,4 24,7 242,3 244, 246,6 249,2 252,1 254,3 256,9 258,9 261,3 263, 265,1 267,2 269,6 271,7 274, 276,3 278,4 28,7 282,9 285,4 287,6 289,8 292, 294,5 296,9 299,2 31,4 34, 36,5 39, 311,9 314,2 316,7 319,3 321,7 235,2 471,3 78,7 948,1 1,188,8 1,431,1 1,675,1 1,921,7 2,17,9 2,423, 2,677,3 2,934,2 3,193,1 3,454,4 3,717,4 3,982,5 4,249,7 4,519,3 4,791, 5,65, 5,341,3 5,619,7 5,9,4 6,183,3 6,468,7 6,756,3 7,46,1 7,338,1 7,632,6 7,929,5 8,228,7 8,53,1 8,834,1 9,14,6 9,449,6 9,761,5 1,75,7 1,392,4 1,711,7 11,33, ,9,6 261,3 44,8 1,161,7 1,635,5 2,396,6 523,9 11,33,4 Notes 1. Other Municipal waste includes Street sweepings, waste from city projects, waste from City parks and grit from water pollution control plants. 2. IC&l is an abbreviation for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional waste. 3. C&D is an abbreviation for Construction and Demolition waste. 4. Includes Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil - Cover. 5. Waste densities used to calculate landfill volumes are summarized in the table beside footnotes.. Waste Type Density tka/m I Residential, IC&l, C&D Residual Other Municipal 8 1,5 Biosolids 1, Biosolids Ash 1,4 Contaminated Soil 2,

40 44 Appendix A: Landfill Site Life Calculations This page has been left blank intentional

41 Appendix B: Transportation Impact Assessment (IBI Group, 29) B-i Appendix B Proposed New Land Uses Adjacent to WI2A Landfill Transportation Impact Assessment(IBI Group, 29) UR_Wl2LandfiIL2O 9_i i_16. pdf

42 B-2 ApDendjx B: Transortatjon Impact Assessment (IBI Group, 29) This page has been left blank intentional

43 City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT FINAL RE PORT NOVEMBER 16, 29 IBI GROUP

44 El GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO WI2A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL Client: Project Name: City of London Wi 2A Landfill Transportation Impact Assessment Report Title: IBI Reference: 2691 Version: 4. Proposed New Land Uses Adjacent to Wi 2A Landfill Transportation Impact Assessment Digital Master: J _W12ALandfiII1. ReportsTTR_W12LandfiII_29_1 116.doc\29-1 I-i 7TP Originator: Reviewer: Authorization: Numair Ban Tom Prestia Ron Stewart Circulation List: History: 1. internal draft 2. initial draft to client 3. - second draft to client 4. -final report November 76, 29 Page 7.

45 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION I 2. STUDY LOCATION AND STUDY SCOPE I 21 Study Area Study Scope Proposed Development Horizon Year and Analysis Period 2 3. DATA COLLECTION Turning Movement Counts and Signal Timings Background Information Current W12A Landfill Traffic Volumes Materials Recovery and Leachate Pre-Treatment Traffic Volumes 4 4. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS Area Road Network Existing Traffic Volumes AADT Data Growth Rates Turning Movement Volumes Existing Traffic Operations B 5. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS Future Road Network Improvements Future Background Developments Future Background Traffic Volumes Future Background Traffic Operations Future WJ2A LandNl Traffic Future Materials Recovery Traffic Future Leachate Pre-Treatment Plant Traffic Site Accesses Projected Site Traffic Future Total Traffic Volumes Future Total Traffic Operations Future Total with Truck Redistribution Future Total Traffic Volumes with Truck Redistribution 14 November 76, 29 Page I.

46 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT D) LIST OF EXHIBITS Future Total Traffic Operations with Truck Redistribution Estimated LeftlRight Queue Length at Manning Drive at Wellington Road CONCLUSIONS 16 Exhibit 2-1 Study Area 1 Exhibit 3-1: Turning Movement Counts 3 Exhibit 3-2: 24 and 28 Operational and Usage Data Wi 2A Landfill 4 Exhibit 3-3: 28 and 215 Operational and Usage Data Materials Recovery Facility 5 Exhibit 3-4: 28 and 215 Operational and Usage Data Leachate Pre-Treatment Facility 5 Exhibit 3-5: 29 Estimated Materials Recovery Facility Traffic 6 Exhibit 3-6: 29 Estimated Leachate Pre-Treatment Facility Traffic 6 Exhibit 4-1: AADT Count Data 6 Exhibit 4-2: 29 Existing Traffic Volumes AM (PM) Peak Hour 8 Exhibit 4-3: 29 Existing Traffic Operations 9 Exhibit 5-1: 216 Future Background Volumes AM (PM) Peak Hour 1 Exhibit 5-2: 216 Future Background Traffic Operations 11 Exhibit 5-3: 216 Estimated Materials Recovery Facility Traffic 12 Exhibit 5-4: 216 Estimated Leachate Pre-Treatment Plant Traffic 12 Exhibit 5-5: Projected 216 Site Traffic 13 Exhibit 5-6: 216 Future Total Traffic Volumes AM (PM) Peak Hour 13 Exhibit 5-7: 216 Future Total Traffic Operations 14 Exhibit 5-8: 216 Future Total Traffic Volumes with Truck Redistribution 15 Exhibit 5-9: 216 Future Total Traffic Operations with Truck Redistribution 15 Exhibit 5-1: Manning Drive at Wellington Road Percentile Queue Length Analysis 16 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Site Plan Appendix B: Full Intersection Analysis Summaries November 76, 29 Page ii,

47 I 181 GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. INTRODUCTION IBI Group was retained by the City of London to conduct a transportation impact assessment for proposed new land uses adjacent to the W12A landfill at 352 Manning Drive, which is owned and operated by the City of London. The proposed new land uses include a materials recovery facility and a leachate pre-treatment plant. The site plan for these proposed land uses is presented in Appendix A. 2. STUDY LOCATION AND STUDY SCOPE 21 Study Area The W12A landfill is located at 352 Manning Drive in the City of London. Roadways surrounding the landfill are White Oak Road to the west, Wellington Road to the east, and Scotland Drive to the north and Manning Drive to the south. Exhibit 2-1 illustrates W12A and the surrounding road network. Exhibit 2-1: Study Area 7 / OrWe 1 1 \ Legend: Stop Controlled Intersection. - Signalized Intersection Though discussions with the City of London staff, it was determined that the study area would only encompass the following intersections due to the expected direction of travel of site traffic from the proposed new land uses: Manning Drive at Wellington Road (signalized); Manning Drive at White Oak Road (unsignalized); and Manning Drive at W12A access. November 76, 29 IBI GROUP

48 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2.2 Study Scope The purpose of this study is to determine the impacts that proposed new land uses adjacent to the WI2A landfill will have on the local traffic network, and identify and address any operational issues that result from the travel demands from the site. The road network analysis includes the intersections within close proximity of the primary study area, and all projected road network improvements within the forecasted horizon years. 2.3 Proposed Development The most recent site plan provided by the City of London illustrates the existing W12A facility and the proposed new land uses, which include a leachate pre-treatment plant and materials recovery facility. The site plan illustrating these proposed land uses is presented in Appendix A. 2.4 Horizon Year and Analysis Period For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that construction of the proposed new land uses will be completed by the year 211. Therefore, a year horizon period is used to analyze the future conditions. The AM and PM peak hours were established as the worst-case scenario traffic conditions given the functional nature of the surrounding road network. According to the Earth Tech Canada Inc. Transportation Background Report for the W12A Landfill Study Area prepared in 25, the 24 automated traffic recorder (ATR) counts revealed that the peak landfill access volumes occurred during mid-day (between 1:AM and 1: PM). However, the study area intersections indicate that the AM and PM roadway peak hours occurred between 7:15 AM and 8:15 AM and between 4:15 PM and 5:15 PM, and as a result, the AM and PM peak periods are the critical study hours. 3. DATA COLLECTION 31 Turning Movement Counts and Signal Timings Turning movement counts were obtained from the Earth Tech Canada Inc. Transportation Background Report, which was provided by the City of London. The study area intersections and count dates are presented in Exhibit 3-1. It should be noted that the 25 volumes presented in the Earth Tech report were from turning movement counts conducted in 22 and were grown using a 1.5 percent per annum growth rate on Wellington Road and a 1 percent per annum growth rate on all other roadways to establish a 25 existing conditions scenario. These growth rates are discussed later in this report and also form the basis for the growth rates applied to the 29 existing and year horizon scenarios. The City of London conducted turning movement count in June of this year at the signalized intersection of Manning Drive and Wellington Road. November 76, 29 Page 2

49 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Intersection Count Date Comments Manning Drive at 22 Retrieved from Earth Tech report Wellington Road 29 Provided by City of London Manning Drive at Land_Fill_Entrance 22 Retrieved from Earth Tech report Manning Drive at White_Oak_Road 29 Retrieved from Earth Tech report 181 Group obtained the most recent signal timings from the City of London for the intersection of Manning Drive and Wellington Road. 32 Background Information In preparing this report, the following recent studies and information were consulted: Transportation Background Report Earth Tech Canada Inc. December 25; W12A Land Fill Study Area Report 181 Group and MacViro - June 26; Operation and usage data for the W12A landfill, recycling and leachate pre-treatment facilities for 28 and projections for 215: and 29 AADT data and 29 turning movement counts for the AM and PM peak hours CURRENT W12A LANDFILL TRAFFIC VOLUMES The City of London provided 28 operational and usage data for W12A. In addition, a similar summary of the 24 landfill operational and usage data by vehicle type was found in the Earth Tech report. The operational and usage estimates were broken down into the following vehicle types: City of London waste collection trucks; City of London operation vehicles dropping off waste; Private waste collection trucks; Leachate haulage trucks; Small vehicle public traffic; Small vehicle staff and contractor traffic; and Large vehicle contractor and supplier traffic. Exhibit 3-1: Turning Movement Counts The 24 and 28 land operational and usage data were contrasted in Exhibit 3 to determine a growth rate for heavy trucks and small vehicles from 24 to 28 to forecast future landfill traffic growth for the 29 existing conditions scenario. November 76, 29 Page 3

50 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Exhibit 3-2: 24 and 28 Operational and Usage Data WI2A Landfill Vehicle Type Tonnage #of Loads City of London waste collection trucks 96, 96, 1,3 1,667 City of London operation vehicles dropping off waste 56, 77,5 5, 7,45 Private waste collection trucks 23, 86,2 3,5 12,314 Private waste collection trucks 86, 125, 3,8 4,167 Small vehicle public traffic ,4 25, Small vehicle staff and contractor traffic - - 1,25 1,25 Large vehicle contractor and supplier traffic 29, 3, 1,45 1,5 Total 29, 414,7 46,7 61,943 Trucks 29, 414,7 24,5 35,693 Small Vehicles 22,65 26,25 Using this data, annual growth rates were calculated for truck traffic and small vehicle traffic. An approximately 1.5 percent per annum growth rate was calculated for truck traffic while an approximately 4 percent per annum growth rate was calculated for small vehicle traffic MATERIALS RECOVERY AND LEACHATE PRE-TREATMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES The City of London provided 28 and projected 215 operational and usage data for the materials recovery facility and leachate pre-treatment plant. The operational and usage estimates were broken down into the following vehicle types: Recyclables collection trucks (compacted? uncompacted); Recovered recyclables shipping trucks; Processing residue disposal trucks; Small vehicle traffic (recycling and leachate facilities); Hauled liquid waste trucks; The 28 and projected 215 operational and usage data for the materials recovery and leachate pre-treatment facility are presented in Exhibit 3-3 and Exhibit 34 respectively. The 28 and projected 215 data for both facilities were compared to determine a growth rate for heavy trucks and small vehicles from 28 to 215 to forecast future traffic for the year 29 existing conditions scenario. November 76, 29 Page 4

51 181 GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Exhibit 3-3: 28 and 215 Operational and Usage Data Materials Recovery Facility Vehicle Type Tonnage #of Loads Recyclables collection trucks (compacted/uncompacted) 3,5 5,5 13,261 19,276 Recovered recyclables shipping trucks 27,5 45,5 1,196 1,978 Processing residue disposal trucks 3, 5, Small vehicle traffic (recycling - - and leachate facilities) 1 1,25 15, Total 61, 11, 26,112 36,929 Trucks 61, 11, 14,862 21,929 Small Vehicles 11,25 15, - - Exhibit 3-4: 28 and 215 Operational and Usage Data Leachate Pre-Treatment Facility -. Tonnage Vehicle #of Loads Type Hauled liquid waste trucks 54,5 65,5 4,955 5,955 Small vehicle traffic (recycling - and leachate facilities) 5 5 Total 54,5 65,5 5,455 6,455 Trucks 54,5 65,5 4,955 5,955 Small Vehicles In order to determine how the tonnage and load data translates into AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, the following methodology was applied to truck and small vehicle traffic: The annual loads-per-vehicle-type was divided by the estimated number of working days in a year to determine daily traffic volumes. Based on a five-day work week and subtracting statutory holidays, 25 working days were estimated per year; The daily traffic estimate was then broken down into peak periods. It was assumed that 15 percent of the total daily traffic would access the facility during both the AM and PM peak hours. This estimation is conservative given that the ATR count data from the Earth Tech Report determined that the majority of the landfill access traffic occurred between the AM and PM peak periods; and The peak hour volume estimates were assumed to only represent the volumes entering the site and thus the following assumptions were made with respect to entering and exiting traffic: All All truck traffic entering the facility will also exit the facility within the peak hour; small vehicle staff traffic will enter facility during the AM peak hour and exit the facility during the PM peak hour. Under these assumptions, Exhibit 3-5 and Exhibit 3-6 present the 29 traffic volume estimates for the AM and PM peak hours for the materials recovery and leachate pre treatment facilities, respectively. November 76, 29 Page 5

