HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-007-06
CJ~pn
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday, January 23,2006
Report #: PSD-007 -06
File #: PLN 33.4
B}!-Iaw #:
sPA # ~ 0 l5 ~o <::,
Subject: PORT GRANBY PROJECT - ANALYSIS REGARDING DOUBLE BASE LINER,
LAKESHORE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION, AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION
ROAD UPGRADES
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-007 -06 be received for information; and
2. THAT a copy of Staff Report PSD-007 -06 and Council's decision be forwarded to all
interested parties indicated in this report.
Submitted by:
Reviewed bYO~--::' ~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
a J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
JAS/FUDJC/df
12 January 2006
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The Legal Agreement that forms the basis of the Port Hope Area Initiative requires the
Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO), as the Proponent for the
Port Granby Project, to obtain the written consent of the Municipality to a preferred
option for the long term management of the Port Granby wastes prior to submitting that
option to relevant authorities for review and approval.
1.2 In September 2004, Council concurred with the LLRWMO's recommendation that the
Port Granby wastes be relocated to a new engineered storage mound north of
Lakeshore Road (Qualified Concept). In February 2005, the LLRWMO formally
submitted the Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) for the Port Granby
Project to the Municipality. The EASR provided a summary of all of the studies
undertaken by the LLRWMO through the EA for the Port Granby Project, including the
assessment of the effects of the Qualified Concept on the natural and socio-cultural
environments and human health and safety.
1.3 On March 29, 2005, Committee considered Staff Report PSD-041-05 which provided the
results of the review of the EASR undertaken by staff and the Municipal Peer Review
Team (MPRT). This review indicated that the EASR had confirmed that the relocation
of the wastes to a new long term storage facility north of Lakeshore Road should
proceed as the preferred option for the Port Granby Project. Staff and MPRT also
concluded that a double composite base liner, rather than the single composite base
liner recommended by the LLRWMO, should be installed under the new long term
storage facility. However, the impacts related to the installation of a second liner were
not reflected in the EASR as prepared by the LLRWMO and submitted to Council.
1.4 Council adopted a resolution to request the LLRWMO to investigate the effects of
installing a double composite base liner at the new Long Term Waste Management
Facility (LTWMF) for the Port Granby Project, and that the EASR be revised accordingly.
Council also requested the LLRWMO to examine the possibility of a grade separation
under Lakeshore Road between the existing and new waste sites, and pre-construction
upgrades to municipal roads to be used for the haulage of construction materials.
1.5 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the LLRWMO's investigation of the
three issues identified by Council, and the results of the review by staff and the MPRT of
the work undertaken by the LLRWMO.
2.0 DOUBLE COMPOSITE BASE LINER SYSTEM
2.1 Analysis of Options
2.1.1 The composite base liner system originally proposed by the LLRWMO is comprised of
three individual components, as follows (from top to bottom):
?
0.5 m thick sand layer to provide a permeable media through which leachate from
the waste could travel to the leachate collection system;
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 3
?
0.002 m thick High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane to provide a bottom
to the sand drainage layer and to assist in the collection of the leachate;
?
0.75 m thick compacted clay liner (CCL) to adsorb and further repel any leachate
that may migrate through the two previous component layers.
The single three component base liner system would be 1.25 m thick, would require
5,650 truck loads of construction material, would cost $4.75 million, and would require
136 days to install.
2.1.2 The LLRWMO reviewed three potential double base liner systems, as follows:
?
Option 1 – Doubling the original three component base liner system. This liner
system would be 2.5 m thick and would include two 0.75 m CCL. This option would
require 11,300 truck loads of material, would cost $9.5 million, and would require 270
days to install.
?
Option 2 – Doubling the three component base liner system, using a 0.005 m
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) in place of the CCL. This liner system would be 1.17
m thick, would require 4,650 truck loads, would cost $7.56 million, and would require
165 days to install.
?
Option 3 – Doubling the original three component system, using both CCL and GCL
(a hybrid of Options 1 and 2). This liner system would be 1.75 m thick, would
require 7,975 truck loads of material, would cost $8.53 million, and would require 218
days to install.
2.1.3 The LLRWMO's analysis indicated that none of the three options would perform
appreciably better in containing leachate than the single three component base liner
system originally recommended. The LLRWMO concluded that, since no significant
groundwater quality impacts are expected with the original single base liner system, the
installation of a second base liner system would not provide any significant technical
advantage. The LLRWMO has therefore recommended that the original three
component base liner design be retained for the long term storage mound. A copy of
the LLRWMO's report forms Attachment 2 to this report.
2.2 Capillary Drainage Layer
2.2.1 The LLRWMO subsequently undertook a comprehensive review of the entire design of
the engineered mound to explore other approaches for optimizing the mound
performance and ensuring the isolation of the waste from the environment. As a result
of this review, the LLRWMO has recommended that a capillary drainage layer be
included in the low permeability mound cover system as a means to improve the overall
performance of the mound. The capillary drainage layer would provide an additional
level of protection against moisture infiltration into the waste, particularly in the event of
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 4
the deterioration of the geomembrane component of the cap. The drainage layer would
passively redirect any moisture that infiltrates into the mound cover away from the waste
and to the edges of the mound where it would drain away as clean uncontaminated
water. Sensors would be placed in the drainage layer to monitor its performance. The
capillary drainage layer would be 0.6 m thick and would increase the thickness of the
mound cover to 3.5 m.
2.2.2 While the base liner is intended to contain leachate if moisture infiltrates into the waste,
the enhanced cap would reduce the potential for leachate production in the first place by
minimizing the potential for moisture to contact the waste. By providing a passive
system, it helps to ensure that the mound would continue to protect the environment in
the event that institutional controls should fail at sometime in the future. As well, all of
the soil needed to construct the capillary drainage layer is available on the site of the
new waste management facility, thereby avoiding the need to transport additional
construction materials to the site.
Attachment 3 shows a cross-section of the mound cover with the capillary drainage layer
included.
2.3 Residents' Comments
2.3.1 The LLRWMO presented the enhanced facility design, including the addition of the
capillary drainage layer to the cover of the new LTWMF, at three Public Information
Centres held at the Newtonville Hall in November 2005. Staff and the Ward 4
Councillors also met with a number of SECRA members in December 2005 and January
2006.
2.3.2 The following is a summary of comments made by area residents with respect to the
modified design of the LTWMF:
?
Generally support the concept of the enhanced mound cover;
?
A double base liner is still necessary to deal with leachate generated during the
construction phase before the mound cover is put in place and during the first 25
years of operation while the waste settles;
?
A double liner is still necessary in the event that the mound cover fails;
?
By not installing a double base liner, the LLRWMO is relying on the natural till on-site
to contain leachate;
?
There is sand present on the site of the LTWMF;
?
The Port Hope LTWMF may have the enhanced mound cover in addition to the
double base liner;
?
The LLRWMO rejected the double base liner because of cost;
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 5
?
Staff and the MPRT have reversed their position on the need for a double liner.
2.4 Municipal Peer Review Team Comments
2.4.1 The MPRT has indicated that the second base liner was a redundancy measure that
they previously recommended to improve the performance of the original design of the
LTWMF developed by the LLRWMO. Some redundancy is required to address the
anticipated failure of some systems and the potential loss of institutional control over the
long term. Based on their review of the enhanced facility design, the MPRT agrees with
the LLRWMO that the enhanced design of the mound cover, together with the single
base liner system, ensures the redundancy of the overall system and provides the
Municipality with a safe and durable long term facility. As such, the MPRT is confident
that there is no benefit to adding additional redundant systems as represented by the
double liner system.
2.4.2 In indicating their support for the enhanced mound design, the MPRT cited the following
factors:
?
The capillary drainage layer would intercept any moisture that infiltrates through the
overlying layers in the mound cover, further reducing the potential for moisture to
contact the waste and thus reducing the amount of leachate produced to negligible
levels even if the geomembrane in the mound cover fails;
?
The enhanced design operates passively based on natural capillary action (i.e. no
pumps or other equipment required) to keep the waste dry over the long term;
?
The installation of instrumentation in the capillary layer enhances the ability to detect
moisture infiltration and remediate the cover system if necessary, in contrast to the
liner system which cannot be fixed once the mound is closed;
?
By minimizing the amount of leachate produced in the first place, the enhanced
mound cover provides a more proactive approach to isolating the waste than would a
double base liner.
2.4.3 The base liner under the new LTWMF is primarily required to deal with leachate created
during construction, when the mound is open and the waste is exposed to precipitation,
and for the 5 to 10 year period following closure of the mound when residual drainage of
leachate will occur. Even though much of the LLRW has a high moisture content, it is
expected to generate very little leachate after this period and significantly smaller
amounts of leachate than a domestic landfill.
The MPRT has concluded, based on their review, that a double base liner system is not
required to deal with the leachate generated during construction and the period
immediately following closure. There will be no degradation of the liner system during
this short period of time and any leachate generated will be collected through the
leachate collection system. Also, the regulatory agencies and the LLRWMO will be
carefully monitoring leachate generation and the ability of the mound to collect and treat
leachate during this time. Any potential difficulties with the liner system would be
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 6
identified and repaired as required at that time. In the long term, the enhanced mound
cover will function to prevent precipitation from contacting the waste, thus minimizing the
generation of additional leachate, and the multiple components of the base liner will
serve to prevent any leachate from contaminating the natural environment.
