ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED PLANTAGENET ASPHALT PLANT

Transcription

1 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED PLANTAGENET ASPHALT PLANT Township of Alfred & Plantagenet County of Prescott & Russell Prepared for P. B. Paving and Landscaping 3083, Old Highway 17 Rockland, Ontario K4K 1W1 Prepared by Hugh Williamson Associates Inc 28 October 2011 Postal Address: PO Box 74056, RPO Beechwood, Ottawa, Ontario, K1M 2H9, Canada Phone/Fax: (613) ,

2 ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED ASPHALT PLANT NEAR PLANTAGENET, ONTARIO Table of Contents Section Table of Contents Page i 1.0 Introduction Detailed Facility Description Noise Source Summary Point of Reception Summary Recommended Mitigation Measures 8 (Site Plan Recommendations) 6.0 Assessment Criteria, Performance Limits Impact Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations 14 References 15 Appendix 1 Figures 16 Appendix 2 Acoustic Modeling Details 24 Appendix 3 Background Traffic Noise Assessment 30 Resumé Dr. Hugh Williamson P a g e i

3 ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED ASPHALT PLANT NEAR PLANTAGENET, ONTARIO 1.0 Introduction P.B. Paving and Landscaping wishes to apply for the rezoning of a parcel of land located in the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet, County of Prescott and Russell to enable the operation of an asphalt plant. This acoustic study, carried out by Hugh Williamson Associates, assesses the potential impact of noise from the asphalt plant on nearby receptors in accordance with Ontario Ministry of Environment (MoE) noise guidelines. Once rezoning by the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet is in place, P.B. Paving and Landscaping will apply to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MoE) for a Certificate of Approval (C of A) to operate the plant. This report has been prepared in accordance with the MoE Document NPC-233, Information to be Submitted for Approval of Stationary Sources of Sound, October Noise from the facility is to be assessed according to MoE Documents: NPC-232, Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 (Rural) Areas, October and NPC-205, Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 1 & 2 (Urban) Areas, October The report follows the recommended format contained in Sample Application Package, Basic Comprehensive Certificate of Approval (Air and Noise), July This report assesses the impact of all noise emitted by the proposed asphalt plant. The noise assessment methodology is summarised below. Identification of noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the asphalt plant. Potential noise sensitive receptors include residences, motels, places of worship, schools and hospitals. Determination of the MoE sound level limits which will apply at each of the noise sensitive receptors. Identification of the sources of noise that will arise from operating the asphalt plant. In the current study, the strengths of the various noise sources were obtained from measurement of asphalt plants in Ontario made by Hugh Williamson Associates. Based on the strengths of the individual noise sources, noise levels due to the asphalt plant are predicted at nearby noise sensitive receptors. The MoE methodology requires that compliance be assessed under predictable worst case conditions for normal operations. P a g e 1

4 Assessment of compliance of the noise due to asphalt plant operations with MoE sound level limits. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended such that compliance with MoE sound level limits is achieved at all receptors. Surrounding Lands, Acoustic Environment and Critical Receptors Directions in this report are in reference to site north as shown in the Area Plan, Figure A1.1, Appendix 1. The current zoning for the surrounding area is shown in Figure A1.3. The legal description of the land occupied by the proposed asphalt plant is as follows. Part Lot 18, Concession 2 Township of Alfred and Plantagenet County of Prescott and Russell The Municipal Zoning of land surrounding the proposed asphalt plant is shown in Figure A1.3. The proposed site itself is currently zoned Agricultural (A-1). The land immediately to the west is zoned Light Industrial (ML). All other surrounding land is zoned either Rural (RU) or Agricultural (A). The proposed asphalt plant site is located on the northern side of County Road 17 approximately 2 km west of Plantagenet. The site is partially treed and slightly elevated in relation to the surrounding land. In all directions, the surrounding land is used primarily for agricultural purposes. Critical Receptors County Road 17 forms the southern boundary of the proposed asphalt plant site. A number of receptors are located adjacent to County Road 17. There are also receptors along Plantagenet Concession Road 1 to the north and along Route 21 to the west. Six critical noise sensitive receptors are shown in Figures A1.1 and A1.2. These receptors are listed in Table 1. These six were selected as being the receptors most likely to be impacted by noise from the proposed asphalt plant. Other noise sensitive receptors are at greater distances from the plant and will be less affected by noise. In order to evaluate the worst case for each receptor, points of reception have been considered at the residential buildings and at outdoor living areas (OLA s), located 30 m towards the proposed asphalt plant from each residence as per MoE Guidelines 2. Points of reception at residential buildings are assumed to be at heights above ground of 2 m and 4.5 m for single and two storey buildings respectively. OLA points of reception are taken to be 1.5 m above ground. For some receptors both building and OLA points of reception are evaluated. For other receptors only the building or OLA points of reception are evaluated because these are clearly the worst cases. P a g e 2