52 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Exhibit 3-5: 29 Estimated Materials Recovery Facility Traffic Materials recovery Facility. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Type Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Trucks Small Vehicles 7 7 Exhibit 3-6: 29 Estimated Leachate Pre-Treatment Facility Traffic Leachate Pre-Treatment Faciity. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Type Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Trucks Small Vehicles EXISTING TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 4.1 Area Road Network Manning Drive is a two-lane arterial roadway that serves as a designated access route to the existing landfill site. The roadway is also used to serve local access to adjacent properties. Manning Drive has a posted speed limit of 7 km/hr to the west of the landfill entrance and 8 km/hr to the east of the landfill entrance. Truck restrictions are currently in place on Manning Drive, west of the landfill entrance. Wellington Road is a two lane arterial roadway within the study area and is also a designated access route for landfill truck traffic to travel north/south. Within the study area, the posted speed limit is 8 km/hr; however north of Scotland Drive the posted speed limit is reduced to 7 km/hr where it operates as a basic four-lane roadway. Wellington Road operates as a major carrier for vehicle traffic to access the City centre. White Oak Road is a two-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 8 km/hr north of Manning Drive and 6 km/hr south of Manning Drive. According to the Earth Tech report, load restrictions are in effect between March and April on White Oak Road due to the condition of existing pavement. 4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes AADT DATA The Earth Tech report included 22 annual average daily traffic (AADT) data, while the City of London provided a 29 AADT count. Exhibit 4-1 summarizes the collected AADT data. Exhibit 4-1: AADT Count Data Road From I To Source Year I AADT I I Earth Tech Report 22 14, City of London 29 13,856 I I Earth Tech Report 22 8 City of London I 29 I 7 I Wellington Road Manning Drive Scotland Drive Manning Drive Wellington Road White Oak Road November 76, 29 Page 6

53 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT The data in Exhibit 4-1 reveals that Wellington Road, from Manning Drive to Scotland Drive, experienced almost no change in traffic volumes from the year 22 to 29. In addition, Manning Drive, from Wellington Road to White Oak Road, experienced a decrease in traffic volume from 22 to GROWTH RATES Although the AADT data revealed no growth or negative growth for Wellington Road and Manning Drive, respectively, the Earth Tech report was reviewed to retrieve further data on the growth rates along Manning Drive, Wellington Road and White Oak Road. According to the Earth Tech report, background growth on adjacent roads was calculated using available historical and current traffic counts at the time. The results of the historical traffic volumes on Wellington Road indicated that a 1.5 percent per annum growth rate was observed from the year 1993 to 25. For other roads within their study area, minimal or negative growth rates were observed between historical and present traffic counts at the time. As a result, Earth Tech applied a conservative 1 percent per annum growth rate on all other roadways within their study area. IBI Group supports the methodology used to determine these growth rates. Based on the AADT count data provided and the historical growth calculated in the Earth Tech report, the following growth rates were applied to the roadways: Manning Drive Since a minimal/negative growth rate was determined for Manning Drive from both the AADT counts and the Earth Tech report, it was determined that no growth rate should be applied to Manning Drive. All increases in traffic can be attributed to increased W12A operations over time; Wellington Road The AADT data analyzed above revealed no growth between the year 22 and 29, whereas historical traffic volumes calculated in the Earth Tech report revealed a 1.5 per cent per annum growth rate from 1993 from 25. As a result, IBI Group applied the 1.5 per cent per annum growth rate calculated in the Earth Tech report to the northbound and southbound through movements for all vehicle types as a conservative estimate of future traffic growth, given that Wellington Road is a major commuter route; and White Oak Road Since a minimal/negative growth rate was determined for White Oak Road from the Earth Tech Report and no recent AADT data was available to determine a recent growth rate, it was determined that no growth rate should be applied to White Oak Road. All increases in traffic can be attributed to increased or expanded W12A operations over time TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES The 25 existing conditions traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours prepared in the Earth Tech report were used as the basis to develop a 29 existing conditions scenario. The 29 estimated projected volumes from the W12A landfill, materials recovery facility, and leachate pre treatment plant, and the additional traffic on Wellington Avenue, are based on future calculated growth rates. These projected volumes were added to the 29 existing traffic volumes while the site traffic volume was distributed based on the 25 turning movements. Ultimately, the decision was made to base the existing conditions scenario on the older count rather than the 29 count provided by the City of London due to the following: November 76, 29 Page 7

54 . CU)_ IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO WJ2A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT The 29 turning movement count at Wellington Road and Manning Drive actually shows decreased traffic on Manning Drive, despite increased activity at the W12A site since 25; On Wellington Road, which carries the vast majority of study area traffic, volumes in the 29 count are roughly comparable to the grown 25 volumes; The lack of current counts at either the site driveway or the intersection of White Oak Road and Manning Road would have required assumptions for how traffic travels to and from the site; and If the current TMC was made to match estimated existing W12A volumes, it would have resulted in much more site traffic to and from the west, despite the truck restrictions. Exhibit 4-2 presents the AM and PM peak hour volumes for the 29 existing conditions scenario. Exhibit 4-2: 29 Existing Traffic Volumes AM (PM) Peak Hour V V c. 6) C (3 V 6)Eco C, (/) CU ) >.C(U6) Cs-u,..1 C >6).r: a) >Oo 6) -]d ooc, ).41 1 L 6(15) aj - 12(12) 11(3) 4 5(2) I b O. 4 2(13) 512).41 4, (1).41 LI L 4 264) I L.4 21(42) 22 (4) 21 (44) (52) Ø. 15 (56)...Ø... 5 (2) *-.. (22) E2.Z- 2(3) ) (3) i U, 5 (4) J j f II 22 (4) 6 (I) -_1 () f Manning Drive CN F- Although it is not explicitly shown in the exhibit, W12A truck traffic also uses Manning Drive west of the site driveway and White Oak Road, even though trucks are prohibited. No recent turning movement counts are available at Manning Drive at White Oak Road to determine if W12A truck traffic is now compliant with the truck restriction. For the purpose of this study, IBI Group assumed that current truck traffic is similar to the trip distribution in the Earth Tech report. One exception was made to this methodology. City of London Solid Waste Engineering staff stated that materials recovery facility trucks more closely follow the designated Wellington Road truck route than landfill or leachate traffic, and that all materials recovery truck traffic should be shown to and from Wellington Road EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology and Synchro 7. traffic modeling/analysis software was used to evaluate existing traffic conditions in the study area. For this evaluation, Nøvember 16, 29 Page 8

55 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT existing traffic volumes, lane configurations and other parameters were entered into Synchro to develop an existing conditions model. Levels of service (LOS) were calculated using the HCM methodology contained in Synchro for the study area intersections. LOS evaluation uses a six-letter grade scale (A to F) to rank the overall traffic handling ability of an intersection or a network based on delay per vehicle. LOS A indicates traffic operations with minimal delays, while LOS F represents failing conditions with long delays. Heavy vehicle percentages were calculated according to the expected additional site traffic generated from the landfill site, materials recovery facility and leachate pre-treatment plant calculated using the estimated growth rates for truck and small vehicle traffic. Exhibit 4-3 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic operations for the 29 existing conditions. Full intersection summaries are provided in Appendix B. Intersection Exhibit 4-3: 29 Existing Traffic Operations Overall - - Manning Drive at AM A.51 Wellington Road PM A.51 Man ning Drive at AM A - Landfill Access PM A - Man ning Drive at AM A - Leachate Access PM A - Manning Drive at AM A - Recycling Access PM A - Manning Drive at AM A - White Oak Road PM A - Hour LOS V/C Movement VIC From the above analysis, the following can be concluded: Critical Length(m) Comments The signalized intersection of Manning Drive at Wellington Road is operating at a level of service (LOS) A with no operational concerns; The unsignalized intersection of Manning Drive at White Oak Road is operating at LOS A with no operational concerns; and All unsignalized accesses to the W12A Landfill facilities currently operate at LOS A with no operational concerns. 5. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 5.1 Future Road Network Improvements According to the data provided by the City of London, no future road improvements are planned within the 29 existing conditions and year horizon scenarios. Rather, the scope of this study is to determine what, if any, improvements are necessary due the addition of new land uses adjacent to the W12A landfill. November 76, 29 Page 9

56 . 5) 181 GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT The City of London Transportation Master Plan (lbl Group and Earth Tech, 24) also states that all road widening/reconfiguration on Wellington Road and White Oak Road would occur outside of the subject study area. 5.2 Future Background Developments According to the same data provided in Section 5.1, no future developments, aside from the new land uses discussed in this study, are planned within or near the subject study area. Given the study area s location outside the city s Urban Growth Boundary, any potential future developments are likely to be low- traffic generators. 5.3 Future Background Traffic Volumes Exhibit 5-1 presents the 216 future background volumes prior to the additional site traffic from the W12A landfill, materials recovery and leachate pre-treatment facilities for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Exhibit 5-1: 216 Future Background Volumes AM (PM) Peak Hour 4 U ca D C C CU Eco CU) U) O)> (U.C(Ua) CU) C oo.c a) -d >.oo 5) :6J a) 4 12(12) 4 11 (3) 4 5(2) I 4 2(13) 6(15) (1) 4-21 (42) ] L[z4 LI 4_ 5(2) 5(4)..J j 22 (4) i 6(1) ().41L 4 26(43) L f j 22 (4) j 12 (44).. 13 (52).. 15 (56).. 5 (2). (22) c Manning Drive 2 (3) (2. O(3) C,, U, C a) November 76, 29 Page 7

57 SI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 5A Future Background Traffic Operations Exhibit 12 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic operations for the 216 future background conditions. Full intersection summaries are provided in Appendix B. Intersection Exhibit 5-2: 216 Future Background Traffic Operations Overall Critical k Hour LOS VIC Movement V/C - - Manning Drive at AM A.57 Wellington Road PM A.56 Manning Drive at AM A - Landfill Access PM A - Man ning Drive at AM A - Leachate Access PM A - Manning Drive at AM A - Recycting Access PM A - Manning Drive at AM A - White Oak Road PM A - From the above analysis, the following can be concluded: Queue Length_(m) Comments The signalized intersection of Manning Drive at Wellington Road is expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns; The unsignalized intersection of Manning Drive at White Oak Road is expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns; and All unsignalized accesses to the W12A Landfill facilities are expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns Future W12A Landfill Traffic Using the determined annual growth rate of 1.5 percent for trucks and 4 percent for small vehicles, the 29 WI2A landfill truck and small vehicle volumes were grown to the year 216. Through discussions with the City of London, it is our understanding that the leachate haulage trucks operating in the 28 operational and load data will be discontinued. The estimated number of leachate haulage trucks was removed prior to applying the growth rates. Although trucks are prohibited on Manning Drive west of the landfill access, the absence of new data west of Wellington Road requires an assumption that trucks continue to use other roadways to access the landfill. As a result, IBI Group analysed the 216 future scenario assuming truck travel patterns remain the same as those in the Earth Tech report. However, if in 216 truck restrictions are enforced and maintained, all truck traffic using White Oak Road and Manning Drive west of the landfill entrance will be redirected to the designated route of Wellington Road and Manning Drive. As a sensitivity analysis, IBI Group redistributed all truck traffic accessing the facility west of the landfill site to Wellington Road. This approach reveals a conservative, worst-case scenario at the intersection of Manning Drive and Wellington Road, to determine what, if any, physical and traffic signal recommendations are required to improve traffic operation. November76, 29 Page 77

58 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Future Materials Recovery Traffic The 216 future volumes were estimated using the same growth rates determined to project the 29 existing truck and small vehicle site traffic for the materials recovery facility. The same methodology used to determine AM and PM peak hour traffic was also applied. Exhibit 5-3 presents the 216 future materials recovery facility traffic. The volumes shown are the additional traffic added from the 29 existing conditions. Exhibit 5-3: 216 Estimated Materials Recovery Facility Traffic Materials recovery Facility. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Type. Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Trucks Small Vehicles Future Leachate Pre-Treatment Plant Traffic The 216 future volumes were estimated using the same growth rates determined to project the 29 existing truck and small vehicle site traffic for the leachate pre-treatment plan. The same methodology used to determine AM and PM peak hour traffic was also applied. Exhibit 5-3 presents the 216 future leachate pre-treatment facility traffic. The volumes shown are the additional traffic added from the 29 existing conditions. Exhibit 54: 216 Estimated Leachate Pre-Treatment Plant Traffic Leachate Pre-Treatment Facility. Vehicle Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour. Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Trucks Small Vehicles 5.8 Site Accesses The site plan for the proposed land uses shows two driveways accessing the facility. The driveways, as well as the existing landfill driveway, will serve the different facilities: Driveway I operates as the designated W12A Landfill access for truck and small vehicle traffic. It is located west of the leachate pre-treatment and materials recovery facilities; Driveway 2 operates as the leachate pre-treatment facility access for truck and small vehicle traffic. It also serves small vehicle traffic. Driveway 2 is located east of Driveway 1; and Driveway 3 operates as the materials recovery facility access for trucks only. Driveway 3 is located east of Driveway 2. November 76, 29 Page 72

59 - IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Projected Site Traffic The expected truck and small vehicle site traffic generated for the 216 future total scenario for the AM and PM peak hours was distributed through the above driveways and is shown in Exhibit 5-5. Exhibit 5-5: Projected 216 Site Traffic - C3 = Ċ -D CU) (EU).CCOG) ).E -_Jt = 4 11(5) 4-3(4) In 3(4) ) I 4 () (11).4J Lb (12) () (8) J 2 ().J 3(2) 1(1) II 4.._ 4(4).l () 15 (23) 2()... 11(19)... 11(22).Ø.. ;::- (3) - S U Manning Drive () 51 Future Total Traffic Volumes Exhibit 5-6 presents the 216 future total volumes including the additional site traffic from the waste landfill, materials recovery and leachate pre-treatment facilities for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Exhibit 5-6: 216 Future Total Traffic Volumes AM (PM) Peak Hour November 16, 29 Page 13