2.4.4 The details of the enhanced facility design are at a conceptual stage at this point and, as
with most of the components of the Qualified Concept, more detailed study will be
necessary in order to obtain a construction licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission (CNSC). The MPRT has made a number of recommendations to the
LLRWMO to support the design process and assure the performance of the capillary
barrier system as expected.
A copy of the MPRT's report forms Attachment 4 to this report.
2.5 Staff Comments
2.5.1 In Report PSD-041-05, Staff supported the MPRT's recommendation that a double base
liner should be constructed at the Port Granby LTWMF. Reasons given for this support
included the need to provide redundant protection systems and to increase public
confidence in the LTWMF. However, it is important to note that this recommendation
related to the design of the LTWMF as previously proposed by the LLRWMO. Studies
undertaken by the LLRWMO have indicated that the installation of the double liner would
not improve the performance of the LTWMF and thus not provide the redundant level of
protection being sought by the Municipality.
2.5.2 Staff has been directly involved with the technical discussions with the LLRWMO
regarding the double base liner and the enhanced mound cover. As a result of these
discussions and the positive response of the MPRT to the inclusion of the capillary
drainage layer in the mound cover, Staff is supporting the MPRT's position that the
enhancement of the mound cover through the inclusion of a capillary drainage layer is a
more appropriate approach to achieving the redundant protection that the Municipality is
seeking.
2.5.3 As well, Staff cannot support the residents' request that a double base liner be installed
in addition to the enhanced mound cover. As noted by Section 2.1.2 of this report, the
studies undertaken by the LLRWMO indicated that two of the options would have
resulted in a significant increase in both the truck traffic along area roads and the length
of the construction period. In this regard, there is a need to balance the very minimal
potential for leachate to escape from the bottom of the LTWMF against the additional
impacts on area residents that would be created by the construction of the double base
liner.
Option 2 for the base liner would have resulted in a 17% reduction (as compared to the
single base liner) in the number of trucks and an additional 29 construction days.
However, this option would cost an additional $2.8 million. Staff agree with the
LLRWMO that the additional expenditure of public funds to install a double base liner is
not justified if it does not produce any appreciable improvement in the performance of
the LTWMF.
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 7
2.5.4 The single base liner will be 1.25 m thick, and will be comprised of 0. 5 m of sand (to
drain any leachate) lying overtop of a thin HDPE membrane and 0.75 m of imported low
permeability clay (to adsorb any remaining leachate). The single base liner system, as
currently proposed, is thus already a multi-component system with built-in redundant
levels of protection. As well, the bottom of the Port Granby mound will be underlain by
8 to 12 m of relatively impermeable native till, and would be located between 5 to 20 m
above the water table. Therefore, because of the geotechnical characteristics of the
Port Granby site, a double base liner system would not be required to prevent leachate
from contaminating the water table and Port Granby Creek. In contrast, a double base
liner is required for the new Port Hope LTWMF given the relatively porous soils found
on the site and the proximity of the base of the mound to the water table.
3.0 MUNICIPAL ROAD UPGRADES
3.1 At Council's request, the LLRWMO also undertook a detailed engineering assessment of
both the Main Haul Route, which would be used for the hauling of construction materials
to the existing and new waste sites, and the Contingency Route, which would be used
very occasionally for the transport of equipment too large to pass through the rail
underpass on Elliott Road. The Main Haul Route and the Contingency Route are shown
on Attachment 5.
3.2 The LLRWMO's analysis indicated that those portions of Newtonville Road and
Concession Road 1 on the Main Haul Route are structurally deficient and not capable of
supporting construction traffic related to the Port Granby Project. The LLRWMO will be
responsible for the full cost of upgrading these roads. Since Elliott Road is currently
unimproved, the LLRWMO is also responsible for upgrading this road allowance between
Concession Road 1 and the entrance to the new LTWMF.
3.3 The LLRWMO's analysis indicated that large sections of the Contingency Route are also
not structurally suitable to carry heavy loads. However, a further review of the
dimensions of the rail underpass on Elliott Road indicated that any equipment that cannot
fit through the underpass could be off-loaded from the truck and driven through.
Accordingly, the LLRWMO now anticipates that only very limited, if any, use of the
Contingency Route will be required and, as such, has indicated that pre-construction
upgrades for the municipal roads along the Contingency Route should not be necessary.
3.4 The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the analysis provided by the
LLRWMO and has agreed that pre-construction improvements would not appear to be
required for Lakeshore Road and Newtonville Road south of Concession Road 1, subject
to the following conditions:
?
No exemptions to the half-load restrictions in spring;
?
Approval by the Municipality of a Road Occupancy Permit for the movement of wide
or heavy loads a minimum of one week prior to each occurrence;
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 8
?
An inspection by municipal Operations staff of the road conditions on the
Contingency Route prior to each occurrence;
?
A follow-up inspection of road conditions by municipal Operations staff; and
?
A commitment by the LLRWMO to immediately repair any damage to the roads to
the satisfaction of Engineering Services.
3.5 The required road improvements will proceed prior to work being undertaken on the new
LTWMF. Approval from the Municipality's Engineering Services Department will be
required prior to this work proceeding.
4.0 LAKESHORE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
4.1 The Municipality requested the LLRWMO to investigate the feasibility of constructing a
grade separation under Lakeshore Road to be used by vehicles travelling between the
existing WMF and the site of the new LTWMF. Of specific concern is the approximately
100,00 truck trips (50,000 return trips) required to move the waste from the old site to the
new facility.
4.2 The LLRWMO studied the issue and has recommended that a culvert style underpass be
built between the two sites (see Attachment 6). Due to topography, the underpass can be
constructed with very little impact on the vertical alignment of Lakeshore Road.
Construction will take approximately 12 to 16 weeks. As with the municipal road
upgrades, the LLRWMO will be responsible for the full cost of constructing the underpass.
Any decision to retain or remove the underpass once the Project is completed can be
deferred to a later time.
4.3 The construction of the underpass for the inter-site haul route should significantly reduce
the impact of the Project on the local community and on traffic using Lakeshore Road.
As well, the use of a dedicated route for the hauling of the waste should provide
significant operational benefits to the Project.
4.4 The Municipality's Engineering Services and Operations Departments will be involved
with the design and construction of the underpass.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 Over the past 10 months, the LLRWMO, the MPRT and staff have worked diligently to
address the three issues identified by Council for additional study. The improvement to
the overall design of the LTWMF as the result of this professional cooperation clearly
demonstrates the value of the peer review process to the overall success of the Port
Granby Project.
5.2 There are a number of outstanding issues identified by both the MPRT and residents that
have yet to be fully resolved. Staff will prepare a report in the spring to address as many
REPORT NO.: PSD-007-06 PAGE 9
of these issues as possible, recognizing the complexity of the Project and the additional
detailed engineering and study that must still be undertaken.
5.3 The LLRWMO is proceeding to revise the EASR for the Port Granby Project to
incorporate the changes to the Project Description and to address the impacts related to
these changes. A draft EASR will be available in the spring for review by the MPRT and
the public. The target date for Council to provide its endorsement of a Preferred Option
for the Port Granby Project is June 2006.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Glossary of Terms
Attachment 2 - Letter and Technical Report from Glenn Case, August 24, 2005
Attachment 3 - Cross-Section of Enhanced Mound Cover
Attachment 4 - Municipal Peer Review Team Report
Attachment 5 - Proposed Haul Routes
Attachment 6 - Conceptual Design - Lakeshore Road Underpass
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Ms. Sharon Baillie-Malo Office of Bev Oda, M.P.
Mr. Glenn Case, Director Rupert McNeill
Michael Ayer and Julie Jones Lorri and Stuart Munro
Vito Binetti Tim and Laurel Nichols
Wayne Boucher Dora Nichols
Ray Coakwell and Frances Brooks Carole Owens
Walter Burham Jean Payne
Rosemary Cooper James B. Robertson
Marion and Stuart DeCoste Ulrich Ruegger
Frederic DeSourdy Linda and Paul Ryerse
Robert Edgar Sarwan Sahota
Mel Edwards Barb Spencer
Wilma Entwisle John Stephenson
Gord and Penny Ewington Brian and Penny Stripp
Betty and Stephanie Formosa Ken Shrives
Paulette Gerber Midori Tanabe
Lorri Graham Brian Tayng
Frank Hart Harvey Thompson
Luanne Hill Stan and Rosemary Tisnovsky
A. Karacsonyi Julie Tutla
Susan Kinmond Richard Walker
Maria Kordas - Fraser Mary and Harry Worrall
Jane Lawrence
Eric Leeuwner
Gerry Mahoney and Bonnie McFarlane
Andrew McCreath
Joanne McNamara
Attachment 1
To PSD-007-06
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
CCL
Compacted Clay Liner
CNSC
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
EA
Environmental Assessment
EASR
Environmental Assessment Study Report
GCL
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene
LLRWMO
Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
WMF
Waste Management Facility
LTWMF
Long Term Waste Management Facility
MPRT
Municipal Peer Review Team
Attachment 2
To PSD-007-06
Ms. Janice Szwarz
Senior Planner
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance St.
