Site 41: The Community Monitoring Committee Speaks Out
(The two representatives from Council on this important Committee are
Deputy Mayor Pierre Paul Maurice and Councillor Ray Millar. The latter has been active in opposing Site 41 for many years.)

A number of peer reviews of the final design for the proposed County of Simcoe Landfill Site 41 were submitted to the County last year. The County has been responding, slowly, to these professional criticisms. The Community Monitoring Committee asked R. Kerry Rowe, Professor of Civil Engineering and Vice Principal (Research) at Queen’s University in Kingston, who has more than 350 publications in refereed journals, conferences and books dealing with

• contaminant migration through soil and rock
• landfill design
• containment of contaminated sites
• geosynthetics
• reinforced embankments and walls
• tunnels in soft ground
• failure of slopes and excavations,

to put into layman’s language the main peer review criticisms. His letter gave the Community Monitoring Committee a better understanding of the key points in the peer reviews, and as a result it passed an important series of motions at its meeting on September 9.

R. Kerry Rowe’s summary summarized…
North-West Corner (Phase 3)
A basic question with regard to the north-west corner of the site is whether the proposed design meets MoE requirements with respect to potential contaminant impact on groundwater. The County’s response did not satisfy the peer reviewers that the proposed design for that corner is safe based on current groundwater data.
Second, the water tables in the area may drop over time because of climate change. The January 2003 report by Jagger Hims did not include data for 2001 and 2002 which showed that the water table in the critical north-west corner dropped by as much as 0.36m (more than a foot). This omission was serious and skewed all the calculations. A drop in water levels means that there would be less pressure to cause upward flow of water from the underlying aquifer into the landfill (the “hydraulic trap” concept upon which the landfill was originally proposed) in this area which already had less than satisfactory upward pressure.
Also, “Climate change is not the only way in which water levels may be lowered. Increased off-site groundwater use could also cause a drop in groundwater levels. In order to maintain water levels beneath the landfill it will be necessary to place restrictions on groundwater use in the surrounding area for a period that will probably exceed 100 years from the time landfilling begins. The peer review did not consider that the implications of this had been adequately addressed.”
“The peer review concluded that landfilling in the north-west corner should not occur until there is additional information and modeling that has been peer reviewed.”

The CMC’s motion which passed unanimously asks the MoE to “direct Simcoe County to determine the theoretical maximum pumping rate for an offsite well while maintaining inward hydraulic gradients, for the property boundary on the north side closest to the landfill site….”

R. Kerry Rowe’s summary…
Side Slope Stability
“The very soft soil a few meters below the ground surface at the site creates a challenge when excavating the landfill and building up mounds of waste. The potential for failure is related to the height of the mound and the slope between the bottom and top of the mound. The peer review concluded that, based on the available information, the risk of a failure (e.g. a waste slide that could result in tearing of the proposed plastic (geomembrane) liner or the escape of leachate to surface water) was higher than would normally be acceptable. The review concluded that either the design should be modified to reduce the height or slope of the waste mound, or that more field data be obtained to demonstrate that the proposed slopes are indeed safe.”

The CMC’s motion was passed with only one opposing vote. It reads in part… “WHEREAS: a letter received from R. Kerry Rowe Inc., dated July 10, 2004 states that: “The primary issues raised in the Golder Associates peer review dated 9 May 2003 and not adequately addressed in the County’s responses … relate to a) the safety of and suitability for, landfilling in the northwest corner of the landfill from the perspective of protecting groundwater; and b) the potential risk for failure of landfill side slopes.”
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The CMC gives direction and recommends to the County of Simcoe that all of the outstanding items in the Golder Associates Peer Review of June 2, 2004 be addressed by the County of Simcoe.”

R. Kerry Rowe’s summary…
Annual Monitoring Reports
“Recognising the number of issues that have been raised over more than a decade regarding the design, construction and operation of this landfill, combined with public concern, the peer reviewers considered it important that the annual reports for the landfill monitoring be subjected to independent expert peer review. This would provide the public with an independent reviewer who could review the technical information, identify any deficiencies or problems, and explain the implications of the monitoring data to representatives of the public.”

The CMC’s motion, which passed unanimously, requests the County of Simcoe that “the annual reports for landfill monitoring be subjected to independent expert peer review and that this independent expert be chosen by the CMC.”

With such serious issues still to be resolved, it is clear that the MoE will not be issuing the final Certificate of Approval for some time.