60 181 GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 5.11 Future Total Traffic Operations Exhibit 17 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic operations for the 216 future total conditions. Full intersection summaries are provided in Appendix B. Exhibit 5-7: 216 Future Total Traffic Operations Intersection Overall Critical Comments Peak Queue Hour LOS VIC Movement VIC Length_(m) Manning Drive at AM A.59 Welling Road PM A.6 Manning Drive at AM A Landfill Entrance PM A Manning Drive at AM A White Oak Road PM A From the above analysis, the following can be concluded: The signalized intersection of Manning Drive at Wellington Road is expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns; The unsignalized intersection of Manning Drive at White Oak Road is expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns; and All unsignalized accesses to the Wi 2A facilities are expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns Future Total with Truck Redistribution Under the above scenario, it is assumed that the truck restrictions along Manning Drive west of the W12A landfill and on White Oak Road are not followed, as was indicated in the Earth Tech report. As a result, some W12A trucks were analyzed accessing the site west of the site entrances. In order to assess a worst-case scenario on the designated truck routes, the 216 future total scenario was reanalyzed under the assumption that the truck restrictions are enforced and that no Wi 2A truck traffic travels west of the site driveways. As a result, all truck traffic entering the facilities was redistributed to the designated routes (i.e. Wellington Road and Manning Drive, east of W12A) FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH TRUCK REDISTRIBUTION During the AM peak hour, 5 entering trucks were redistributed away from the west and onto Wellington Road; 15 trucks were redistributed in a similar manner during the PM peak hour. The majority of this truck traffic was assumed to arrive from the north on White Oak Road and turning left onto Manning Drive. These vehicles were redistributed, still arriving from the north, performing a southbound right turn from Wellington Road onto Manning Drive. During the AM peak hour, 27 exiting trucks were distributed away from White Oak Road and towards Wellington Road. For the PM peak, the Earth Tech report noted no exiting truck traffic west of W12A, and therefore no redistribution was required for exiting trucks. November 76, 29 Page 74

61 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Exhibit 5-8 illustrates the 216 future total traffic volumes with the redistribution of the trucks entering from west of the site for the AM and PM peak hours. Exhibit 5-8: 216 Future Total Traffic Volumes with Truck Redistribution CD , L 9 (19) < CD QC) C=O = CD U >9) 9)1T< a).j < CD 2(17) 4 8(25) I ).41 Li 71 1fL 14(4) 5 ()..J () -o (24) i 13 (13).4] 4 L 8 (43) (6).41 Ih.. 88 (63) C 4_11(3).4-2(13) (1) CD (11C J (4) 2(2) II (43) (7l). 26 t78).. (3) O Mann)ngDrive (24)* 2(3) i, CD CD CD 31 (64) i f It should be noted that some truck traffic was left on Manning Drive west of the W12A entrances. Based on the Earth Tech data collection, this traffic appears to not be related to W12A operations and is likely traveling to and from Wellington Road FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS WITH TRUCK REDISTRIBUTION Exhibit 5-9 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic operations for the 216 future total conditions with truck redistributions. Full intersection summaries are provided in Appendix B. Exhibit 5-9: 216 Future Total Traffic Operations with Truck Redistribution Intersection Overall Critical Peak Comments Hour LOS V/C Movement V/C Length(m) Manning Drive at AM A Welling Road PM A Manning Drive at AM A Landfill Entrance PM A Man ning Drive at AM A White Oak Road PM A From the above analysis, the following can be concluded: Even when distributing all projected site truck traffic to the intersection of Wellington Road and Manning Road, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns; The unsignalized intersection of Manning Drive at White Oak Road is also expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns; and November 16, 29 Page 15

62 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT All unsignalized accesses to the W12A facilities are expected to operate at LOS A with no operational concerns ESTIMATED LEFTIRIGHT QUEUE LENGTH AT MANNING DRIVE AT WELLINGTON ROAD The eastbound left turn queue length and southbound right turn queue lengths were evaluated at the signalized intersection of Manning Drive and Wellington Avenue to determine if the additional truck traffic would significantly worsen traffic operations and trigger the need for operational improvements. Synchro does not consider vehicle size when determining queue lengths. To represent the impact that a heavy vehicle has at the intersection, each heavy vehicle volume was converted into its passenger car equivalent (PCE) to determine a more reasonable estimate of the expected queue length. Since Synchro treats heavy vehicles as 2. PCE, the number of trucks at each movement was doubled and added to the small vehicle traffic. Exhibit 5-1 summarizes the existing available storage length available as well as projected AM and PM peak hour 95th percentile queue for the eastbound left and southbound right movements under the worst-case scenario using a PCE of 2. for heavy vehicle volume. Exhibit 5-1: Manning Drive at Wellington Road 95th Percentile Queue Length Analysis Movement 216 Future Total - Redistribution Existing Available percentile Queue Length [m] Storage length Cm] AM PM Eastbound Left 5. m 15.9m 25.9m Southbound Right 7. m 4.8 m 4.7 m From the above summary, it can be seen that the existing available storage lengths are sufficient to accommodate the additional site traffic under the assumption that all truck traffic follows designated routes and passes through the intersection of Wellington Road and Manning Drive. 6. CONCLUSIONS From the above analysis, the following can be concluded: Under 29 existing conditions, all intersections within the subject study area were found to operate at good levels of service with no operational concerns; Based on historical data, study area roads show minimal growth. With the exception of Wellington Road, all area growth is expected to be W12A-related; Under 216 future background conditions, all intersections within the subject study area are expected to operate at good levels of service with no operational concerns; Site traffic generated for the proposed new land uses adjacent to the WI2A landfill was projected based on 24 and 28 operational and usage data provided by the City of London, while 28 and projected 215 operational and usage data were used to estimate projected growth for the leachate pre-treatment plant and materials recovery facility; November 76, 29 Page 16

63 181 GROUP FINAL REPORT City of London PROPOSED NEW LAND USES ADJACENT TO W12A LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT Under 216 future total conditions, all intersections within the subject study area are expected to operate at good levels of service with no operational concerns. The additional site traffic at W12A is not expected to impact any site driveways or study area intersections; 181 Group undertook additional analysis to analyse the operational impacts on the intersection of Manning Drive at Wellington Road if all truck traffic were to follow the designated W12A truck route: Under The this 216 sensitivity analysis, all intersections within the subject study area are expected to operate at good levels of service with no operational concerns, despite the additional truck traffic; sensitivity analysis significantly increases the volume of eastbound left and southbound right turns at the signalized intersection of Manning Drive at Wellington Road. Queue length analysis indicates that the existing storage provided for these movements is sufficient to accommodate the projected th percentile queues, or the longest queues that can be reasonable expected; and In summary, the findings of this study indicate that the roadway network, in its present state, can accommodate projected increases in site traffic without the need for operational improvements. J.\2691O_W12ALandtiII1O.O Reports\UR Wl2Landflfl_29_1 O_29.doc \TP November 76, 29 Page 77

64 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN November 76, 29 IBI GROUP

65 Apoendix C :Desin Tables for Water Treatment Plants C-i Appendix C Design Tables for Process Residual Quantities from the Lake Huron and Elgin Area Water Treatment Plants Estimates of the average daily, peak daily and average annual quantities generated at the Lake Huron and Elgin area plants were calculated using the following design tables C-i and C-2. Table C-I: Residue Management Facility Sizing Parameters (Lake Huron WTP RMF) Parameter Maximum Value Design Maximum Day Design Maximum Week Plant Flow (MUd) Raw Water Turbidity (mg/l)1t 2 (Avg.) / 2 (Max) Coagulant Dose (mgjl) Powdered Activated Carbon 6 (Avg.) I 16 (Max) Not Applicable Not Applicable (mg/l) Settled Sludge Flow (MUd).3 to to to 2. (5 to 1 percent solids) (5 to 1 percent solds) (5 to 1 percent solids) Filter Backwash Flowt (MUd) (Each filter backwashed (each filter backwashed (each filter backwashed once per day) twice in one day) twice in one day) Leakaae (ML d) Total Solids Produced Dry 6,6 (Avg.)! 159 (Max) 35,87 2,99 Mass (kg/d) Residue Cak& fm3/d) 23 (Avg.) / 6 (Max) Notes: (a) Average plant flows were estimated using a ratio of average to max day raw water flow from the historic period from 26 to 28 and the plant design capacfty of 34 MUd. (b) Raw water turbidity concentration estimated assuming 1 NTU = 1 mg/c solids. (c) td) The maximum coagulant dose of 4 was estimated assuming the maximum dose is 25 percent greater than the maximum historic average month of 32 mgjl. Solids produced from coagulant addition was estimated at,44 times the coagulant dose. The maximum PAC dose Is based on historical monthly average day values for the period from 26 to 28. PAC is only applied in any of the months from June to October, based on historical records. It was assumed that 1 mg/c PAC = 1 mg/i.. solids. fe) Assumes 1 ML used per backwash (historical average) (f) (g) fh) Leakage (includes miscellaneous flows) was roughly estimated from visual observation of flaw in manholes throughout the Lake Huron WTP site. The plant Is currently replacing valves and considering bearing cooling water reduction techniques. This value will be assessed during detailed design. Estimated total solids produced from turbidity and coagulant addition. Assuming overall 95 percent solids capture and a polymer dose of 1 kgftonne dry solids. Volume estimated assuming cake is 25 percent solids.

66 Appendix C Design Tables for Water Treatment Plants C-2 Table C-2: Projected Dry Sludge and Sludge Cake Production (Elgin Area WTP RMF) Flow Expected Present Day Existing Plant Capacity future Plant Capacity Conditions Sludge Cake Solid Content (%) Mass of Mass of Mass of Mass of Mass of Mass of Dry Solids Sludge Cake Dry Solids Sludge Cake Dry Solids Sludge Cake (kgdsfd) (kajd) (kg OS/U) (kg/u) (kg OS/U) tkg/d) Average 2 6,1 3,5 8,489 42,445 16,959 84,795 Design level 22, ,338 21,441 95,293 42,836 19,382 Worst 25 77,533 31,132 18, ,76 217, ,196 These projections are based upon the following assumptions: Unit solids production ate calculated using the assumed factors documented in Section 3.1; Based on the technology evaluation, it was assumed that centrifugation would be employed the RMF. This technology in produces alum sludge typically ranging from % solids using polymer dosing. with the settled solids As concentrations, it has been assjmed that higher dewatered solids concentrations could be achieved during periods of high turbidity given the nature of the raw water. A 2% IS final sludge cake is assumed tot estimated the mass of final sludge cake; It is evident that the dewatered sludge cake varies to a great extent over the year. It is estimated that a maximum of m/day sludge cake would be generated under the worst scenario when the WTP reaches its design capacity Although it would not be expected to be an issue to dispose of the final sludge cake under normal conditions, handling and disposal of the dewatered sludge under worst case conditions will be a significant materia!s handling challenge, as this equates to as many as 2 to 25 truckloads (15 m3 per truckload) per day.

67 - - Annendix D : Grain Size Analysis D-1 Appendix D Grain Size Analysis Golder Associates SIEVE ANALYSIS REPORT Client. City of London Date: AprH Project Number: O1 5_ Name LapIystng Date Received: Apnt Date Tested: Aprf22j5 Source ofmaterialj Hiijji.._ Lab Sample No Type ofmatecial:lu._jntended Use: - Specification Stand3rds Remarks: Asrctivedwater cqntots6t4% Srze Cf Gpo ogs OCT3 US S S cue szc nc5esnch z F w z L F 2 U U a GRAIN SIZE, mm CoaB1EL._%noE flu coafoef oci:urtl FE rklt 95 CLAY SIZES SIZE COVEL SIZE SAND SIZE : FINE GRAINED -/ GoIdr A oaiat Ltd dflg Ezofer Road Un $1 London Onfaro Canada N6L ICr Ta: IC S tar 5I o,ao 9diEornorrr 6km, Aso a:es Coo,a nns C AlCOa 4s,a Aus:raIa,, Eurco, Noon Are-ca 5 So alh Arnerca Gc$cer, Colic %ssccia es ars be GA gebe cesigr are Ira3rka of Gc!der.Naccaales Corço:amcn

68 ApDendix D : Grain Size Analysis D-2 This page was left blank intentionally.

69 Annendix E: ChemicI Test Date E-1 Appendix E Chemical Test Data Table E-1 : Summary of Chemical Test Data Agricultural Industrial Parameters Units Average Peak Land Use Land Use samples.. a a Guideline Guideline Metals Antimony pg/g 1 <.8 < Arsenic pg/g Barium pglg Beryllium pglg WaterSolubleBoron pglg 1 <1.5 < Boron pglg Cadmium pglg Cobalt pglg Chromium pglg Chromium VI pg/g Copper pg/g Mercury pg/g Molybdenum pglg Nickel pglg Lead pglg Selenium pg/g Silver pglg 1 <.1 < Thallium pg/g Uranium pg/g Vanadium pg/g Zinc uwe Orgenc 2,4-Dinitrotoluene pg/g 1 <.1 < ,6-Dinitrotoluene pglg 1 <.5 < Benzene pg/g 1 <.17 < Ethylbenzene pg/g 1 <.2 < Toluene pglg 1 <1. < Xylene (total) gig 1 <1. < m/p-xylene 1 <1. <1. o-xylene 1 <1. < ,4,5-Trichlorophenol pglg 1 <.1 < ,4,6-Trichlorophenol pg/g 1 <.1 < ,4-Dichlorophenol pglg 1 <.1 < ,4-Dimethylphenol pglg 1 <.2 < ,4-Dinitrophenol pglg 1 <3 < Chlorophenol pglg 1 <.1 < Pentachlorophenol pglg 1 <.5 < Phenol pglg 1 <.5 < Hexachlorobenzene pg/g 1 <1 < Hexachlorobutadiene pglg 1 <1 < Biphenyl pglg 1 <.1 <