Bowmanville, ON
LI C 3A6
Low-Level Radioactive Bureau de gestion des
Waste Management dechets radioactifs
Office de faible activite
5 Mill Street South 5, rue Mill sud
Port Hope, Ontario Port Hope (Ontario)
Canada l1A 2S6 Canada L1A 2S6
(905)885-9488 (905)885-9488
Fax (905) 885-0273 Fax (905) 885-0273
File: 2133-PI-3, 2245-P3-2
GGC-05-456
2005 August 24
Dear Ms. Szwarz:
Examination of Three Clarington Issues Related to Port Granby EASR
In March 2005, the Municipality of Clarington requested that the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) examine three items in greater detail prior to the
finalization of the draft Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) for the Port
Granby Project. These items relate to i) an alternative design for the internal haul road's
at-grade crossing at Lakeshore Road, ii) pre-construction upgrades to the municipal roads
identified as the recommended haulage routes for the delivery of construction materials to
the new facility, and iii) investigation of the effects of installing an additional composite
base liner system for the proposed Port Granby Long-Term Management Facility. Over
the past few months the LLRWMO has examined these items and the attached Technical
Memorandum presents the results of these investigations.
With respect to the alternative design for the internal haul road at-grade crossing, the
LLRWMO conducted a technical and financial assessment of an alternative design
utilizing a culvert style underpass for the waste haul trucks that would eliminate the
at-grade crossing. Based on this investigation, the LLRWMO recommends that this type
of underpass beneath Lakeshore Road be incorporated into the design for the inter-site
haulage road between the existing Port Granby WMF and the new Port Granby LTWMF.
With respect to the municipal road upgrades, the recommended routes identified in the
EASR were divided into two specific-purpose haulage routes, namely i) the Main
Haulage Route using Newtonville Road and Concession I, and ii) the Contingency Route
for oversized loads using Newtonville Road south of Concession I and Lakeshore Road
to the new site. Based on the results of a comprehensive field testing program along these
road segments and the subsequent technical and financial evaluation of the data, it is
recommended by the LLRWMO that a cost-sharing agreement be developed with the
Municipality of Clarington to address the incremental costs associated with the upgrading
of the various road segments along the Main Haulage Route that would be used for the
haulage of construction materials to the new L TWMF site. This evaluation also indicated
that due to the limited usage of the Contingency Route, pre-construction upgrades to the
road segments associated with this route are not necessary for Project purposes.
@
Atomic Energy
of Canada Limitecj
Energie atomique
du Canada lirnitee
2
To address the effects of installing an additional composite base liner system for the
long-term management facility, three design options were developed by the LLRMWO
engineering team and examined in the context of the original three-component base liner
system. The three options utilized combinations of original design components
(compacted clay), as well as geosynthetic clay liners, to create the additional composite
base liner system. These options were examined from the perspectives of technical
performance, volumes of raw materials required for construction of the liner systems,
number of truck loads for haulage of raw materials to the site, duration to construct the
base liner system, and additional cost for liner construction. Based on the results of this
examination, the LLRMWO has concluded that there is no significant technical
advantage to be achieved by the installation of an additional composite base liner system.
It is therefore the recommendation of the LLRMWO to remain with the original three
component liner design constructed in conjunction with the existing underlying low
permeability native till deposit and a low permeability eight-component cover system.
As noted above, the attached technical memorandum provides more details on the
investigations conducted by the LLMRWO on the three issues raised by the Municipality
of Clarington prior to the finalization of the Port Granby EASR. We believe that these
investigations adequately address the Municipality's concerns and that based on the
recommendations put forward by the LLRMWO, the draft Port Granby EASR can be
finalized.
The LLRWMO would be pleased to address any questions or provide additional
clarification during your review of the attached material.
~
G. GI Case, P. Eng.,
Mana er, Projects & Facilities Development
GGC:sdp
attach.
~;.
AECL
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
5 Mill St., S
Port Hope, Ontario, LlA 2S6
(905) 885-9488 Fax (905) 885-0273
To: Glenn Case
File: 2133-Pl-3, 2245-P3-2
RR-05-0007
2005 Aug 19
From: Rick Rossi
Investigation of Clarington Requested Modifications to the Port Granby Proiect
1.0 BACKGROUND
Over the past four years the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) has
conducted various studies to identify and assess potential environmental effects associated with
the Port Granby Project. This work will culminate in the fall of 2005 with the submission of the
Draft Port Granby Environmental Assessment Study Report (PG EASR) to the Responsible
Authorities (RAs).
In March 2005, subsequent to the Municipality of Clarington's review of the working draft PG
EASR, Clarington Council passed Resolution #GPA-148-05 requesting that the LLRWMO
investigate the effects of installing an additional composite base liner system at the new L TWMF
and that the EASR be revised accordingly. In addition, through further general correspondence,
Clarington requested that the municipal roads affected by the Project be upgraded prior to
commencement of activities and that an underpass at Lakeshore Road be incorporated in the
design of the inter-site haulage route between the proposed long term waste management facility
(LTWMF) and the existing Port Granby WMF.
This memo summarizes the results of the investigations that have been conducted by the
LLRWMO to address the Municipality of Clarington's three requests. The results of each
investigation are presented in the following individual sections.
2
2.0 ADDITIONAL LINER SYSTEM
2.1 Proposed Liner System Design
During the conceptual design phase for the proposed fully encapsulating aboveground storage
mound the LLRWMO's engineering team recommended a three-component base liner system
comprising of the following (from top to bottom):
500 mm thick sand layer to provide a permeable media through which leachate from
the wastes could travel to a specified collection sump;
80 mil (2 mm) thick High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane layer to
provide a bottom or liner for the sand drainage layer to assist in the collection of
leachate; and
750 mm thick compacted clay liner (utilizing imported clay material) to absorb and
further repel any contaminated leachate that may migrate through the two previous
component layers.
This three-component liner system was recommended in conjunction with an eight-component
2.6 metre thick capping system. It was felt that the three-component liner system would provide
an acceptable level of leachate containment working in conjunction with the existing underlying
low permeability native till deposit and the proposed low permeability eight-component capping
system. The proposed site for the new LTWMF was selected because of the existing underlying
native till deposit (up to 25 m in thickness) that would serve as a contaminant diffusion barrier
and adsorption media in the unlikely event that there was migration of contaminants through the
three-component liner system. Because the native till deposit is an integral part of the design,
this liner system should really be considered as a four-component liner system. The acceptable
performance of the overall containment system incorporating the three-component liner system
was subsequently demonstrated by contaminant transport modeling carried out as part of the
Environmental Affects Assessment (EAA) by the Geology/Hydrogeology Technical Study
Author.
In contrast, the site for the proposed Port Hope L TWMF is underlain by generally higher
permeability soils (sands and gravels) without sufficient deposits of natural clay to serve as an
effective backup in the event of contaminants leaving the mound. As a result, the LLRWMO
engineering team chose to incorporate redundancy into the design and created a six -component
liner (effectively doubling the original three-component design). Through the public and
municipal consultation phase of the EA, concerns were raised that the Port Granby design was
inferior to the Port Hope design as it utilizes only three components instead of six. To address
this issue, Clarington requested that further investigations be conducted as to the applicability of
adding additional components to the base liner system.
2.2 Alternative Base Liner System Configurations
In response to the Municipality of Clarington's resolution identified in Section 1.0, the
LLRWMO considered three base liner system configurations. Each of these three options is
described below:
:3
Option One is a six-component system that utilizes clay as the natural low permeability/contaminant
absorption media. This option has a total thickness of approximately 2500 mm and comprises the
following elements (from top to bottom):
500 mm thick sand drainage layer;
80 mil (2 mm) thick HDPE geomembrane liner;
750 mm thick compacted clay liner (utilizing imported clay material);
500 mm thick sand drainage layer;
80 mil (2 mm) thick HDPE geomembrane liner; and
750 mm thick compacted clay liner (utilizing imported clay material).
Option Two is a six-component system that utilizes geosynthetic clay liner in lieu of compacted
clay as the natUfallow permeabilitylcontaminant absorption media. Geosynthetic clay liner
(GCL) consists of a layer of unhydrated, loose, powdered bentonite mechanically adhered to and
sandwiched between two layers of non-woven geotextile fabric. It is manufactured under
controlled conditions in a factory with a high rate of uniformity and subjected to rigid quality
controls to achieve consistently high performance standards. Once installed and subjected to a
confining pressure such as that due to the weight of the overlying waste fill and then exposed to
moisture (leachate and/or moisture from the underlying soils), the bentonite swells and forms a
low permeability barrier layer. GCLs are manufactured in panels (approximately 4.5 m wide x
30 m long x 5 mm thick) and are joined in the field by overlapping. This option has a total
thickness of approximately 1010 mm and comprises the following elements (from top to
bottom):
500 mm thick sand drainage layer;
80 mil (2 mm) thick HDPE geomembrane liner;
geosynthetic clay liner (-5 mm thick);
500 mm thick sand drainage layer;
80 mil (2 mm) thick HDPE geomembrane liner; and
geosynthetic clay liner (-5 mm thick).