70 XV. I of the Environmental Protection Act (MOECC, 211) for coarse grain soils. Agricultural limit above agricultural guideline limit and/or Industrial/Commercial! 2. Hexachloroethane Community Use limit. detection Hexachioroethane exceeds agricultural limit and/or Industrial/Commercial/Community Use limit. result Armendix E: Chemical Test Data E-2 Table E-1 Summary of Chemical Test Data Agricultural Industrial Average Peak Land Use Land Use Guideline Guideline f samples. a a Parameters Units Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether pglg 1 <.5 < Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether pg/g 1 <.5 < Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate pglg 1 <1 < Chioroaniline jiglg 1 <.5 < ,3-Dichlorobenzidine pglg 1 <1 <1 1 1 Diethylphthalate pg/g 1 <.2 < Dimethylphthalate.igIg 1 <.5 < Hexachioroethane pglg 1 <1 < ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene pg/g 1 <.5 < PAHs C,., Acenaphthene pglg 1 <.5 < Acenaphthylene pg/g 1 <.5 < Anthracene pg/g 1 <.5 < Benzo(a)anthracene jgig 1 <.5 < Benzo(a)pyrene pg/g 1 <.5 < Benzo(b)fluoranthene pg/g 1 <.5 < Benzo(ghi)perylene pglg 1 <.1 < Benzo(k)fluoranthene pglg 1 <.5 < Chrysene pglg 1 <.5 < Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene pg/g 1 <.1 < Fluoranthene pg/g 1 <.5 < Fluorene pglg 1 <.5 < lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene pg/g 1 <.1 < Methylnaphthalene pglg 1 <.5 < Methylnaphthalene pg/g 1 <.5 < Naphthalene pg/g 1 <.5 < Phenanthrene pglg 1 <.5 < Pyrene pg/g 1 <.5 < twi CCME Fl (C2-C1) pg/g efroieg Hjttht*j-bon Fractions w - CCME F2 (Cf -C16) pglg CCME F3 (Cl 6-C34) pg/g CCME F4 (C34-C5) pg/g Other Free Cyanide pglg Polychlorinated Biphenyls pg/g 1 <.3 < (PCBs) Notes Landuse Guideline from Table 2 Soil, Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part a

71 Certificates of Analyses for Lake Huron WTP LR Report Date of Report CAl 229-DEC13 31-December-213 CA14744-DEC13 6-January-214 CAl 557-AUG August-21 4 CA17287-MAR14 2-April-214 CA1358-JUN14 9-June-214 CA152-JUN14 24-June-214 CAl 2325-JUL14 22-JuIy-214 CAl AUG14 2-September-21 4 CA19198-SEP14 24-September-214 CAl 938-OCT 14 2-October-2 14 CAl NOV14 2-December-2 14 CA19215-DEC14 31-December-214 CAl 9249-JAN 15 9-February-21 5 CAl FEB February-21 5 CA19199-MAR15 25-March-215 CA19159-APR15 22-AprH-215

72 Boron [ljg/g 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec Arsenic [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Water Soluble Boron [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:18 1-Dec-13 14: < 1.5 Beryllium [l]glg] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1:52 (5)4 (5)4 (1) Antimony [ljg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec (5)4.8 <.8 Barium [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Conductivity [ms/cm] 17-Dec-13 9:2 19-Dec-13 9: Mercury [pg/g] 18-Dec-13 8:4 18-Dec-13 9:6 (1.8)25 (1.8).27 (2)39 5 <.5 chromium VI[pg/g] 12-Dec-13 12:9 17-Dec-13 16:42 (1)8 (1)6 (1) Sample Date &Time 5-Dec-13 11:15 2HO Sodium Adsorption Ratio [---] NOM ito, 5135 Grand Bend, ON P.O. Box #149 Lakefield - Ontario - KOL P.O. Box 43D Concession St. SGS Canada Inc. C Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. http;// (Printed copies are available upon request.) Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at Page 1 of SAR Magnesium [mg/li 18-Dec-13 8:3 18-Dec-13 13: SAR Sodium [mg/l] 18-Dec-13 8:3 18-Dec SAR calcium [mg/li 18-Dec-13 8:3 18-Dec ph [no unit] 16-Dec-13 13:33 16-Dec-13 15,4 7.9 Jaymie Miller Sampled By Property Use Date Time Use Institutional y Property Use Date Start Time Approval Approval other Property ParklandlercialiCommunit Dewatered Sludge Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 12: Analysis Start Analysis Analysis Analysis Agricultural or ResidentialilndustriallComm MDL NR Hauled Revised Final Report - CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Copy: #3 Fax: pdf Phone: Ground Water C TABLE 2: Full Depth Generic Site CAl 229-DECI 3 6 December213 Condition Standards in a Potable Reference: LR Report: Date Rec.: 31 -December-2 13 Affn: Todd Smythe OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Phone: FAX: PO# Project: Works #:

73 Ontario KOL Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 12: Analysis Start Analysis Analysis Analysis Agricultural or ResidentialllndustnallComm MDL NR Hauled Date Start Time Approval Approval other Property PartclandlerciallCommunit Dewatered Sludge Date Time Use Institutional y Property Use Property Use Cadmiumjg/g1 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Chromium [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Cobalt [pg/g] 1-Dec Dec-13 1: (1) Copper [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1:52 (18) 14 (18) 14 (3) Lead [.1g/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Molybdenum [i.jg/gl 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Nickel [pg/gj 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1:52 (13) 1 (13) 1 (34) Selenium [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: <.7 Silver [pglg] 1-Dec Dec-13 1:52 (25)2 (25)2 (5)4.1 <.1 Thallium [pglg] 1-Dec-13 13: Dec-13 1: Uranium [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 2-Dec Vanadium [pglg) 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Dinitrotoluene [pglg] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <,1 26-Dinitrotoluene [pglg] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.5 Benzene[ig/g] 9-Dec Dec-13 11:2 ( 17).21 (.17).21 (.4) <.17 Ethylbenzene tpg/g] 9-Dec-13 12:33 11-Dec-13 11:2 (1.6) 1.1 (1.6) 1.1 (1.6) <.2 Toluene [pglg] 9-Dec-13 12:33 11-Dec-13 11:2 (6) 2.3 (6) 2.3 (9) < Acenaphthylene[pg/g) 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 ( 17).15 (.17).15 (.17).15.5 <.5 Anthracene (gig] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (.74).67 (.74)67 (.74).67.5 <.5 Benzo(a)anthracene fl.jg!g) 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 ( 63).5 (,63) <.5 Benzo(a)pyrene []g1g] 1-Dec Dec <.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene [pg/g] 1-Dec Dec-13 12: ,96.5 <.5 Benzo(ghi)perylene[pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (7.8)6.6 (7.8) <.1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene )pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.5 Chrysene [pg!g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (7.8)7 (7.8) <.5 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene [pglg] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec <.1 Fluoranthene [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.5 Fluorene [pglg] 1-Dec Dec (69)62 (69)62 (69)62.5 <.5 lndeno(123-cd)pycene (igig) 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec ( 48).38 (.48).38 (.95).76.1 <.1 1-Methytnaphthalene [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (3.4).99 (3.4).99 (42)3.5 <.5 Page 2 of 4 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at htm. (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples SGS SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - - 2H Phone: FAX: Works #: 2869 Project: PO#214 LR Report: CAl 229-DEC 13 Zinc [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 13:45 11-Dec-13 1: Xylene (total) (pg/g] 9-Dec-13 12: Dec (25) 3.1 (25) 3.1 (3)26 1. < 1. m/p-xylene[pg/g] 9-Dec-13 12:33 11-Dec-13 11:2 --- < 1. o-xylene[pg/g] 9-Dec-13 12:33 11-Dec-13 11:2 --- < 1. Acenaphthene[l.ig/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (29)7.9 (29)7.9 (29)21.5 <.5

74 Biphenyl [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (1.1).31 (1.1).31 (21)52.1 <.1 CCME F2 (C1-C16) [mg/kg] 9-Dec-13 9:7 13-Dec (15)98 (15)96 (25) CCME F4 (C34-C5) [mg/kg] 9-Dec-13 9:7 13-Dec-13 15:4 (56) 28 (56) 28 (66) 33 5 <5 CCME Fl (C6-C1) [mg/kg] 9-Dec-13 12:33 11-Dec (65)55 (65)55 (65)55 2 <2 CCME F3 (C16-C34) [mg/kg] 9-Dec-13 9:7 13-Dec (13) 3 (13) 3 (25) Methylnaphthalene [.igig] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (3.4).99 (3.4),99 (42)3.5 <.5 Pyrene [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.5 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether[pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.5 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether[iJg/g 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec (1.8).67 (1.8).67 (13)11.5 <.5 Chromatogram returned to baseline at nc5o [Yes / No] 9-Dec-13 9:7 13-Dec YES Naphthalene [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (.75).6 (.75).6 (28) <.5 24,6-Trichiorophenol [pg/g] 1-Dec Dec-13 12:11 (2.9) 2.1 (2.9) 2.1 (2.9) <.1 Pentachiorophenol [.ig/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: (3.3)2.9.5 <.5 Hexachlorobutadiene[pg/g] 1-Dec Dec (,14).12 ( 14).12 (.95).31 1 <1 Hexachioroethane [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec (.7).89 ( 7).89 (.43).21 1 < 1 2,4-Dichlorophenol [ljg(g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (.27).19 (.27).19 (.27).19.1 <.1 2,4-Dimethylphenol [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec (53)36 (53)36 (53)38.2 <.2 4-Chioroaniline [pg/g) 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:12.5 <.5 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec < 1 Diethylphthalate jg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.2 Dimethylphthalate [pg/gy 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.5 Hexachlorobenzene [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <1 2,4-Dinitrophenol [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec (29)2 (2.9)2 (2.9) 2 3 <3 Phenanthrene [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (7.8) 6.2 (7.8) 6.2 (16) 12 5 <.5 Phone: FAX: H 2,4,5-Trichiorophenol [pg/gj 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (5.5) 4,4 (5.5) 4.4 (1) <.1 2-Chiorophenol [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:11 (2) 1 6 (2) 1.6 (3.9) <.1 Phenol [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: <.5 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate [pg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: (35)28 1 < 1 Lakefield - Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 12: Analysis Start Analysis Analysis Analysis Agricultural or Residential/Industrial/Comm MDL NR Hauled P.O. Box Concession St. LR Report: CAl 229-DECI3 - KOL Ontario La Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. (Printed copies are available upon request.) Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at Page 3 of Moisture Content [%] 9-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12: Tnchlorobenzene[Jg/g] 1-Dec-13 9:7 12-Dec-13 12:12 (1.4).36 (1.4).36 (16) <.5 Property Use Date Start Time Approval Approval other Property Parklandlercial/Communit Dewatered Sludge Date Time Use Institutional y Property Use Project: PO#214 SGS Canada Inc. S15 Works #: 2869

75 Ontario CCME Method compliance: Analyses were conducted using analytical procedures that comply with the Reference Method for the CWS for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and have been validated for use at the SGS laboratory, Lakefield, ON site. Some method detection limits have been elevated due to the nature of the sample (high moisture content). Page 4 of 4 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at hftp:// (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. SGS SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St Lakefield - - KOL 2H Phone; FAX: Works #: Project: LR Report: 2869 PO#2 14 CAl 229-DEC 13 Quality compliance: Instrument performance / calibration quality criteria were met and extraction and analysis limits for holding times were met. nc6 and nclo response factors within 3% of response factor for toluene: YES nclo, nc16 and nc34 response factors within 1% of the average response for the three compounds: YES c5 response factors within 7% of nclo + nc16 + nc34 average: YES Linearity is within 15%: YES F4G The PHc - gravimetric heavy hydrocarbons cannot be added to the c6 to c5 hydrocarbons. results for F4 and F4G are both reported and the greater of the two values is to be used in application to the cws Hydrocarbon results are expressed on a dry weight basis. *Report revised to include Uranium and SAR result. Some MDL s revised. Project Specialist Environmental Se,vices, Analytical

76 Ontario Environmental Se,vices, Analytical SOS SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. KOL En 1 a Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted report part without Please to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical in full or in is prohibited prior written approval. refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at are request.) (Printed copies available upon Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. Works#: 2869 Project: PO#214 2H - Lakefield - Phone: FAX: January-214 OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater 31 December213 Date Rec.: Attn : Todd Smythe LR Report: Reference: P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON NOM ito, Phone: Copy: Fax:pdf CA14744-DECI 3 TABLE 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water C #2 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Sample ID Sample Date & Sampled By Free Chloride Polychiorinated Time Cyanide % Biphenyls igig (PC Es) Total - igig 1:Analysis Start Date 3-Dec Dec Dec-13 2: Analysis Start Time 11:12 12:2 7:16 3: Analysis Approval Date 31-Dec Dec Dec-13 4: Analysis Approval Time 13:6 15:58 11:33 5: Agricultural or other Property Use.51 NA.35 6: Residential! Parkiand! Institutional Property Use.51 NA.35 7: Industrial/Commercial!Community Property Use.51 NA 1.1 8: MDL : NR Hauled Dewatered Sludge Dec-13 11:15 Jaymie Miller.5.3 <.3 Associated with repott CA1229-DEC13 Greefliaw Project Specialist