Option Three is also a six-component liner system and is a hybrid of Options One and Two,
utilizing both compacted clay and geosynthetic clay liner components as natural low
permeabilitylcontaminant absorption media. This option has a total thickness of approximately
1755 mm and comprises the following elements (from top to bottom):
500 mm thick sand drainage layer;
80 mil (2 mm) thick HDPE geomembrane liner;
geosynthetic clay liner (-5 mm thick);
500 mm thick sand drainage layer;
80 mil (2 mm) thick HDPE geomembrane liner; and
750 mm thick compacted clay liner (utilizing imported clay material).
4
2.3 Material and Transportation Considerations
Table 1 provides a comparison of material quantities and trucking requirements for the four liner
design options (Original, One, Two and Three). Option Two using two GCL layers involves
import of approximately 22,500 m3 less soil (i.e., l,OOO fewer truck loads) compared to the
originally proposed liner system, whereas Option One using two compacted clay layers would
require 112,500 m3 more soil (i.e., 5,650 more truck loads) than the originally proposed liner
system. The reduction in the number of trucks for Option Two reflects the fact that GCLs are
very thin and are transported in large rolls on flat bed trucks, compared to thick compacted clay
liners, which require import of large volumes of clayey soil in dump trucks. Option Three, the
hybrid design, would require 45,000 m3 more soil (i.e., 2,325 more truck loads) than the
originally proposed liner system. For all three options, no significant changes are expected to the
daily numbers of total worker vehicles, average trucks per day (during the haulage campaigns) or
the total number of oversized trucks; however, for Option Two the haulage campaign would be
the shortest at an estimated 21 days, while Option One would have the longest haulage campaign
at 48 days.
2.4 Construction Duration and Cost Considerations
Table 2 presents a comparison of construction duration and cost for the four liner design options.
The comparison assumes that the individual elements of the liner system are placed sequentially
(i.e., placement of a given element is fully completed prior to placement of the overlying
element). This assumption provides a conservative estimate of the number of working days since
placement of any given element can commence over completed areas of the underlying element
while construction of the underlying element proceeds. As shown in Table 2, the estimated
number of working days for construction of Option Three (double GCL) at 165 days is not much
greater than that for the Original Option at 136 days, whereas that for Option One (double
compacted clay) is significantly greater at 270 days. The total number of workers on site each day
for construction of either type of liner system is expected to be similar. No significant change is
expected to the overall project schedule for Options Two or Three utilizing GCLs, whereas
Option One (double compacted clay) could cause the addition of 1 year to the project schedule.
With respect to cost in comparison to the Original Design, Option Two (double GCLs) is
approximately $2.8 M more, whereas Option One (double compacted clay) is approximately $4.8 M
more expensive. In terms of cost and schedule, Option Three (the hybrid) falls approximately
midway between Options One and Two.
2.5 Environmental Performance Considerations
In regards to environmental performance, all three optional liner designs would provide an
additional level of redundancy with respect to leachate containment. However, considering that
the contaminant transport modelling carried out for the Original Design has indicated no
significant groundwater quality impacts, even for the malfunction scenario involving failure of
5
the HDPE geomembrane element, the additional level of redundancy offered by these various
options is not expected to result in any significant improvement in overall environmental
performance of the waste management facility.
2.6 Recommendation
Option One is not recommended because it would cost $4.8 M more, extend the construction period
by possibly an additional year and material haulage would require more than 5,000 additional truck
loads of soil materials compared to the Original Design.
Options Two and Three are not recommended because they would cost an additional $2.8 to $3.8 M,
extend the construction period by 29 to 82 days, with no significant improvement in overall
environmental performance relative to the Original Design.
The recommendation of the LLRWMO resulting from this investigation of the effects of
installing an additional composite base liner system at the new LTWMF is to remain with the
original three component liner design constructed in conjunction with the existing underlying
low permeability native till deposit and a low permeability eight-component cover system.
6
Table 1
ORIGINAL
OPTION ONE OPTION TWO OPTION THREE
DESIGN
Base Liner Element Double Double Hybrid Double
Single Composite Composite Liner Composite Liner Composite Liner
Liner System System (Using System (Using System (GCL &
Compacted Clay) Two GCLs) eCL)
1. Sand drainage layer 45,000 m3 90,000 m3 90,000 m3 90,000 m3
(500 mm thick) 2,250 loads 4,500 loads 4,500 loads 4,500 loads
2. 80 mil High Density 90,000 m2 180,000 m2 180,000 m2 180,000 m2
Polyethylene (HDPE) 25 loads 50 loads 50 loads 50 loads
3. Geosynthetic Clay Liner - - 180,000 m2 90,000 m2
(GCL) - - ] 00 loads 50 loads
4. Compacted Clay Liner 67,500 m3 135,000 m3 - 67.500 m3
(750 mm thick) 3,375 loads 6,750 loads - 3,375 loads
Totals for Soils 1 12,500 m3 225,000 m3 90,000 m3 157,500 m3
Base Geosynthetics 90,000 m2 1 80,000 m2 360,000 m2 270,000 m2
Liner
System Truck loads 5,650 loads 11 ,300 loads 4,650 loads 7,975 loads
Affected Soils 237,000 m3 350,000 m3 215,000 m3 282,000 m3
Totals for Geosynthetics 300,000 m2 390,000 m2 570,000 m2 480,000 m2
overall
L TWMF3 Y r 1 and 2
(Section Haulage 26 days 48 days 21 days 35 days
4.1.7) Campaigns 2
Comparison of Base Liner Material Quantitiesffruck Loads I
I - Based on a total liner surface area of 90,000 m2 and 35 tonnes (20 m3) per truck load
2 - Based on an average of 125 trucks per day carrying 20 m3 of soil/granular material for the construction
of the base liner system and on-site facilities such as internal roads, parking areas, buildings. The total
soil/granular volumes for the base liner are presented in this table. The total volume for on-site
facilities is estimated at approximately 15,000 m3. Base liner and facilities construction is assumed to
equally split between years I and 2.
3 -. These volumes do not include material required for road upgrades.
7
Table 2
Comparison of Base Liner Construction Durations and Cost
ORIGINAL OPTION ONE OPTION OPTION
DESIGN TWO THREE
Typical
Base Liner Element Placement Double Hybrid Double
Rate/Unit Cost Single Double Composite Composite Composite
Composite Liner (Using Liner (Using Liner (GCL &
Liner Compacted Clay)
GeLs) CCL)
I. Sand drainage layer 2,000m3/day 23days 45 days 45 days 45 days
(500 ffim thick) $40/m3 $ 1.8 M $3.6M $ 3.6M $ 3.6M
2. 80 mil High Density 2,OOOm2/day 45 days 90 days 90 days 90 days
Polyethylene (HDPE) $14/m2 $ 1.26 M $ 2.52 M $ 2.52 M $ 2.52 M
3. Geosynthetic Clay 6,000m2/day - - 30 days IS days
Liner (GCL) $ 81m2 - - $ 1.44 M $ 0.72 M
4. Compacted Clay I,OOOm3/day 68 days 135 days - 68 days
Liner (750 mm thick) $25/m3 $ 1.69 M $ 3.38 M - $ 1.69 M
136 days 270 days 165 days 218 days
Totals
$ 4.75 M $9.5M $ 7.56 M $ 8.53 M
s
3.0 MUNICIPAL ROAD UPGRADES
3. I Background
During the conceptual design phase, the LLRWMO engineering team conducted visual
examinations of the roadways comprising the main constmction materials haul route as well as the
contingency route for oversized loads. It was determined that since damage to these roads may
occur as a result of the increased traffic loading, monitoring would be conducted during the
construction phase with maintenance initiated on an as needed basis. Through municipal
consultation, Clarington's Engineering Dept. expressed concern that the roadways would suffer
extensive damage and that the LLRWMO should commit to upgrade these roads prior to the
construction phase.
The Main Haul Route for Construction Materials to the new L TWMF comprises the following
segments:
Newtonville Road from HiRhwav 401 to Concession 1
· 0.8 kilometre in length
· combination asphalt & surface treatment road surface types
Concession Road 1 from Newtonville Road to Elliot Road
· 1.6 kilometres in length
· surface treatment road surface type
The Contingency Route For Oversized Loads comprises the following segments:
Newtonville Road from Concession 1 to Lakeshore Road
· 2.75 kilometres in length
· surface treatment road surface type
Lakeshore Road from Newtonville Road to the new LTWMF
· 1.7 kilometres in length
· combination surface treatment and asphalt road surface types
3.2 Assessment of Existing Road Conditions
In response to the request from the Municipality of Clarington, the LLRWMO conducted detailed
engineering assessments of the road segments noted above utilizing field information obtained
from shallow boreholes and Falling Weight Deflectometer testing (Golder, 2005). It was
determined that the Newtonville Rd and Concession 1 sections are structurally deficient and are
not capable of Supp0l1ing current traffic loads or the increased traffic loads due to construction
traffic. The analysis recommended that these roads be upgraded prior to the construction phase,
resulting in an estimated cost increase of $535K for the Main Haul Route and $400 K for the
Contingency (oversized load) route. A four to six week construction period would be required for
9
this work. Additional costs and time may be incurred for potential rehabilitation of section of
Newtonville Road near Hwy 401 under MTO jurisdiction. For more detail see Appendix A.