77 CCME Fl (C6-C1) [iig/g] 8-Aug (65)55 (65)55 (65)55 1 c 1 ND 94% <5 CCME P2 (C1-C16( ]tjg/g( 12-Aug (15)98 (15)98 (25) % 14% 248 CCME F3 (C16.C34)]pg/g] 12-Aug (13)3 (13) 3 (25) 17 5 <5 5% 14% < 25 CCME Method compliance: Analyses were conducted using analytical procedures that comply with the Reference Method for the CWS for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and have been validated for use at the SGS laboratory, Lakefield, ON site. Blank SLS Project: PO#214 SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2H Phone: FAX: August-214 OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Aft n: Todd Smythe Date Rec.: 6 August 214 P.O. Box #149 LR Report: CA1557-AUGI4 Grand Bend, ON Copy: #1 NOM ito, Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 3: Analysis Analysis 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: 8: 9: 1: 11: 12: MDL OC - Sample Date & Time Sampled By Temperature Upon Receipt [C] Moisture Content [%] 12-Aug QC - DUP % QC - Approval Approval Agriculture orresidentialipar Industrial/Corn RPD Recovery Date Time other klandmercial/commu nity Dewatered Sludge STO % 1-Aug-14 1:15 Jaymie Miller CCME F4 (C34-C5) [pg/g] 12-Aug (56)28 (56(28 (66)33 5 <5 7% 14% < 25 Chromatogram relurned to baseline at nc5o [Yes / No] 12-Aug YES Quality compliance: Instrument performance / calibration quality criteria were met and extraction and analysis limits for holding times were met. nc6 and nclo response factors within 3% of response factor for toluene: YES nclo, nc16 and nc34 response factors within 1% of each other: YES c5 response factors within 7% of nclo + ncl6 + nc34 average: YES Linearity is within 15%: YES If the F4G gravimetric heavy hydrocarbons have been determined, they cannot be added to the C6 to C5 hydrocarbons. The results for F4 and F4G are both reported and the greater of the two values is to be used in application to the cws PHC. Hydrocarbon results are expressed on a dry weight basis. Page 1 of 2 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method inlormation available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

78 Reporting Limits elevalted due to high moisture content of sample. Quality control data are available upon request. SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. LR Report: CA1557-AUG14 Lakefleld - Ontario - KOL 2H Phone: FAX: SLS; Project: PO#214 arrie Gree law Environmental Services, Analytical z Page 2 of 2 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. Project Specialist dl

79 Ontario 185 KOL Sample ID Yes I No Sample Date & Sampled By Moisture CCME Fl CCME F2 CCME F3 CCME F4 Chromatogram Time Content (C6-ClO) (ClO-C16) (C16-C34) (C34-C5) returned to ¾ mglkg mg!kg mg/kg mglkg baseline at nc5o Page 1 of 2 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in lull or In part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. (65) (65) (65) 1 SLS Works#: SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box 43 - Concession St. Lakefield - - 2H Phone: FAX: OCWA-Lake Huron Primary Water Supply System Project: PO#214 2-April-2 14 Attn: Todd Smythe Date Rec.: 28 Match 214 P. Box #149 LR Report: CA17287-MARI4 Grand Bend, ON Copy: #1 NOM 11, Phone: Fax: pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report 3: Analysis Approval Date 2-Apr-14 2-Apr-14 2-Apr-14 2-Apr-14 2-Apr-14 2-Apr-14 4: Analysis Approval lime 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 5: Table 2 Agriculture or other (15) 98 (13) 3 (56)28 6: Table 2 Residential/Parkland (15) 98 (13) 3 (56)28 7: Table 2 Industrial/Commercial/Community (25) 23 (25) 17 (66)33 8: MDL : NR Dewatered Sludge-Pre Conveyor 27-Mar-14 11:15 Jamie Millet 83.8 < < 25 YES 13: NR Dewatered Sludge-Post Conveyor 27-Mar-14 11:2 Jamie Miller 83.4 < < 25 YES

80 for holding times were met. Linearity is within 15%: YES c5 response factors within 7% of nclo + nc16 + nc34 average: YES nclo, ncl6 and nc34 response factors within 1% of each other: YES nc6 and nclo response factors within 3% of response factor for toluene: YES the CwS for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in soil and have been validated for use at the SGS laboratory, Lakefield, ON site. Quality compliance: Instrument performance / calibration quality criteria were met and extraction and analysis limits CCME Method Compliance: Analyses were conducted using analytical procedures that comply with the Reference Method for Phone: FAX: HO KOL - Ontario Lakefield - Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment end may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. htm. (Printed copies are available upon request.) Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at Page 2 of 2 Environmental Services, Analytical Project Specialist arrie Gree law P.O. Box Concession St. LR Report: CA17287-MARJ4 Project: PO#214 Works#: NR SGS Canada Inc.

81 SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2HO Phone: FAX: OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Attn: Todd Smythe P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON NOM ito, Works #: 2869 Project: PO#214 9-June-214 Date Rec.: 4 June 214 LR Report: CA1358-JUNI4 Copy: #1 Phone: Fax: pdf CERTIFICATE Final Report OF ANALYSIS Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Date Time Sludge Sample Date & Time 3-May : Sampled By Scott Dinney Temperature Upon Receipt [ C] SpecificGravity 5-Jun-14 18:49 9-Jun-14 14:5 1. Total Solids [mgil] 5-Jun-14 18:49 9-Jun-14 14:5 21 Arsenic [pg/g] 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35 5 Cadmium [pg/gj 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35 <.1 Cobalt [.JgIgJ 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35.9 Chromium [pg/g] 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15: Copper [ig/g] 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15: Mercury [mg/l] 6-Jun-14 11:2 6-Jun-14 13:42 <.1 Molybdenum [pg/g] 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35 < 1 Nickel [pglg] 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35 3 Lead [pglg] 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35 < 1 Selenium [pg/g] 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35 < 2 Zinc [pg/gj 6-Jun-14 12:25 6-Jun-14 15:35 23 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. -ie Greeñfaw Project Specialist Environmental Seivices, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

82 arrie Gree aw Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical z Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. Works #: 2869 Project: PO#214 SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - 2H - Ontario KOL Phone: FAX: June-214 OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Attn: Todd Smythe Date Rec.: 17 June 214 LR Report: CA152-JUNI 4 P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON Copy: #1 NOM ito, Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Date Time Sludge LHWS Sample Date & Time 12-Jun-14 1:45 Sampled By Scott Dinney Temperature Upon Receipt [ C] --- SpecificGravity 17-Jun-14 19:35 19-Jun-14 13:32 1. Total Solids [mg/l] 19-Jun-14 19:2 24-Jun-14 9: Arsenic [pglg] 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:29 4 Cadmium [JgIg] 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:29 <.1 Cobalt [pg/g] 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:29.8 Chromium [ig/gj 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:3 5.1 Copper [pg/gj 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:3 4.2 Mercury [pg/g] 18-Jun-14 11:54 18-Jun-14 13:5 <.5 Molybdenum [pg/g] 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:3 < 1 Nickel [Jg/gJ 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:3 3 Lead [pg/g] 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:3 < 1 Selenium [pg/g] 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:3 2 Zinc [pglg] 18-Jun-14 15: 19-Jun-14 14:3 14 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample.

83 SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2HO Phone: FAX: Works#: 2869 Project: PO# JuIy-214 OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Attn Todd Smythe Date Rec.: 15 July 214 LR Report: CAl 2325-JULI4 P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON Copy: #1 NOM ito, Phone: Fax: pdf CERTIFICATE Final Report OF ANALYSIS Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Hauled Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Date Time Sludge Sample Date & Time 1-Jul-14 12:45 Sampled By Scott Dinney Temperature Upon Receipt [SC] SpecificGravity 15-Jul-14 19:4 22-Jul-14 13:9 1. Total Solids [mg/l] 15-Jul-14 19:4 22-Jul-14 13:9 168 Arsenic [pg/g] 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14:54 5 Cadmium [pg/gj 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14:54 <.1 Cobalt [jjg/g] 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14:54 <.3 Chromium [pg/gj 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14: Copper [Jg/gJ 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14: Mercury [pg/g] 17-Jul-14 1:48 17-Jul-14 12:12 <.5 Molybdenum [.ig/g] 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14:54 < 1 Nickel [ljg/gj 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14:54 2 Lead [pg/g] 18-Jul-14 12: 16-Jul-14 14:54 < 1 Selenium [pg/gj 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14:54 <2 Zinc [pg/g] 18-Jul-14 12: 18-Jul-14 14:54 11 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. arrie Gree aw Project Specialist Environmental Seivices, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

84 z SGS. SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. 2H - Ontario KOL U, 27-Aug-14 Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted report part Please to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical in full or In Is prohibited without prior written approval. refer to SGS General conditions of Services located at are available request.) (Printed copies upon Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. Works#: 2869 Project: PO#214 Lakefield - Phone: FAX: September-2 14 OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Date Rec..: 22 August 214 Attn Todd Smythe LR Report: CAl AUG14 P.O. Box #149 Copy: #1 Grand Bend, ON NOM ito, Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Hauled 2F77C RMF Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Effluent Conduit 2-Aug-14 7:2 1 Time Sampled By Jaymie Miller Jaymie Miller Temperature Upon Receipt [CJ --- Total Suspended Solids [mg/u 22-Aug-14 16:36 26-Aug : SpecificGravity 26-Aug-74 18:4 29-Aug-14 13:27 1. Total Solids [mg/l] 26-Aug-14 18:4 2-Sep-14 14: Arsenic [igigj 27-Aug-74 12:2 27-Aug-14 15:34 5 Cadmium [pglg] 27-Aug-74 12:2 27-Aug-14 15:34 c.1 Cobalt [pglg] 27-Aug-14 12:2 27-Aug-14 15:34.6 Chromium [pg/gj 27-Aug-14 12:2 27-Aug-14 15: Copper[pg/g] 27-Aug-14 12:2 27-Aug-14 15: Mercury [pg/g] 26-Aug-14 1:57 26-Aug-74 11:29 <.5 Molybdenum [pg/gl 27-Aug-14 12:2 27-Aug-14 15:34 < 1 - Nickel [pg/g] 27-Aug :2 27-Aug-14 15:34 3 Lead [iig/g] 27-Aug-14 12:2 27-Aug-74 15:34 < 1 - Selenium [pg/g] 27-Aug-14 12:2 27-Aug-14 15:34 <2 12:2 27-Aug-14 15:34 14 Zinc [pg/gj. Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample.

85 SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2HO Phone: FAX: Works#: 2869 Project: PO# September-2 14 OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Attn Todd Smythe Date Rec.: 18 September 214 CR Report: CA19198-SEPI4 P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON Copy: #1 NOM ito, Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Hauled Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Date Time Sludge Sample Date & Time 15-Sep-14 12:1 Sampled By Scott Dinney Temperature Upon Receipt [SC] SpecificGravity 18-Sep-14 17:25 22-Sep-14 14:46 1. Total Solids [mg/li 18-Sep-14 17:25 22-Sep-14 14: Arsenic [tjg/g] 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 <1 Cadmium [pg/g] 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 <.1 Cobalt [pg/g] 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36.8 Chromium [pg/gj 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 3. Copper [pg/gj 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 5,4 Mercury[pg/gJ 23-Sep-14 12:11 24-Sep-14 8:39 <.5 Molybdenum [pglg] 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 < 1 Nickel [pg/gj 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 2 Lead [pg/g] 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 < 1 Selenium [pglg] 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 <2 Zinc [pg/g] 22-Sep-14 14:15 23-Sep-14 16:36 33 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. arrie Gree aw Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

86 arrie Gree aw Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical SGS Works #: 2869 Project: PO#214 SOS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. 2HO - Ontario KOL Lakefield - Phone: FAX: OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater 2-OCtober-2 14 Attn : Todd Smythe Date Rec..: 7 October 214 LR Report: CA1938-OCTI4 P.O. Box #149 Copy: #1 Grand Bend, ON NOM ito, Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled 2F77C NR RMF Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Effluent Conduit Date Time Sludge Sample Date & Time 3-Oct-14 7:3 3-Oct-14 8:3 Sampled By Scott Dinney Scott Dinney 5 3 C Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted report part without Please refer to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical in full or in is prohibited prior written approval. to SGS General Conditions of Services located at copies are request.) (Printed available upon Test method information available upon request. Temperature representative the shipment not the temperature samples. Upon Receipt is of whole and may reflect of individual Temperature Upon Receipt [at Lakefield Lab CJ --- Total Suspended Solids [mgil] 8-Oct-14 14:24 14-Oct-14 9:2 --- SpecificGravity 7-Oct-14 17:3 9-Oct-14 8:5 1. Total Solids [mg/l] 7-Oct-14 17:3 9-Oct-14 8:5 2 Arsenic [pg/g] 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8: Cadmium [pg/g] 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8:45.5 < Cobalt fpg/g] 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8:45 < 1 Chromium [pg/g) 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8: Copper [pg/g] 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8: Mercury [pglgj 2-Oct-14 7:34 2-Oct-14 1:19 <.5 - Molybdenum [pg/gj 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8:45 <.5 Nickel [pg/g] 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8:45 3 Lead [pg/g] 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8:45 <.7 Selenium [pglgj 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8:45 1 Zinc [pg/g] 14-Oct-14 14: 16-Oct-14 8:45 61 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample.

87 Ontario SGS SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefleld - - KOL 2H Phone: FAX: OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Attn: Todd Smythe P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON NOM ito, Works#: 2869 Project: PO#214 2-December-2 14 Date Rec. : 25 November 214 LR Report: CA19165-NOVI4 Copy: #1 Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Date Time Sludge Sample Date & Time 2-Nov :3 Sampled By Jaymie Miller Temperature Upon Receipt [at Lakefield Lab CJ SpecificGravity 25-Nov-14 16:55 1-Dec-14 15: Total Solids [mg/l] 25-Nov-14 16:55 1-Dec-14 15: Arsenic [jgigj 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13: Cadmium [JgIg] 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34 <.5 Cobalt [pg/g] 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34 2 Chromium [Jg/gJ 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34 4. Copper [pglgj 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13: Mercury [pg/g] 28-Nov-14 12:8 28-Nov-14 12:39 <.5 Molybdenum [pg/gj 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34.6 Nickel [pglg] 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34 5 Lead [pglg] 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34 <.7 Selenium []gig] 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34 1 Zinc [pg/g] 2-Dec-14 8:3 2-Dec-14 13:34 9 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. le Greeñlaw Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SOS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

88 SGS Works SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2H Phone: FAX: OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater #: 2869 Project: PO# December-2 14 Attn: Todd Smythe Date Rec.: P.O. Box Bend, ON NOM ito, Grand #149 LR Copy: 23 December 214 Report: CA19215-DECI4 #1 Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled NR Sludge Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered from Clarifier Date Time Sludge - Sample Date & Time 18-Dec-14 1:3 18-Dec-14 11: Sampled By Jaymie Miller Jaymie Miller Temperature Upon Receipt [at Lakefield Lab C] 8. SpecificGravity 23-Dec-14 15:52 29-Dec-14 12: Total Solids [mg/u 23-Dec-14 15:52 29-Dec-14 12: Arsenic[pg/gJ 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13: Cadmium [pg/gj 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13:19 <.5 Cobalt [pg/g] 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13:19 1 Chromium [lig/g) 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13: Copper[pg/g] 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13: Mercury [pg/g] 31-Dec-14 8:21 31-Dec-14 9:37 <.5 Molybdenum [pg/gl 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13:19 <.5 Nickel [pg)gj 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13:19 4 Lead [pg/gj 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13:19.7 Selenium [pg/g} 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13:2 1 Zinc [pg/g] 3-Dec-14 11:52 3-Dec-14 13:2 28 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. arrie Gree aw Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

89 SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2H Phone: FAX: Works #: 2869 Project: PO#214 9-February-21 5 OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Attn Jaymie Miller Date Rec.: 3 February 215 LR Report: CA19249-JANI5 P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON Copy: #1 NOM 1T, Phone: Fax: pdf CERTIFICATE Final Report OF ANALYSIS Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled NR Sludge Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered from Clarifier #4 Date Time Sludge Sample Date & Time 28-Jan-15 1:15 28-Jan-15 1:3 Sampled By R.Gallant R.Gallant Temperature Upon Receipt [at Lakefield Lab C] SpecificGravity 3-Feb-15 19:2 5-Feb-15 1: Total Solids [mg/l] 3-Feb-15 19:2 5-Feb-15 1: Arsenic [pg/g} 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11:15 <.5 Cadmium [pg/gj 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11:15.8 Cobalt [tjg/gj 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11:15 2 Chromium [pglgj 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11: Copper[pg/gJ 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11: Mercury [pg/g] 9-Feb-15 8:43 9-Feb-15 11:7 <.5 Molybdenum [pg/g] 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11:15 <.5 - Nickel [pgfg] 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11:15 5 Lead [pg/gj 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11: Selenium [pg/g] 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11:15 1 Zinc[Jg/g] 6-Feb-15 14:2 9-Feb-15 11: Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. arrie Gree aw Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

90 KOL SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefleld - Ontario - 2H Phone: FAX: OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Affn : Works #: 2869 Project: PO# February-21 Jaymie Miller Date Rec.: P.O. Box Grand Bend, ON NOM ito, #149 LR Copy: 19 5 February 215 Report: CA19166-FEBI5 #1 Phone: Fax: pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Final Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Analysis Analysis Start Analysis Analysis NR Hauled NR Sludge Start Date Time Approval Approval Dewatered Sludge from Clarifier Date Time Sample Date & Time 18-Feb-15 11:2 18-Feb-15 11:1 Sampled By Scott Dinney Scott Dinney Temperature Upon Receipt [at Lakefield Lab C] SpecificGravity 2-Feb-15 18:38 24-Feb-15 9: Total Solids [mg/l] 2-Feb-15 18:38 24-Feb-15 9: Arsenic [pglgj 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:52 <.5 Cadmium [pg/g] 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:52 <.5 Cobalt [pg/gj 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:52 1 Chromium [pglgj 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:52 3. Copper [pg/g] 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1: Mercury [pg/g] 25-Feb-15 9:32 25-Feb-15 16:28 <.5 - Molybdenum [pg)gl 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:54 <.5 Nickel [pg/g) 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:54 3 Lead [pglg] 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:54 1. Selenium [pg/gl 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:54 < 1 Zinc [pg/g] 26-Feb-15 8:3 26-Feb-15 1:54 12 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. Kimbe ey Didsbut, / Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

91 Ontario SG$ SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box Concession St. Lakefield - - KOL 2H Phone: FAX: OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Afin: Jaymie Miller P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON NOM ito, Works#: 2869 Project: PO# March-2 15 Date Rec,: LR Report: Copy: 19 March 215 CAl 9199-MARl 5 #1 Phone: Fax: pdf CERTIFICATE Final Report OF ANALYSIS Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled NR Sludge Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered from Clarifier Date Time Sludge Sample Date & Time 18-Mar-15 1: 18-Mar-15 9:5 Sampled By Scott Dinney Scott Dinney Temperature Upon Receipt [at Lakefield Lab CJ SpecificGravity 2-Mar-15 2:8 24-Mar-15 8: Total Solids [mg/li 2-Mar-15 2:8 24-Mar-15 8: Arsenic [pg/g] 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14:32 < 1 Cadmium [pg/g] 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14:32.1 Cobalt [pg/g] 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14: Chromium [pg/g] 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14: Copper [pg/gi 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14: Mercury [pg/gi 24-Mar-15 13:46 24-Mar-15 15:38 <.5 Molybdenum [.ig/gi 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14:32 < 1 Nickel fpg/gi 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14:32 5 Lead [pg/g] 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14:32 < 1 Selenium [pg/g) 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14:32 <2 Zinc [pglg] 25-Mar-15 12:15 25-Mar-15 14:32 5 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples,

92 SGS SGS Canada P.O. Box Lakefield - Ontario 43- Inc Phone: Concession KOL FAX: 2H St OCWA-Lake Huron Primary WSS-Wastewater Attn: Jaymie Millet P.O. Box #149 Grand Bend, ON NOM 11, Works#: 2869 Project: PO# April April 215 LR Report: CAl APRI5 Date Rec. Copy: #1 : Phone: Fax:pdf CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS RnaI Report Analysis 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis NR Hauled NR Sludge Start Date Start Time Approval Approval Dewatered Sludge from Clarifier Date Time Sample Date & Time 13-Apr Apr-15 13: Sampled By Scott Dinney Scott Dinney Temperature Upon Receipt [at Lakefield Lab 11. SpecificGravity 15-Apr-15 2:12 2-Apr-15 1: C] Total Solids [mg/li 15-Apr-15 2:12 2-Apr-15 1: Arsenic [pg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 2 Cadmium [ig/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 <.1 Cobalt [pg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr Chromium [pg/g] 18-Apr Apr Copper [pg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 5.2 Mercury fpg/g] 17-Apr-15 9:5 17-Apr-15 13:3 < 5 Molybdenum [pg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 1 Nickel tpg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 3 Lead [pg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 < 1 Selenium [pg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 4 Zinc [pg/g] 18-Apr-15 14: 2-Apr-15 13:5 17 Note: Metals and mercury were analyzed on the as-received sample. rrie Gi Project Specialist Environmental Services, Analytical Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS General Conditions of Services located at (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. Temperature Upon Receipt is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples.

93 MHSW Recycling/Processing Facilities Appendix F Aipendix F: MHSW Recycling/Processing Facilities F-i

94 Table F-I: Disposal Locations 214 rw Waste Deaaiptioe Recycled ktcieeeeted Soc L % 22 1% NocARa 63* C 1% NON GO * C Rates % Vteve Receive. Racy of Rite Location Postal Code C of 48 Hatton CaudaSo Ceiar Hahon CndaSo CattntaO5 NON GO 3)86 InC Oty CeO Oaoermn % Ran tdalenale Cmttpatr5 So 8-ac l,t38role Coepany So Pan Caine.. ON 6366 Al23l6 148 Pats. d (UN 123) 1% Ptotece Eeteemreteal Sokoorm So Loop Recycled Proltols len St Cadottoos. ON * Eden. naalees eq. Ureetom 1UN1363( % Ptoto.ott Etosucitecoal Sokoovo So Low Reo.eled Pronvete So St Cadoreas. ON AOl PeoSotan &tst6et eg Sand )UNl2O3l 8% PodeeS Enoemneeceat Sceaokm So L Recycled Prnatotn So St Cateraren, ON % IdOT Ekateeceto Lantpe 1% ActIve FLR Rattan) Apr. ON NOR TSoretegate IrA Ro.rtas P1.8 (AetOas) Ae ON NOB too lath Fostaern % 2% Cleat Nadorn Canada So Clean Nathan Canada So Cananra, ON NON GO *316 Idol Iroogano GARners bleach cleaners. cit 18% Cleat Natives Canada So Clean HaSon Canada So Cannot. ON NON 1 A Glycid (Mdrenae) 1% Weaned lot hal OaleOy.Kleen Canada So Salety-Oleeo Canada So bnadno4t, ON MIS Pettede,n Dolebtesj Sidinsas ).anal) % bletded So Sat) Clean Nattots Canada So Clean Hadattn Canada So Coctoot, ON NON 1 *31% ,4k Pok 6% Clean Hadron Canada So Clean Hadots Canada So Cotama, ON NON GO *31% 242* Pnnkcdes % 2% Clean Nathan Canada So. Clean HadmCanada 8cc Cannot. ON NON 1 *31% Oetpty Gd Codatanc % P51KG RaISon PNOWKO Otidlorn Atacia. ON 1.3 4C Waste 4k and Littoarse % OaleW Kleee Canada So Salety-Kleoe Canada So. Snadanooph. ON MIS Organc Lahaalaty Cteetnds 1% Clean NatIons Canada So Cleait NatInan Canada So Cannot. ON NON ION *31% 3311 Wade Coepeested Canes (aetonole) 1% Clean Nathan Canada So. CR) Enatoseota Ito Cateau dtclan. IX JOy IK.O1Md Waste Compressed Gates (We edegtovsots( 1% Clean [Cotton Canada So Clean Nathan Canada to Conaeo, ON SON GO * ) Waste Catrpreswd Gases (propane *51 1% PPcIedt Onem,ttedd Sokeore So Ptntenh Envemettered Sokadro So St. Caoveteats. ON )64 331) Waste Compressed Gates (prepane UtAs, srqle-ane propane tales 3 1% Phaeoh Enatmnnntld 664cm So. ehaech Enoemecoted Salman So SI Calronros, ON UR 76 *4164 -Il 8 CD 8 71

95 ApiDendix G: PLC Meeting Minutes Appendix G PLC Meeting Minutes Summary City staff discussed the City s intention to apply to Change the service area of the W12A Landfill with the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee (PLC) at four meetings (meetings 25, 26, 31 and 32). A summary of what was presented/discussed at each of these meetings is presented below. The full minutes from each of these meetings follows the summary. Meeting #25 Minutes (Thursday February 2, 214) Item 6 Open Discussion New Business City staff reported that due to the recent loss of Progressive Waste (BFI) as a client, other options to increase waste disposal at W12A Landfill are being investigated. These options include: 1) Accepting water treatment plant waste (silt sand, grit, inert material) from Grand Bend and Elgin County. Requires an ECA amendment and MOE approval. 2) Accepting residuals from TRY s reclamation processes (excludes organic materials). Requires an ECA amendment and MOE approval. 3) Accepting international waste (generated during air travel). Meeting #26 Minutes (Thursday April 17, 214) Item 3 Follow-up of Action Items from Previous Minutes i) New Materials City staff summarized the potential new wastes to be accepted at W12A from outside the existing service area. Discussion ensued. Attachment D: Summary of Potential Wastes to be Accepted at W12A from Outside Existing Service Area

96 Appendix C: PLC Meeting Minutes G-2 Meeting #31 Minutes (Thursday February 19, 215) Item 3 Landfill Operations Update a) Reduced landfill waste quantity Due to the loss of Waste Management as a client to the landfill. Sue Morrison questioned whether the city is contemplating expanding the service area of the landfill. City staff commented that no service area adjustments other than those previously discussed with the PLC are contemplated at this time. Discussion ensued. Attachment D: Summary of Potential Wastes to be Accepted at W12A from Outside Existing Service Area (version 2) Meeting #32 Minutes (Thursday April 16, 215) Item 6 Open Discussion New Business City Staff also prepared reports to the Civic Works Committee in regards to the potential change in the designated haul route and additional wastes accepted at Wi 2A Landfill.

97 Landfill Solid Minutes of Meeting WI2A Landfill Public Liaison Committee Meeting # Manning Dr, Manning Drive Material Recovery Facility Thursday February 2th 214 MEETING W12A Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee (PLC) Meeting #25 DATE Thursday February 2th, 214 LOCATION 3438 Manning Dr, Manning Drive Material Recovery Facility EducationlTraining Room TIME 6: pm 8:3 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Jack Sifton, Committee Chair John Mackay Kevin McLachlan Joanne Mikios-Denlseger Eugene Morrison Sue Morrison Steve Rim bault OTHERS PRESENT Greg Peterson, Owner The Water Store City of London (City) Wes Abbott, Division Manager - Solid Waste Management Mike Losee, Manager Solid Waste Engineering & Planning John Whitworth, Manager of Operations Waste Maaike Vanjecek, Technician Monitoring ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM PRESENTATION TREATMENT OPTIONSICOSTS Meeting called to order at approximately 6:1pm. Greg Peterson, owner of The Water Store, attended the meeting to answer questions related to various water treatment options. The presentation provided an overview on the company s water treatment equipment and associated costs. Discussion ensued. 2. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Joanne Miklos-Denlseger raised a question regarding the lifespan of asbestos and how its disposal is tracked at the W12A Landfill (W12A). City staff reported that asbestos cannot physically migrate from the landfill unless it is excavated and that GPS tracking is used to record asbestos disposal areas. Motioned by John Mackay, seconded by Kevin McLachlan, that the minutes of the December 12th 214 PLC Meeting #24 be adopted. Motion carried.