During the investigation it became evident that these roads are cUlTently structurally deficient and
require some upgrading to accommodate CUlTent and projected traffic loadings even if the project
was not implemented. A follow-up study was therefore conducted to determine the extent of
related hypothetic upgrades as well as the associated costs. These upgrades would cost approx
$160 K for the Main Haul Route and approximately $235 K for the Contingency Route. For more
detail see Appendix B.
It should be noted that the Contingency Route for oversized loads was identified early in the
design phase as a potential need in the event that some of the 'construction equipment needed for
the project cannot pass through the existing CP Rail underpass at Elliot Road. Conservative
loading assumptions were made to estimate the associated upgrades referenced above. During
the most recent construction planning it has been determined these loading assumptions are most
likely over-conservative and that the Contingency Route may not be needed at all.
3.3 Recommendations
Based on the technical and financial results of the Golder investigations, it is recommended by
the LLRWMO that a cost-sharing agreement be developed with the Municipality of Clarington
to address the incremental costs associated with the upgrading of the various road segments
along the Main Haulage Route for the construction materials to the new LTWMF site.
Based on the technical and financial results of the Golder investigations, it is recommended by
the LLRWMO that due to the limited usage of this Contingency Route (-5 loads per year),
pre-construction upgrades to these road segments are not necessary for Project purposes. As a
result the Project would not contribute to the cost of pre-construction upgrades to these road
segments.
The environmental effects of conducting this work have not yet been assessed, but a preliminary
consideration of the potential upgrades has determined that the scenarios that were already
assessed during the Effects Assessment phase would likely bound the activities associated with
the road upgrade work.
10
4.0 LAKESHORE ROAD UNDERPASS
4.1 Background
During the conceptual design work for the new Port Granby LTWMF, the LLRWMO
engineering team identified the need for trucks hauling waste materials from the existing
PGWMF to the new PG LTWMF to cross over Lakeshore Road. Due to the low volumes of
local traffic using Lakeshore Road it was determined that an at-grade crossing would be
acceptable and would not cause a significant adverse effect on the local traffic. This was verified
through the detailed effects assessment. However, through municipal consultation, Clarington' s
Engineering Dept. expressed concern that to further safeguard public traffic, a grade separation
should be implemented at the crossing.
4.2 Investigations by LLRWMO
The LLRWMO subsequently conducted investigations and identified a route similar to that
proposed for the at-grade option and prepared a conceptual design that utilized a culvert style
underpass for the waste haul trucks. Due to the topography an underpass at this location would
have very little impact on the vertical alignment of Lakeshore Road. In order to construct the
underpass a temporary disruption to the use of Lakeshore Rd would be required. A temporary
detour would be provided immediately north of the affected portion of Lakeshore Rd. The
underpass would have an incremental cost of about $1,050 K and would take about 12 to 16
weeks to construct. At the culmination of the project, the underpass could either be left in place
or be removed and the area reinstated to the previous conditions. If the culvert were to be
removed, the temporary detour would need to be reinstated. The removal would cost
approximately $560 K and take about five to eight weeks. For more details see Appendix C.
4.3 Recommendation
Based on the results of the technical and financial investigations, it is recommended by the
LLRWMO that an underpass beneath Lakeshore Road be incorporated into the designfor the
inter-site haulage road between the existing Port Granby WMF and the new Port Granby
L1WMF.
The environmental effects of conducting this work have not yet been fully assessed, but a
preliminary consideration of the underpass by the LLRWMO's Technical Study consultants
determined that the scenarios that were already assessed during the Effects Assessment phase
would likely bound the activities associated with the construction and use of the underpass.
RR:sdp
...JZ
w _C>
0:: I- ~(j)
w ~
z WW
0:::;
~:s CC
...JU D::D::
WU
z-
~tu wW
<oJ:
~!Z >
w>- I-ON I-
~UJ
00 0:: ~OZ ()
ww
(!)(!) w w
II :s -...JO ....,
:s D::<c- 0
U WZS: c::
0 a..
w D.-O >-
0 cu.
~ ca
~ wC z
0 ~
U (/)W
l<:
U 00 (9
:i:
f-
Jj D.Z I-
.... o<c c::
0 0
D::J: a..
D.Z
W
z
o
UJ 0::
:J-~ ~~
u......J ~ ~:)
O:! (!)g~ ow:!
UJ Z...J w z(!) a.
a. 9~ ~0::;:j;2 ()o::
~ ~ f-wE- EW
E (!)<i! UJii:'"1~ '<!~
0'"1 ~g ~~Oo 0..J
...,:::::!.. 0 CO
>-
~ffi
...J>-
a:~
()l<:
E<
'"1ll!
0<0
0::
W
>
o
U
~
ii:
t!!
~
l<:
U
~
~
o
~
o
..-j
o
<(
u
;0
;;:j
<11
o
./
c
lJ'
Oijj
'"
o
'"
>
o
U
o
c
G:
'"
1
<(
U
1
./
>:
..0
c
o
25
~
o
(L
a
::E
~
Q::
...J
-:.
<D
1
n
cO ~
o ~
01
",<11
o
./
-<11
~ 0
~ 0
~ '"
"'./
.0 if>
E V
'" '"
E; .e
Z(L
./
w~
~w
o ::E
<(
f-Z
OW
...J ...J
D.. G:
0::
w
:s
z
o
t
t!!
li1
a.
l<:
u
o
0::
E
'"
o
Attachment 3
To PSD-007-06
~
:J
\2
"-
~
I-
It) It) CD
N 0 en Cl CD
~ 0 ~ en
N u.. u..
~
~
>
0
z
UJ ~ " ~
5 ~ iii ~ ()
UJ UJ ~
'" 0 0 J:
() '"
<(
10
"
10
8
[i
'"
o'
"a C> ~
E 3: ~
o Cl .
M M
o ~
<( ;:
u .;.,
<0 0
;;;
~
~
u::;
o ~
t;
UJ
o
'"
Q.
~
~
u:
Peer Review of the LLRWMO's
Enhanced Facility Design for the
Port Granby Project
January 2006
Prepared for:
Municipality of Clarington
Prepared by:
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
364 Davenport Road
Toronto, Ontario M5R 1K6
p: 416-944-8444
t: 1-877-267-7794
f: 416-944-0900
-
HARDY
STEVENSON
AND ASSOCIATES
Attachment 4
To PSD-007-06
I Table of Contents
1 In trod u cti 0 n ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of this Report....................... .............. ................... ............................ 2
1.2 Background.................................. .................................................................. 2
1.3 Overview of the MPRT's Conclusions.......................................................... 5
2 Review of the Enhanced Facility Design ................................................................. 6
2.1 History and Use of Capillary Barriers at other Facilities............................... 6
2.2 Components of the Capillary Barrier.... ................................. ......... ........... .... 7
2.3 How the Capillary Barrier Functions............. ...................................... .......... 9
2.4 Strengths of the Enhanced Facility Design at the Port Granby WMF ........... 9
3 Enhancements to the Capillary Barrier Concept ................................................ 13
3.1 Considerations to Enhance Design .............................................................. 13
3.2 Analysis Required During Detailed Design................................................. 15
4 Con elusion ...... I... ...................... ......... ............... ................ .............. ..... ....... ......... .... 18
5 References ..... ................... ...... ............... ..................... .... I... ..... ..... " ..... ..... ......... ....... 19
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
1 Introduction
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited (HSAL) has been retained by the Municipality
of Clarington ("the Municipality") to provide peer review assistance for the Port Granby
Long- Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Project ("the Port Granby
Project"). A Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT) under the direction ofHSAL is
engaged in providing the peer review. The core of its activities consists of reviewing
studies undertaken by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
(LLRWMO) as part of the environmental assessment of the Port Granby Project.
MPR T's primary concern as peer reviewers has been to ensure that the design of the
Long-Term Waste Management Facility (L TWMF) protects the natural and social
environment over the long term and that the project can be implemented without adverse
environmental effects.
The Port Granby Project consists of relocation of historic low-level radioactive waste
(LLRW) and marginally contaminated soils (MCS) from the existing waste management
site to a new engineered mound north of the existing site. The proposed new mound
utilizes a low permeability composite cover system ("cover system") to prevent moisture
from entering the top of the mound. It also includes a low permeability composite base
liner system ("liner system") to prevent moisture from escaping from the bottom of the
mound by collecting and treating leachate. Both the cover and liner systems as originally
proposed by the LLRWMO consist of multiple components (8 components in the cover
and 3 in the liner) made of natural soils and synthetic materials, each with a specific
purpose. Together these components create highly durable and impermeable cover and
liner systems.
Following a review of the above concept proposed in the draft Environmental
Assessment Study Report (EASR), the MPRT recommended a number of improvements
to the Port Granby Project and mound design. One such improvement was the addition
of a second liner system to provide redundancy and extra protection compared to the
single liner system. The LLRWMO considered the benefits of adding a second liner
system along with other engineered solutions for improving the performance of the
LTWMF.