98 City City WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #25 Thursday February 2th FOLLOW-UP OF ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES a) Point of Source Water Treatment Funding Program - Jack Sifton raised the question whether to use the Community Mitigative Measures Fund to move forward with a point of source water treatment program for area residents. Discussion ensued. Motioned by John Mackay, seconded by Kevin McLachlan that a point of source water treatment fund be established. Motion carried. Using the City s proposal as a guideline, Members are asked to return to the next meeting with suggestions on guidelines for the point of source water treatment fund. City staff to provide maps outlining various area boundaries b) Motioned by Joanne Miklos-Denlseger, seconded by Sue Morrison, that the minutes of the special meeting held October 17th 213 be adopted. Motion carried. c) Members indicated issues accessing the websites provided City staff to test by City staff on the W12A Operations Information Sheet. websites and revise d) City staff presented the draft council report recommending changes be made to the Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program to revise the selection for membership to the W12A PLC Committee. e) Jack Sifton requested that the discussion on funding opportunities for decommissioning old groundwater wells be postponed until the next meeting. f) City staff indicated that two deep wells were tested for Freon contamination. Results determined that there was no Freon present within these wells. City staff suggest testing Well # 31 twice per year to confirm Freon concentrations are at safe levels. 4. LANDFILL OPERATIONS UPDATE a) Daily Operations staff reported that disposal has not started in the new cell. b) Asbestos Disposal staff indicated that the disposal of City staff to asbestos from the demolition of the South Street Hospital is provide an generating excess odours. Landfill staff have increased update on odour capping in an effort to combat the issue. trends and the abatement program

99 5. CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #25 Thursday February 2th 214 a) Pumping Station City staff reported that there is a tender out to upgrade the pumping station at MH7O1. The upgrade is necessary to increase the capacity to match that of the main leachate pumping station. John MacKay raised a question regarding the status of a Power Plant at Wi 2A. City staff indicated that no progress has been made to this project. 6. OPEN DISCUSSION NEW BUSINESS City staff provided an update on the Community Mitigative Measures Fund. City staff reported that due to the recent loss of Progressive Waste (BFI) as a client, other options to increase waste disposal at W12A are being investigated. These options include: 4) Accepting water treatment plant waste (silt sand, grit, inert material) from Grand Bend and Elgin County. Requires an ECA amendment and MOE approval. 5) Accepting residuals from TRY s reclamation processes (excludes organic materials). Requires an ECA amendment and MOE approval. 6) Accepting international waste (generated during air travel). City staff to provide details Additional details of what is proposed will be brought to the next on potential new meeting. Discussion ensued. sources of waste coming to W12A John Mackay raised a question on the progress of a Bioset Trial between TRY Recycling and W12A. City staff reported that they are working on the application process at this time. City staff reported that a trial for the London Fire Department (LFD) to conduct Foam Suppressant training at W12A has seen no progress. Currently, the City is waiting for the LED to receive MOE approval. 7. CLOSING Motioned by John Mackay, seconded by Sue Morrison, that PLC meeting #25 be adjourned. Motion carried.

100 WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #25 Thursday February 2th 214 ACTION ITEM ACTION REQUIRED 1. Provide maps outlining various boundary areas for City Staff the point of source treatment fund. 2. lest W12A Operations websites and update for City Staff members. 3. Provide an update on landfill odour trends and the City Staff current W12A Odour Abatement Program. 4. Provide details on potential new sources of waste City Staff coming to W12A. DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED BEFORE MEETING Cost Breakdown of Proposed Point of Source Water Treatment Funding Program Summary of Special Meeting from October 17th 213 WI2A Operations Information Sheet Draft Council Report Recommending Changes to PLC Membership Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Clean Water Initiative Requirements and Application Form Community Mitigative Measures Fund (Jan1214) Update DISTRIBUTED BY City Staff DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED AT THE MEETING Newspaper Insert: HOW To Reduce Our Waste DISTRIBUTED BY City Staff y:\shared\soiwaste\w I 2apic\meetings 2 14\plc meeting notes docx

101 Jack City City Minutes of Meeting WI2A Landfill Public Liaison Committee Meeting # Manning Dr, Manning Drive Material Recovery Facility Thursday April 17th 214 MEETING W12A Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee (PLC) Meeting #26 DATE Thursday April J7th 214 LOCATION 3438 Manning Dr, Manning Drive Material Recovery Facility Educationllraining Room TIME 6: pm 8: pm MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Jack Sifton, Committee Chair John Mackay Doug MacPherson Kevin McLachlan Joanne Mikios-Denlseger Eugene Morrison Sue Morrison Steve Rim bault Victoria White City of London (City) Wes Abbott, Division Manager - Solid Waste Management Mike Losee, Manager Solid Waste Engineering & Planning John Whitworth, Manager of Operations Solid Waste Maaike Vanjecek, Technician Landfill Monitoring ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Meeting called to order at approximately 6:3pm. Motioned by Sue Morrison, seconded by John MacKay, that the minutes of the February 2th 214 PLC Meeting #25 be adopted. 2. LANDFILL OPERATIONS UPDATE Motion carried. a) Litter Collection Staff reported that with the increase in staffing, focus is now on litter removal around the landfill block. Extra attention is being applied to Scotland Drive, as a hole in the fence created an excess amount of litter in this area. b) Landfill Design City staff reported that disposal has begun within the new cell. c) Leachate Forcemain staff reported that there have been no issues with the leachate forcemain. d) Bird Control Sifton commented on the increased number of seagulls and blackbirds. City staff reported that no bird control measures are currently in place.

102 City WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #26 Thursday April 17, CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE c) Pumping Station - City staff reported that construction is set to begin on MH7O1. This project is expected to last all summer with the final upgrades completed by the fall of 214. U) Land Purchases staff reported the purchase of 2 additional properties located at 4261 Scotland Drive and 5529 Wellington Road South. 5. OPEN DISCUSSION NEW BUSINESS Jack Sifton circulated photos of the ponds located at Aaroc Aggregates. Discussion ensued. City staff reported the completion of the Wi 2A Landfill Site Annual Status Report for 213. It found that the amount of waste being landfilled has decreased. It is also evident that chloride levels in monitoring wells near the aggregate pits are increasing. The City recommended hiring a consultant to investigate the cause and report back on actions. City staff to hire a consultant to investigate increasing chloride levels City staff indicated the need to distribute a newsletter to surrounding residents to obtain feedback on the potential Water Treatment Fund, an update on the Committee and the activities at both W12A and the MRF. Motioned by Eugene Morrison, seconded by Sue Morrison, that a newsletter be distributed to obtain feedback on the potential Water Treatment Fund and provide an update on the Committee, W12A and the MRF. Motion carried. City staff indicated that the new disposal cards will be circulated to eligible residents as soon as the software is completed. John MacKay inquired about the work being done on the White Oaks water main. City staff reported that the work is to update service to the old treatment plant in order to increase water pressure throughout the system. City staff reported that repairs to the Highbury Avenue Reservoir are almost complete with all systems operational by July 214. Jack Sifton commented on seeing material blowing out from the top of Millers trucks while en route to the MRF. City staff to follow up with Miller on this issue.

103 WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #26 Thursday April 17, POTENTIAL POINT OF SOURCE WATER TREATMENT FUND City staff summarized the table outlining various options for the potential Point of Source Water Treatment Fund. Discussion ensued. City staff commented that they would oversee residential applications once the fund is established. Motioned by Doug MacPherson, seconded by Eugene Morrison, that a 2.5 km radius around the current Special Policy Area be used as the boundary for the Point of Source Water Treatment Fund. Motion carried. Motioned by Doug MacPherson, seconded by Kevin McLachlan, that further discussion on the Point of Source Water Treatment Fund be tabled until feedback from the newsletter is obtained. Motion carried. City staff reported that properties owned/purchased by the City have their wells decommissioned using City funds, and would not utilize the Point of Source Water Treatment Fund. Discussed the need to determine the viability of using funds from the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority s (KCCA) Clean Water Initiative alongside the Point of Source Water Treatment Fund. 7. CLOSING Motioned by John Mackay, seconded by Sue Morrison, that PLC meeting #26 be adjourned. Motion carried. ACTION ITEM ACTION REQUIRED 5. Provide information to connect all three gas collection City Staff pipes in Cell 6N. 6. Provide information on the horizontal gas collection City Staff system for Cell Request an MOE update on odour trends and outcomes. City Staff 8. Hire a consultant to investigate increasing chloride levels present in monitoring wells near the aggregate pits. City Staff

104 WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #26 Thursday April 17, 214 DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED BEFORE MEETING Proposed Water Treatment Area Map Revised Cost Breakdown of Proposed Point of Source Water Treatment Funding Program Table I Potential Odour Abatement Measures Summary of Potential Wastes to be Accepted at WI 2A from Outside Existing Service Area DISTRIBUTED BY Cit Staff y:\shared\solwaste\wl 2a\plc\meetings 21 4\plc meeting notes docx

105 - Process Attachment D Summary of Potential Wastes to Be Accepted at WI2A from Outside Existing Service Area Estimated Qty Waste Generating Analytical Source (tonneslyr) Activity Character Quality International - Non Hazardous/Solid Disposal of inflight food Waste from 1 an d rin k London Airport - Low volume putrescible NA. - Non Hazardous/Solid Regional Water 15 to 2 Filtering of influent water Supply thousand - Filtered sand/sediment Attached. TRY Recycling. - Non Hazardous/Solid Processing construction loto2o and demolition material thousand residuals from çc&d materials) recycling of C&D Materials NA Y:\Shared\SoiWaste\W1 2A\PLC\PLC New Waste Types.docx

106 reached final contour elevations; at which time the permanent vertical gas extraction wells will be installed. City MEETING WI2A Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee (PLC) Meeting #31 DATE Thursday February 19tfl 215 LOCATION 3438 Manning Dr, Manning Drive Material Recovery Facility EducationlTraining Room pm TIME 6: pm 8: MEMBERS Jack Sifton, Committee Chair PRESENT John Mackay Doug MacPherson Kevin McLachlan Joanne Mikios-Deniseger Sue Morrison Steve Rimbault Bob Ross Marie Ross Greg Sheil OTHERS PRESENT Elaine Bainard, resident City of London (City Solid Waste Management Waste Engineering & Planning Solid Waste Management Landfill Monitoring Wes Abbott, Division Manager Mike Losee, Manager Maaike Vanjecek, Technician Solid Jessica Favalaro, Technician ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Meeting called to order at approximately 6:3 pm. Motioned by Marie Ross, seconded by Sue Morrison that amended minutes of the October 16th 214 PLC Meeting #29 be adopted. Motion carried. 2. FOLLOW-UP ON ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES a) City staff provided Emerald Energy s PLC Members contact information to the W12A PLC Members. b) MOE representative was absent; therefore, no verbal update regarding odour mitigation measures was provided to W12A PLC Members. Jack Sifton directed his odour abatement inquiry to City staff to determine if there are odour reduction plans for the W12A Landfill. City staff indicated that they are contemplating employing an interim horizontal gas collection system as part of the ongoing odour mitigation plan for W12A. This will provide an interim landfill gas collection solution in areas where waste has been placed, but has not Staff also indicated that landfill gas could potentially be drawn through the leachate collection system during low leachate flows. Both odour mitigation measures would require an amendment to the Environmental Compliance

107 WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #31 Thursday February jgth 215 Approval. Jack Sifton proposed an open question to City Staff inquiring about odour mitigation measures of other landfills. Members commented on the source of the landfill odours; covered vs. open cell. City staff suggested that the majority of the odours are likely originating from the recently capped areas of the landfill and the City plans to expand the gas collection system to this portion of the landfill this year (i.e. installation of vertical gas extraction wells, and connection of these wells to the gas collection system). City Staff to provide members with a summary of odour mitigation measures of other landfills. Jack Sifton indicated that he would contact MOE representatives to encourage more involvement in future PLC meetings. c) City staff commented that the potential greenhouse development proponent wishes to change the location of the proposed greenhouse from the property along Wellington Road near the corner of Scotland Drive to the property on the southwest corner of Manning Drive and Wellington Road (3243 Manning Drive). City staff indicated to PLC Members that an additional report will be submitted to the Corporate Services Committee and would be provided at the next W12A PLC meeting. Discussion ensued. City Staff to provide members with updated Corporate Services Committee report regarding proposed greenhouse development 3. LANDFILL OPERATIONS UPDATE b) Reduced landfill waste quantity Due to the loss of Waste Management as a client to the landfill. Sue Morrison questioned whether the city is contemplating expanding the service area of the landfill. City staff commented that no service area adjustments other than those previously discussed with the PLC are contemplated at this time. Discussion ensued. Steve Rimbault inquired about the addition of disposal fees for Freon appliances accepted at the W12A depot. City staff indicated that London Hydro funded the collection program and it will be terminated at the end of March 215 and that the fees will apply to cover the contractor collection costs. Jack Sifton raised a question about materials that are collected at the W12 Landfill and Household Special Waste (HSW) Depots. City staff indicated that they would provide a materials summary to Members at the next PLC meeting. Sue Morrison expressed her concerns in regards to residents not disposing of materials properly into the appropriate bins at the W12A Landfill drop off depot on Saturdays. City Staff indicated that it would be ideal to have full-time staff to direct residents on Saturdays but currently do not have the resources. City staff to provide members with a W12A Landfill and HSW depot materials summary