Resultantly, the LLRWMO developed an enhanced facility design for the Port Granby
Project that is intended to further reduce water infiltration to the waste, particularly in the
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
event of failure of the synthetic component in the cover system. This design incorporates
a capillary barrier system between the cover system and the waste. It is the LLRWMO's
position that a second liner system is not required to further improve the performance
provided by the enhanced facility design.
1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report briefly describes the components of the enhanced facility design and explains
how the design functions. It provides MPRT's rationale for supporting the LLRWMO's
enhanced facility design in lieu of a double liner system and our recommendations for
further optimizing the performance of this design.
The remainder of the Introduction provides the background to the development of the
enhanced facility design by the LLRWMO and an overview of the MPRT's conclusions.
The remaining sections summarize our review. Section 2 (Review of the Enhanced
Facility Design) discusses the development of capillary barriers in the waste management
industry and the strengths of the enhanced facility design. Section 3 (Improvements to
the Capillary Barrier Concept) outlines the MPRT's recommendations for improving the
enhanced facility design and for further analysis and demonstration during the detailed
design phase of the project.
Section 4 summarizes the MPRT's conclusions regarding the enhanced facility design.
1.2 Background
After reviewing the Port Granby Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) in
March 2005, the MPRT concluded that the LTWMF as proposed in the EASR could be
constructed, operated, and maintained in a way that would result in minimal adverse
effects on the environment. Furthermore, the MPR T was confident that appropriate
mitigation measures could be developed to minimize any potential adverse effects
(HSAL, March 2005).
Nonetheless, the MPRT recommended improvements regarding the ability of the
L TWMF to effectively contain the wastes and the associated leachate over the lifetime of
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
2
the facility. The MPRT's key concern was that the redundancy ofthe liner system over
the life of the facility was insufficient and should be improved. The MPR T' s issues
incl uded:
· The hydrogeological characteristics of the site and the importance of protecting
underlying soils from leachate;
· The uncertainty as to whether the geomembrane liner within the liner system will
deteriorate over the life of the facility;
· The preferential use of double liners at other hazardous waste management facilities
in the waste management industry;
· The increased sense of comfort that a double liner system could provide to residents
by decreasing the likelihood of leakage to the underlying till and groundwater
contamination; and,
· The ease of decommissioning the site (should such action be necessary), which would
be difficult with a failed liner system and spread of contamination (HSAL, March
2005: 39-40).
Based on a review of the above issues, the MPRT recommended in its Peer Review
Report of the Port Granby Project EASR that a double liner system be investigated by the
LLRWMO. In the design proposed in the EASR, the bottom liner system includes a
compacted clayey soil liner, a geomembrane liner, and a sand leachate drainage layer.
The underlying till soil environment provides natural attenuation as part of the Design
Concept in the event of a liner failure. The recommendations highlighted the need to
protect the natural till deposit at the site and the surrounding environment from leakage in
case of a failure of the single liner system.
Shortly after, Municipal Council passed Resolution #GP A-148-05 requesting that the
LLRWMO investigate the effects of installing an additional composite base liner system
at the new L TWMF. In response, the LLRWMO prepared a Technical Memorandum in
August 2005 that compared the original single liner system to three alternative double
liner systems based on the amount of additional material to be transported, construction
duration and cost, and environmental performance (LLRWMO, August 2005). Each
alternative consisted of an additional three component system with a sand drainage layer,
high density polyethylene, and various combinations of compacted clay liner or
geosynthetic clay liners. Based on the results of their analysis, LLRWMO staff
concluded that the original single liner design should be retained, citing additional costs
that could be incurred (ranging from $2.8 to 4.8 million), additional material haulage
involved, an extended construction period, and insignificant improvement in
environmental performance in the various options that were studied (LLRWMO, August
2005: 5).
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
3
After reviewing the analysis, the MPRT deemed the Technical Memorandum to be
incomplete with regard to the issues raised in the Peer Review Report. While agreeing
with the LLRMWO's conclusions regarding cost and construction effects of these
systems, the MPRT sought more analysis regarding the technical performance of the
double liner systems. In a joint meeting of the MPRT and the LLRWMO, it was agreed
that a comprehensive review of the entire design comprising the cover and liner systems
be undertaken to assure isolation of the waste from the environment.
As a result of this review, the LLRWMO developed an alternate enhanced facility design
for the engineered mound that utilizes a capillary barrier and drainage system as part of
the cover system. A major concern with all low-level radioactive waste management
facilities is the possibility of moisture entering the mound and drawing out contaminants
as the moisture exits the mound. Such a barrier is intended to prevent wetting of the
waste in the event of leakage through the cover system, obviating the need to enhance the
redundancy of the proposed liner system with a second liner system. The LLRWMO is
of the opinion that the proposed enhanced system would provide additional protection
from leachate leaking into the environment by keeping the waste drier over the long term.
As a result, the LLRMWO has concluded that the double liner system would not be
needed.
To assess the appropriateness of the LLRWMO's conclusions, the MPRT reviewed
background documentation on industry experience with respect to capillary barriers,
including case studies of capillary barriers at other waste management facilities, field
demonstrations and analyses. The MPR T also reviewed the preliminary conceptual
details of the proposed cover system provided at the meeting, and attended subsequent
meetings with the LLRWMO to discuss the proposal.
Following its assessment, the MPRT has agreed in principle with the LLRWMO's
proposal for the enhanced facility design. The MPR T indicated its support at the Public
Information Sessions held in November 2005. The MPRT has spoken with residents,
including representatives of the Southeast Clarington Ratepayers Association, to explain
why the MPR T supports the new design and to hear their concerns.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
4
1.3 Overview of the MPRT's Conclusions
Based on our review of the enhanced facility design proposed by the LLRWMO, the
MPRT agrees that the concept can be designed to protect the underlying till and prevent
leachate from contaminating the groundwater. Thus, the enhanced design ensures the
redundancy of the overall system and provides Clarington residents with a safe and
durable long term facility.
The MPRT's recommendation for a double liner was based on the uncertainty as to
whether the single liner system would function optimally beyond several hundred years.
Under such a scenario, the upper till layer would need to provide containment of the
leachate to protect the surrounding environment. The enhanced facility design meets the
MPRT's expectations with regard to environmental performance, since this concept
effectively reduces the amount of moisture contacting the waste. It thereby reduces the
amount of leachate produced to negligible levels even in case of failure of the
geomembrane in the cover system. Less reliance is therefore placed on the liner system to
manage the leachate and protect against groundwater contamination. In addition:
· The enhanced design operates passively based on natural capillary action (i.e., no
pumps or other equipment required) in keeping the waste dry over the long term;
· It enhances the ability to monitor infiltration and remediate the cover system if
needed through the use of instrumentation that is built in to the capillary barrier;
· It uses local materials recycled from the cell excavation to construct the capillary
barrier, avoiding the need to import soil.
Overall, the MPR T is of the opinion that the enhanced facility design can provide for
sufficient redundancy to ensure that the water infiltration and production of leachate in
the long term will be negligible. Furthermore, the MPR T is confident that a double liner
system is no longer necessary to provide redundancy.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
5
12 Review of the Enhanced Facility Design
The enhanced facility design uses a capillary barrier to effectively reduce the amount of
moisture entering the mound to negligible levels. While the original cover system
proposed in the EASR was designed to reduce the amount of infiltration by means of
multiple soil components, a geomembrane and geosynthetic clay liner, any failure of the
cover system to perform as expected could potentially produce some leakage and wetting
of the waste. By preventing water from entering the waste, the capillary barrier
effectively cuts off the production of leachate once the facility is closed. The liner
system would need to perform optimally only during the construction period, at which
time the collection and treatment of leachate is routinely carried out and the liner
performance is closely monitored. Over the long term, the liner system could be
maintained to provide a sufficiently redundant barrier in the unlikely event that multiple
components of the cap fail.
2.1 History and Use of Capillary Barriers at other Facilities
Capillary barriers are used in a number of facilities in the waste management industry to
keep waste dry. Dedicated use of capillary barriers for water retention and diversion and
their licensing in different types of landfills is now increasing in the industry. In almost
all cases, such barriers consist of fine-aver-coarse soil layers used as a component of
cover designs for hazardous landfills, municipal landfills, mine tailings and other
applications where minimization of water infiltration through the cover is a major
concern. Capillary barriers are considered to be low-cost, easily constructed, and long-life
options used either as alternatives to other surface cover designs or to complement soil
cover designs depending on the application (Kampf et ai, 1996; Pease et ai, 1996; Walter
et ai, 2000).
Capillary barriers are being used in a range of capacities at a number of sites in the US
(Lee Acres Landfill Superfund site, New Mexico; Lake County Landfill, Montana;
Hanford Superfund radioactive waste site, Washington State; Gaffey Street Sanitary
Landfill, California; McPherson County Landfill, Kansas) and at six demonstration
projects across the US for hazardous, municipal solid waste, and non-hazardous wastes.
Key advantages of the capillary barriers are their ability to retain and divert water, and
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
6
their constructability using natural materials and configurations that imply longevity.
Capillary barriers are also used for water balancing in surface covers to retain water for
plant growth and thereby to reduce topsoil erosion ofthe covers (Golder, 2005).
Recent focus on their use in hazardous landfills and for remediation of sites has brought a
large amount of R&D effort into demonstrating their performance through numerical
analysis tools and field and laboratory demonstrations. The efficiencies of capillary
barriers have been studied in a number of test projects where they have successfully
demonstrated prevention of water infiltration into waste deposits (Kampf et ai, 1996;
Pease et ai, 1996; WaIter et ai, 2000).
2.2 Components of the Capillary Barrier System
As can be seen from Figure 1, the capillary barrier proposed for the L TWMF consists of
two layers: the capillary drainage layer is a fine-grained soil layer that contains silty sand
with some clay and fine gravel; the capillary break layer is a coarse-grained soil layer
containing medium to coarse gravel. The capillary barrier is provided as a
complementary barrier (i.e., in addition to all the natural and synthetic components in the
cover system) and is located below the geomembrane and the geosynthetic clay layer
(GCL) within the cover system, and above the interim cover of the waste mound. Being
situated below the geomembrane and the GCL, the capillary barrier will be unsaturated.
The main purpose of the capillary barrier system will be to function when and if there is a
failure of the geomembrane. A perimeter drainage system will capture the lateral flow of
uncontaminated moisture that is conveyed by the capillary drainage layer. The capillary
barrier system will also include embedded instrumentation to monitor the condition of the
capillary barrier such as moisture levels and potential high flow situations. The
instrumentation could be used to monitor the condition of the cover system, providing the
information necessary to carry out any remedial work.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
7
-
lI'l
=
=
N
,;;
~
-
~
....
~
=
ell
ell
-<
l.
~
"C
-
=
~
....
,.Q
"C
~
l.
~
C.
~
l.
C.
El
~
l.
bIl
~
:.a
-
~
Z
w
Z
~
:I
o
U 0::
Z ~
C) II:
;; ~
~ ~-
~ ~ i h
~ 1= Q :,;:~
<:s m i!: ~-t
is:: 1Il G. cti ~
o > ci ....:~
I
~
::l
1=
g
~
I
I
El
~
-
ell
....
00
l.
~
....
l.
l.
~
=
"
~
-
-
. is.
~
u
~
c..-.
=
ell
l.
~
"
....:l
I
.....
~
l.
=
bIl
ri:
r
~ ~I ~I
~ ~~ ~ i
II~ ~I
~ i ~,~
~ ~ i
~ ~ r:l
U ~ ~
~
II,
2.3 How the Capillary Barrier Functions
The capillary barrier operates by natural capillary action to store and convey moisture
away from the waste. Under unsaturated conditions moisture is retained and travels
within the fine-grained layer more easily than into the coarse grained layer below. This is
due to the larger surface area of the fine-grained soil particles, thus creating surface
tension forces that overcome the gravitational forces. As a result, moisture is pulled
laterally throughout the upper fine-grained soil layer. Since this layer is sloped, as the
moisture continues to travel laterally it flows downward as well until it drains away to the
flanks of the mound.
To sustain the capillary function, mixing of soil between the two layers should be
prevented, and a geotextile fabric is often considered to separate the two layers (not
currently provided in the LLRWMO concept). It is also important to ensure through
proper sloping that the water migrating towards the edges of the barrier does not
accumulate along the migration path and break through the capillary barrier.
For proper functioning of the capillary barrier, the barrier must remain unsaturated.
Normally such barriers are considered for arid or semi-arid areas in the waste
management industry and saturation is not a concern. Being located below the
geomembrane and GCL, it can be expected that the capillary barrier is essentially in a
near dry state required for the proper functioning of the barrier.
2.4 Strengths of the Enhanced Facility Design at the Port
Granby WMF
As discussed previously, although the MPRT was confident that the concept as presented
in the EASR would provide long-term containment of the waste, it was not completely
satisfied that the WMF would achieve that goal based on the information and analysis
included in the report. The enhanced facility design, based on a capillary barrier and
drainage system, is expected to further enhance the performance of the Port Granby
Waste Management Facility by minimizing moisture entering the mound to negligible
levels as a first priority and the near-elimination of leachate generation in the long term
after the facility is closed. The strengths of this enhanced design are described below.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
9
2.4.1 Enhanced design reduces the amount of leachate produced in the
mound
Under normal conditions, the original cover system described in the draft EASR was
expected conservatively to permit less than 0.01 % of the total precipitation from entering
the waste. According to preliminary modelling prepared by the LLRMWO, the capillary
barrier would reduce the moisture that infiltrates into the waste to barely measurable
amounts. Thus, the enhanced design of the cover system reduces reliance on the liner
system to manage the leachate and protect against groundwater contamination by
minimizing the amount of leachate that could potentially be created.
2.4.2 Enhanced design provides an effective backup for the cover system
The capillary barrier provides a more noticeable benefit under less than optimal
conditions, such as severe weather events or failure of the cover system. A fully intact
geomembrane and the geosynthetic clay liner normally would not allow any noticeable
infiltration to the waste. However, should there be minor imperfections such as tears or
punctures, some moisture could be expected to funnel its way through such
imperfections. The capillary barrier is designed to capture such infiltration before it
contacts the waste. By virtue of its holding capacity, the infiltration is retained and
diverted laterally to the edge of the mound where it naturally drains away, thus providing
an effective backup to the geosynthetic clay liner and the other layers of the cover
system.
2.4.3 Capillary barrier operates passively based on natural capillary action
and is durable
Unlike the leachate collection system, the operation of the capillary barrier does not rely
on pumps or other mechanical and electrical systems. Because the barrier uses natural
capillary action to retain or direct moisture away from the waste, it is not subject to
mechanical failure. Required longevity is expected since the capillary barrier is composed
of natural materials, thus minimizing the need for long-term institutional control.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
10
2.4.4 Capillary barrier is constructed using local materials recycled from
the cell excavation
As explained previously, the capillary barrier is comprised of two layers: a capillary
drainage layer that contains silty sand with some clay and fine gravel, and a capillary
break layer, which is medium to coarse gravel. The material needed to construct these
layers is available on-site through cell excavation, thus minimizing transportation impacts
and nuisance effects associated with trucking of construction materials.
2.4.5 Capillary barrier is not exposed to the elements nor to leachate
The capillary barrier is protected from the elements by about 2.3 metres of material that
comprises the original cover system. It is highly unlikely that the barrier layers would be
disturbed by the elements. Furthermore, the barrier is placed above the waste, thereby
preventing any contact with leachate, which is created in the mound during the
construction period. As the waste dries up following construction phase, the capillary
barrier can be expected to be unsaturated and become fully dry with time. Thus, the
barrier system is expected to remain fully functional over the lifetime of the facility.
2.4.6 Capillary barrier has an active monitoring system
An important element of the capillary barrier is the active monitoring system. The
LLRWMO proposes to use two types of instrumentation: (1) thermo conductivity sensors,
which measure negative porewater pressure, or the ability for water to be retained within
the capillary drainage layer; and (2) neutron probes, which measure the water content in
the soil. These instruments will be able to verify that the cover system is functioning as
intended. With proper design, the instrumentation can help locate the failure of the liner
and aid in cover remediation. These instruments can also detect a failure of the capillary
barrier (such as due to saturation) before it occurs and indicate whether the waste could
become wet. This will allow for necessary remediation of the cover system. This system
adds a level of sophistication not found in the original design.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
11
2.4.7 Capillary barrier can be repaired if necessary
Should the active monitoring system identify a breach in the barrier, the capillary barrier
can be repaired more easily than the original design or a double liner system. Given its
location above the waste, repairing the barrier requires only the layers of the cover
system be removed, rather than excavation of the waste.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
12
3 Enhancements to the Capillary Barrier Concept
Based on the information provided to us by the LLRWMO and supplementary research,
the MPR T agrees that the enhanced facility design is a significant improvement to the
original WMF design. It meets the key objectives that the MPRT sought from the
original design, namely:
.
Protecting the underlying till;
Preventing leachate from contaminating the groundwater;
Providing redundancy in the design of the facility; and,
Providing Clarington residents and Council with a state-of-the-art facility and an
increased level of confidence.
.
.
.
The MPRT understands from the LLRWMO that the EASR is being revised to
incorporate this concept, and that preliminary modelling and analysis has been
undertaken to determine whether the enhancements to the design have any influence on
the predicted environmental effects. Should these assessments confirm that the enhanced
facility design will not have any adverse effects, the MPRT would support the adoption
of the enhanced facility design into the project.
Furthermore, the MPRT would expect to see construction / development and safety
performance details provided in the Design and Construction Plan that is submitted as
part of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) licensing requirements. Such
details should demonstrate that all necessary parameters discussed earlier in this section
have been assessed and that the capillary barrier will function as intended in the
operational stage.
3.1 Considerations to Enhance Design
The MPRT recognizes that the information provided to date, while indicative of the
conceptual details of the enhanced facility design, requires further elaboration in terms of
environmental effects and engineering details. The following considerations are intended
to support such a process and assure the performance of the capillary barrier system as
expected at the current conceptual stage. The MPR T expects that the LLRMWO will
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
13
take into account these considerations in the design and during modeling to fully
demonstrate the effectiveness of the capillary barrier system.