108 WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #31 Thursday February 1gth CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE City staff reported that a) Gas Collection System expansion the expansion will be installed in the recently capped portion City staff to provide of the landfill northwest of the administration building. The members with the project is currently in design phase, with construction updated W12A expected to occur summer/fall 215. Landfill 1 year capital commitment b) Pumping Station (MH7O1) City staff reported that the plan. upgrades to the pumping station are completed. Jack Sifton requested that City staff provide an update of the W12A Landfill 1 year capital commitment plan to PLC Members at the next meeting. 5. MOE REPORT (VERBAL) No MOE report presented. 6. OPEN DISCUSSION NEW BUSINESS City staff commented on the update of the New Highway 41 and Wonderland Road Interchange project and indicated that the Ministry of Transportation is responsible for the construction. The project details will be released to the City of London Transportation department as required. City staff indicated to members that a report will be submitted to City Council requesting approval to designate a new haul route (i.e. Wonderland Road, to new interchange, to Manning Drive with access to the landfill entrance form the west) in addition to the current Wellington Road/Manning Drive route. City staff commented that the report will be issued to Jack Sifton for review and City Staff will be in communication with residents impacted by the proposed Wonderland Road haul route. Discussion ensued. City staff commented on the report to the Civic Works Committee (CWC) entitled Memorandum of Understanding with Green Shields Energy (Examining the Role of a Waste Conversion Technology) noting that the proponent would be responsible for the capital costs and the City would provide the property. The proposed location of the facility is between W12A Landfill and the Material Recovery Facility. City staff indicated that the facility would likely be a maximum of 4 sq. ft. and process approximately a half tonne to a Update PLC motioned by John MacKay, seconded by Bob Ross that Victoria members White s W12A PLC membership has been withdrawn. There is an open position on the W12A Landfill PLC committee. Motion carried. Jack Sifton opened the discussion on the next steps in developinq tonne of municipal garbage daily. Discussion ensued. Membership Contacts and Jack Sifton accepted Victoria White s withdraw from the WJ2A PLC, distribute to

109 Motion carried. Motion carried. WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #31 Thursday February 1gth 215 the Point of Source Water Treat Fund (POSWTF). Members indicated that agricultural properties (i.e. land without a residence) would not be funded. Members expressed concerns about providing program funding to properties that are not owner occupied. It was suggested that there should be funding limitations to rental properties. Discussion ensued. Motioned by Doug MacPherson, seconded by Marie Ross that nonowner occupied properties would be eligible to receive 45% of the costs associated with the installation of a water treatment system. Motion carried City staff to provide members with the Discussion shifted to the PQSWTF vendor selection process. City order of magnitude staff commented that it would be difficult to administer the vendor bid costs for water because residents would require different water treatment systems. treatment system City staff commented that they could be responsible for the component options. administering the program (i.e. payments and eligibility) but recommended that the homeowner should decide on the vendor based on competitive pricing and treatment requirements. City staff indicated that they would provide the typical order of magnitude costs of water treatment system components to members at the next meeting. It was suggested that water testing would be completed to determine what treatment options would be required. Discussion ensued. Motioned by Doug McPherson, seconded by Joanne Miklos Deniseger, that a one-time per residence maximum funding of $6, be provided for a water treatment system Motion carried. Members questioned when the POSWTF would go to Civics Works Committee and City staff indicated that a report with the funding details would be submitted once all decisions on how the funds will be distributed have been made by PLC Members. Motioned by Doug MacPherson, seconded by Joanne Miklos Denlseger and Kevin McLachlan that the POSWTF decisions be carried to the next PLC meeting. 7. CLOSING Motioned by John MacKay, seconded by Joanne Miklos- Denlseger, that PLC meeting #31 be adjourned.

110 WJ2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #31 Thursday February 1gth 215 ACTION ITEM ACTION REQUIRED 9. Provide a summary of odour mitigation measures of other City Staff landfills. 1. Provide updated Corporate Services Committee Report City Staff regarding proposed Greenhouse Development. 11. Provide materials summary for W12A Landfill and Household City Staff Special Waste (HSW) Depots 12. Provide W12A Landfill 1 Year Capital Commitment Plan. City Staff 13. Provide an updated PLC Member contact list. City Staff 14. Provide an order of magnitude costs for water treatment City Staff systems comionent ojtions. DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED BEFORE MEETING DISTRIBUTED BY Contact Information for Emerald Energy s PLC Report to Corporate Services Committee (Dec 16, 214): Status of Information and Discussion with a Greenhouse Operator that May be Located on City-Owned Land in the Vicinity of the WI2A Landfill and Resource Recovery Area Update on New Highway 41 And Wonderland Road Interchange Project Summary of Potential Wastes to Be Accepted at WI2A from Outside City Staff Existing Service Area of Program Point of Source Water Treatment Fund Development Report to Civic Works Committee (Feb 3, 215): Memorandum of Continuation Understanding with Green Shields Energy (Examining the Role of a Waste Conversion Technology) Y:\Shared\SolWaste\W12A\PLC\Meetings 215\PLC meeting notes docx

111 Regional Water 15 to 2 Previously Supply thousand Provided Filtering of influent water - Non Hazardous/Solid Qty Waste Generating Analytical Estimated Source (tonnes/yr) Activity Character Quality from Outside Existing Service Area Summary of Potential Wastes to Be Accepted at WJ2A Y:\Shared\SoiWaste\W1 2A\PLC\PLC New Waste Types version (2) Feb 215 Meeting dccx material off depot Elgin County household in visitors hazardous waste TRY Recycling 8% increase Un-used household 1 2 demolition material - material volume garbage from drop - thouand (C&D materials) recycling of C&D Materials NA construction and. Processing -. Bagged household Non Bagged/residential - Household hazardous Small Hazardous/Solid - Filtered Process residuals from hazardous sand/sediment Attachment D

112 John McGylnn commented that City Staff are in compliance with the W12A Landfill Environmental Compliance Approvals. John McGylnn also recommended that continuous improvement of Landfill Mitigation measures be achieved by reviewing and updating Standard Operating Minutes of Meeting (Draft- Not approved by PLC) WI2A Landfill Public Liaison Committee Meeting # Manning Dr, Manning Drive Material Recovery Facility Thursday April 16th 215 MEETING WI2A Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee (PLC) Meeting #32 DATE Thursday April 16th, 215 LOCATION 3438 Manning Dr, Manning Drive Material Recovery Facility Education/Training Room pm 8: TIME 6: pm MEMBERS Jack Sifton, Committee Chair PRESENT John Mackay Doug MacPherson Kevin McLachlan Eugene Morrison Sue Morrison Steve Rim bault Bob Ross Marie Ross of the OTHERS PRESENT John McGlynn, Senior Environmental Officer Ministry Environment (MOE) Elaine Bainard, resident Waste Engineering & Planning Waste Solid City of London (City) Mike Losee, Manager Solid John Whitworth, Manager of Operations Monitoring Landfill Jessica Favalaro, Technician DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM ITEM APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Meeting called to order at approximately 6:1 pm. Motioned by Marie Ross, seconded by Sue Morrison, that the minutes of the February 19th 215 PLC Meeting #31 be adopted. Motion carried. 2. FOLLOW-UP ON ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES d) City staff summarized the odour mitigation measures of Ontario Landfills highlighting the similarities among the Landfills and how their odour mitigation measures compared to W12A Landfill. City Staff indicated that the most potentially successful odour mitigation measure that could be employed at the W12A Landfill would be to install an interim horizontal gas collection system. City Staff also indicated that landfill gas could potentially be drawn through the leachate collection system. Discussion ensued.

113 WI 2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #32 Thursday April 16th 215 and contractors are informed and follow the SOPs. Sue Morrison enquired if there would be any extra costs to employ landfill gas collection through the leachate collection system during low leachate flows. City Staff indicated there is a reserve fund for W12A Landfill capital projects and can be incorporated into the current plan. Jack Sifton suggested that the general consensus of the WJ2A Landfill odour mitigation measures is that City Staff are adequately addressing landfill odour issues. PLC Members enquired about the general odour status of the W12A Landfill. City Staff indicated that it is affected by weather and due to the previous cold winter the odours are less than previous years. Also capping the one area and keeping the tipping face small has reduced the amount of odours generated. Jack Sifton indicated that there has not been City Staff to provide Commissioners W12A Landfill Odours Monitoring Program a verbal status report provided to PLC Members. City Staff will provide a update of the status update of the odour monitoring program at the next Commissioners PLC meeting. W12A Landfill Odour e) City Staff indicated that the Greenhouse operator Assessments development is still potential and whether or not proposal is accepted there will be a Geotechnical Assessment conducted on the proposed City owned land. The geotechnical assessment will include soil sampling and Phase 1 and 2 Archeological assessments. Eugene Morrison enquired why methane gas would be trucked to the site rather than piped. City Staff indicated that the proposal is proponent driven and City Staff recommended that trucking the methane gas would not be the safest option. Discussion ensued. Jack Sifton commented that he has not seen an opportunity to comment about the City property for the potential greenhouse development. City Staff indicated that the City Lands near the proposed development are no longer in question and there is no plan to amend the zoning. The buffer zone surrounding the landfill will remain and will have no conflicting land development. Discussion ensued. Motioned by Doug MacPherson, seconded by Eugene Morrison that W12A PLC Members oppose the proposed location (3243 Manning Drive) of the greenhouse development. PLC Members would prefer the proposed greenhouse be developed on inferior quality agricultural property. f) City Staff provided PLC Members with a materials summary of the WJ2A and Household Special Waste depot. Steve Rimbault enquired about the scrap metal contractor costs.

114 City WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #32 Thursday April 16th, 215 City Staff indicated that the contractor tipping fee is reduced in exchange for the scrap metal. g) City Staff provided PLC Members with the Wi 2A 1 Year City Staff to provide Capital Commitment Plan; however, Jack Sifton was PLC Members with enquiring about the current balance of the reserve fund. the Capital Jack Sifton was concerned that there may not be sufficient Reserve fund funds to purchase properties located around the W12A deposit history and Landfill. City Staff indicated that they provide the reserve current balance fund deposit history and the current balance at the next PLC meeting. 3. LANDFILL OPERATIONS UPDATE a) Staffing City Staff indicated that there is some staff movement and that temporary staff will be hired and summer students will be hired at the end of May. Sue Morrison commented on garbage being dumped at the W12A Landfill front gate. City Staff indicated that a camera is going to be installed on the light post at the front gate. Doug MacPherson suggested that a roadside clean-up of the_west_side_of White_Oak_Road. 4. CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE c) Gas Collection System expansion staff reported that the expansion will be installed in the recently capped portion of the landfill northwest of the administration building. The project is currently in design phase, with construction expected to occur summer/fall 215. U) Manning Road Construction to be completed this construction season. The update will shift truck traffic from Wellington Road to Manning Drive. Jack Sifton enquired if the corner of Manning Drive and White Oak Road would be upgraded as well. City Staff indicated that all of Manning Drive will be upgraded and the upgrade will dedicate what will happen to White Oak Road. Eugene Morrison commented about public input in regards to the proposed revision to the W12A Landfill designated haul route. City Staff indicated that if report approved by Council there would be a public participation meeting. e) Potentially may widen the exit for the W12A Landfill Household Special Waste Depot within existing contract with contingency amount but will wait to see the cost. City Staff indicated that Miller Waste Systems with the City of London will be conducting a litter clean-up along Wellington Road South.

115 The MOE will have discussions for horizontal gas collection system and will determine what approvals will be needed. W12A Landfill Annual Status Report. John McGlynn commented that his offices had received the MOE REPORT (VERBAL) Thursday April 16th 215 City Staff commented that Wesley Abbott will no longer be attending brought forth at the next PLC meeting. Council for the Point of Source Water Treatment Funding Program City Staff recommended preparing a draft report to propose to Monitoring Program. Marie and Bob Ross have been added to the W12A Private Well Motion carried. City of London will conduct water testing. prerequisite for the Point of Source Water Treatment Funding The Motioned by Sue Morrison, seconded by John MacKay that a would be used. Discussion ensued. equipment to assist in what components would be recommended for treatment. City Staff recommended that the same external laboratory testing be conducted before the installation of water treatment Jack Sifton suggested that in cooperation with City Staff that water Motion carried. Kevin McLachlan opposed. sent to residents in the 2.5 km radius Special Policy Area. earlier than May 1, 214 when the 214 Wi 2A Landfill Update was Motioned by Doug MacPherson, seconded by Marie Ross that the Point of Source Water Treatment Fund retroactive funding begin no the average for each component was calculated and an additional 3% was added to the average. the typical component costs were calculated. City Staff indicated that systems component options to PLC Members and explained how City Staff provided an order of magnitude costs for water treatment 6. OPEN DISCUSSION NEW BUSINESS Discussion ensued. prove that the fill was not contaminated. are contaminated then they would require the hauler/owner/receiver Jack Sifton enquired if the MOE regulates what is hauled into aggregate pits. John McGlynn responded that if deposited materials WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #32

116 Y:SharedSol Waste WI2A PLC Meetings 21 5 PLC meeting notes I 6docx WI2A Landfill: Public Liaison Committee, Meeting #32 Thursday April 16th 215 PLC Meetings. City Staff also prepared reports to the Civic Works Committee in regards to the potential change in the designated haul route and additional wastes accepted at Wi 2A Landfill. 7. CLOSING Motioned by John Mackay, seconded by Sue Morrison, that PLC meeting #32 be adjourned. Motion carried. ACTION ITEM ACTION REQUIRED 1. City 5tatt to provide a verbal status update of the Comm issionaires City Staff W12A Landfill Odour Assessment Program 2. City Staff to prepare a draft report of the Point of Source Water Treatment Fund Program City Staff DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED BEFORE MEETING DISTRIBUTED BY Ontario Landfills- Odour Mitigation Measures Report to Corporate Services Committee (March 3, 215): Update on Discussions with a Greenhouse Operator that may be Located on Cityowned Land in the Vicinity of the WI2A Landfill and Resource Recovery Area and Household Special Waste (HSW) City Staff WI2A 214 Materials Summary Depots WI 2A Landfill 1 Year Capital Commitment Plan Updated PLC Membership Contacts Order of Magnitude Costs for Water Treatment Systems Component Options DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED AT THE MEETING DISTRIBUTED BY Elgin Pure Water Inc. Water Treatment Systems Order of Magnitude Costs for Water Treatment System Component City Staff Options- Updated including Elgin Pure Water Estimates

117 Appendix H List of Government Agencies Government Agency Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Contact Information London Regional Office 733 Exeter Rd London, ON N6E 1L3 Phone (519) Fax (519) Western Region Office 659 Exeter Rd London, ON N6E 1L3 Phone (519)