3.1.1 Investigate whether a transport layer would improve the ability of the
capillary barrier to divert moisture
The capillary barrier proposed by the LLRWMO uses two layers: a capillary drainage
layer and a capillary break layer. Studies have shown that the addition of a transport
layer between the two layers significantly improves capillary performance by reducing
the amount of moisture in the upper layer. Transport layers are also capable of increasing
the (horizontal) distance that moisture is diverted (Pease et ai, 1996). Typically, the
transport layer is constructed of fine sand and located immediately above the fine/coarse
interface. Introduction of such a transport layer should be investigated.
3.1.2 Extend the geomembrane liner to "wrap around" the capillary break
layer
In the conceptual design, the capillary layer extends beyond the edge of the two
geomembrane liners, installed in the cover and liner systems, in order to drain moisture
into the perimeter ditch (see Figure 1). In the event of heavy flooding, it is possible that
moisture could back up and travel against gravity along the capillary drainage layer,
break through the capillary break layer, and enter the mound. To prevent this situation
from occurring, the MPR T suggests extending the geomembrane liner in the liner system
so that it covers a portion of the capillary break layer. Alternately, the drainage ditch
could be an enclosed system not accessible to the outside soil environment.
3.1.3 Ensure durability and redundancy of monitoring instrumentation
One of the benefits of the enhanced facility design is the ability to monitor the
performance of the capillary layer. While the instrumentation should be designed to be
durable, malfunctions and breakdowns are possible. To reduce the chances of failure and
provide redundancy, we recommend that additional redundant instrumentation be added
to the capillary layer. Such instrumentation will also improve the ability to pinpoint the
location of any leakage leading to saturation in the capillary layer.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
14
3.2 Analysis Required During Detailed Design
As described in Section 2.1, capillary barriers are used in a number of facilities in the
waste management industry for containing hazardous, municipal solid waste, and non-
hazardous wastes. At these facilities, the capillary barriers provide the primary and sole
means of keeping the waste dry. The capillary barrier concept as envisaged by the
LLRWMO, namely to provide redundancy for a cover system, has not been explicitly
applied for the purposes described here. The concept must be customized to the
requirements of the waste, soils and the geological conditions of the site. Being at a
conceptual level, the performance of the barrier must be fully demonstrated through
detailed hydraulic modeling and laboratory testing. Areas requiring analysis are
described below.
3.2.1 Determine maximum flow before breakthrough occurs
Under normal conditions, the geomembrane in the cover system is considered essentially
impervious with less than 0.1 mm of moisture expected to reach the capillary barrier per
year. Should the geomembrane fail and significant infiltration occurs, the capillary
barrier may need to drain larger amounts of moisture away from the mound. The MPR T
would like to see the results of detailed performance modeling to determine the
maximum flow that the capillary barrier can handle before becoming saturated and
failing, thus necessitating remedial response. As described above, the addition of a
transport layer should increase the amount of flow that the barrier can handle before its
performance is compromised.
3.2.2 Assess the effect of funneling flow patterns on the capillary barrier
When used at municipal landfills, the capillary barrier is positioned at the top of the
surface cover and is exposed to surficial infiltration over the full extent of the barrier
surface. In other words, the amount of moisture that the capillary barrier is exposed to is
uniform throughout the landfill. Conversely, in the enhanced facility design for the Port
Granby WMF, the capillary barriers will likely be exposed to very localized infiltration
due to tears or punctures in the geomembranes. Such infiltration could introduce
localized funneling flows, the effects of which could be different on the capillary layer in
terms of maximum flows before breakthrough occurs (Walter et ai, 2000). The effect of
such funneling should be investigated.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
15
3.2.3 Optimize the slope and length of the capillary barrier layers
Because the capillary barrier acts by natural capillary action, and hence is influenced by
gravity, the slope of the soil layers is essential to the effective functioning of the barrier.
The proposed slope (of 5%) needs to be analyzed. A steeper slope may be required to
properly drain the water without breakthrough of the water to the capillary block. It is
also necessary to ensure that the slope length is appropriate so that the accumulation of
moisture along the diversion path does not lead to capillary breakthrough.
3.2.4 Optimize the soil depths and hydraulic properties of the layers of the
capillary barrier system
The soil depths and hydraulic properties of the layers are also crucial to effective
functioning of the barrier. In the conceptual drawings for the enhanced facility design, all
the layers are shown to be of uniform depth throughout the mound. The results of
hydraulic modeling may indicate that the depth of the capillary barrier layers should be
greater at the edge of the mound to handle the larger volumes of moisture.
3.2.5 Assess the possibility of mixing of soils within the capillary barrier
layers
The chances of fine soil gravitating towards coarse soil during placement or over time
should be minimized since this could impair the effectiveness of the barrier. Laboratory
testing should be used to determine whether the soils proposed for the various layers of
the capillary barrier are appropriate for construction purposes.
3.2.6 Determine how to construct the facility effectively and efficiently
The cover system, including the capillary barrier system, consists of 10 layers of material,
both natural and synthetic. To function optimally, the cover system needs to be installed
based on tested methods, as does the liner system. With respect to the capillary barrier,
there may be a need for field trial testing to assure constructability and material
processing.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
16
3.2.7 Assess institutional requirements towards the caretaking and
maintenance and remedial actions
The capillary and drainage system will require some degree of caretaking and
maintenance over the life of the facility. As indicated in the MPRT's comments on the
Port Granby EASR, plans must be prepared to describe how the necessary resources for
caretaking and maintenance will be in place long after construction is completed. These
plans must apply to all aspects of the Port Granby facility, including the capillary barrier
system. The MPRT expect that these plans will be prepared during the detailed design
phase of this project, and furthermore, that such plans will identify the specific
institutional requirements ofthe capillary barrier, in addition to all other elements of the
engineered facility.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
17
14 Conclusion
I
The MPRT is pleased that the LLRWMO has considered our concerns regarding the
redundancy of the original Port Granby L TWMF design and has developed an enhanced
facility design. The MPRT concurs with the LLRWMO that the enhanced facility design
addresses the concerns ofthe MPRT expressed in the Peer Review Report of the EASR,
making a double liner system unnecessary. As indicated previously, we are confident
that this concept can be designed and constructed to:
· Protect the underlying till;
· Prevent leachate from contaminating the groundwater;
· Provide redundancy in the design of the facility; and,
· Provide Clarington residents and Council with a state-of-the-art facility and an
increased level of confidence.
Because this design is at the conceptual level, we expect to see additional analysis and
modeling done to optimize the design and demonstrate that it functions as expected. The
MPRT would also like to see the LLRWMO investigate several changes to the design of
the capillary barrier system that it feels will enhance the performance. These were
discussed in Section 3.
During our review of the revised EASR, the MPR T will be cognizant of any changes to
the findings of the EASR associated with the introduction of the capillary barrier and
drainage system in the construction and operation of the LTWMF. The MPRT will work
closely with the LLRWMO to resolve any new issues that may arise as a result of the
enhanced facility design.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
18
5 References
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. 2005. Investigation of Clarington Requested
Modifications to the Port Granby Project, Technical Memorandum from Rick Rossi to
Glenn Case, August 19, 2005.
Golder Associates. 2005. Publications on Capillary Barriers for Minimizing Infiltration.
Golder Associates. 2005. Schematic of Capillary Barrier System for Mound Cover
Design.
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited. 2005. Peer Review of the Port Granby
Environmental Assessment Study Report.
Kampf, Markus, Tilman Holfelder and Hector Montenegro. 1998. "Inspection and
Numerical Simulations of Flow Processes in Capillary Barrier Cover Systems", Institute
of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Darmstadt University of Technology.
Pease, R.E. and J.C. 1996. "Stormont: Increasing the Diversion Length of Capillary
Barriers", University of New Mexico. Proceedings of the HSRC/WERC Joint Conf. On
the Environment.
Walter, M.T., et al. 2000. "Funneled Flow Mechanisms in a Sloping Layered Soil:
Laboratory Investigation" , Water Resources Research.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
19
Attachment 5
To PSD-007-06
- HIGHWAY 401
NEWTONVILLE RD.
EXIT 448
CONCESSION ROAD 1
I 0 0
I <( <( 0
0 0 <(
0::: 0::: 0
~~O HUDSON 0:::
0
<( ~~Ct:.
0
0::: V-'J'!~
S~.
en
...I
l= L TWMF 0
0::: J:
W W 0 MOUND ()
...I I- ...I Z
...I en ...I
> <( W
Z ()
0 Z
<(
~ ...I
W
z
L~~E.S\-\ORE. ROAD
LAKE ONTARIO J
Transportation Access Routes
Primary Haul Route
--- Contingency Haul Route
.......... Inter-Site Route
-c
ta
o
a:
cu
I-
o
.c
en
~
ta
....
...,
ta
~ ~
~b ta
~ c=. C.
~~ I-
~\ .g
::)
>.
l-
ta
I-
o
c.
E
~
-a
cu
en
o
C.
o
I-
Q.
Attachment 6
To PSD-007-06
+.