5 Table 1: Receptors Critical Point of Reception Description Distance from the Asphalt Plant to the Nearest Point of Reception* (metres) Elevation (metres above sea level) R1 Residence, one storey (closest to the east); # 6560 County Road R2 Residence, one storey (closest to the south on the south side of County Road 17); # 6575 County Road R3 Residence, single storey (closest to the south on the north side of County Road 17); # 6622 County Road R4 Residence, single storey (Lacelle Street, closest to the west among houses in the development at the intersection of County Road 17 and Route 21) R5 Residence, two storey (closest to the north-west of the asphalt plant site ); #796 Route R6 Residence, two storey (worst case of several residences, closest to the north); Concession Road Notes: A point of reception for the Outdoor Living Area, OLA, of a rural residence is defined as a point on the premise of a person within 30 m of a dwelling, see MoE Document NPC Critical denotes a point of reception selected for detailed analysis and for which predicted noise levels are presented in this report. P a g e 3

6 2.0 Detailed Facility Description P.B. Paving and Landscaping intend to purchase an asphalt plant for use on the site following rezoning and other appropriate approvals. The proposed location of the plant is shown in Figure A1.2. Schematic representations of the asphalt processing area and plant are shown in Figures A1.4 and A1.5. The asphalt manufacturing process requires the combination of aggregates, sand and a filler, such as stone dust, in specific proportions, heated to a temperature in the range 100 to 200 degrees Celsius, and coated with a binder, usually bitumen. The heater is typically a gas or liquid fired burner. The operation of the proposed plant, in general terms, can be described as follows. A loader places the raw aggregates into cold feed bins from nearby stockpiles. Input material may include some recycled asphalt pavement, RAP. The raw materials are weighed as they are transferred into a heater drum then heated up to temperature. Hot binder, bitumen, is added at this stage. The blend, hot mix asphalt, HMA, is then transferred to a silo from which it is discharged into trucks for delivery off-site. The capacity of the plant is anticipated to be of the order of 250 tons per hour of asphalt. Power for the plant may come from an on-site diesel generator, or may come from grid electricity supply. Bitumen for making asphalt is held in tanks, shown as A/C Tanks in Figure A1.5. The tanks are heated to maintain the bitumen in a liquid state on a 24-hour basis. Bitumen will be delivered to the site periodically, e.g. every few days, depending on production demand. Shipping of asphalt up to a maximum of 10 trucks loads / hour is expected during peak periods of operation. Raw aggregate materials will be delivered to the site by truck as needed. For modelling purposes, up to 10 trucks loads / hour has been allowed for peak periods of operation. The maximum operating hours of the asphalt plant are set out in Table 2. P a g e 4

7 3.0 Noise Source Summary Asphalt Plant Operations Table 3 contains sound power data for all operations which are significant noise sources during asphalt plant operations, including on-site truck movements. This data comes from noise measurements made by Hugh Williamson Associates at similar operations at asphalt plants in Ontario. The assumed noise level for the asphalt plant is typical of noise measurements made by Hugh Williamson Associates at similar operations at asphalt plants in Ontario. It is recommended that at the time of purchase of the asphalt plant, noise data and mitigation measures be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that MoE sound level limits are met at all nearby receptors. Highway trucks will be used to deliver raw aggregate materials to the site and to deliver hot mix asphalt product off site. It is assumed that all trucks move slowly on the site, less than 20 km/h, and that the use of Jake brakes, engine compression brake assistance, will be prohibited on the site. Trucks delivering raw aggregate materials are to avoid any tail gate slamming. The assumed maximum truck traffic during an hour of maximum production is assumed to be as follows. Delivery of hot mix asphalt off site, 10 trucks/hour Delivery of aggregate raw materials to the site, 10 trucks/hour The delivery of bitumen in a tanker truck will occur only periodically, say once every few days, and is assumed to be an insignificant noise source. Portable Equipment for Site Preparations Portable construction equipment will be used occasionally for site preparation (e.g. land clearing and construction of berms). This equipment could typically include excavators, hydraulic shovels and dozers. Site preparation activities will take place only during daytime hours (07:00 19:00). P a g e 5

8 Table 2: Operating Times and Equipment Period Hours Operations and Equipment Day 07:00 to 19:00 All operations: Asphalt production, delivery of raw materials and maintenance of stock piles using the loader Early Day 05:00 to 07:00 Delivery of raw materials and maintenance of stock piles using the loader Table 3: Noise Source Summary Table Source ID Source Description Sound Power (dba) Source Location Ht. above ground (m) Sound Characteristics Noise Control Measures Asphalt Plant Hot mix asphalt plant with associated burner, mixing drum, and baghouse Non-tonal, mildly directional to the north as set out in Table A2.6 Berm* Loader For example a CAT 950G Loader Non-tonal, nondirectional None Truck Movements on the Internal Haul Route Single highway truck, slow moving (moving point source) 3 Non-tonal, nondirectional No Jake Brakes; 20 kph max * The height, extent and location of any berm are to be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant once noise characteristics of the purchased asphalt plant are known. P a g e 6

9 4.0 Point of Reception Summary Noise levels have been predicted at the critical receptors using predictable worst case assumptions under normal operations and using the ISO sound propagation methodology 7, as implemented in the sound prediction software Cadna-A, version The ISO methodology provides a conservative (i.e. high) estimate of the noise level at a receptor taking into account adverse wind and meteorological conditions which favour noise propagation towards the point of reception. The estimation method includes the following. Distance attenuation is based on spherical spreading. Atmospheric attenuation. Foliage and ground attenuations, as appropriate. Ground elevations. Barrier attenuation, as appropriate. The MoE requires that sound levels at points of reception be predicted using worst case assumptions for normal operations. The MoE also favours the ISO sound propagation methodology. MoE compliance is based on the worst case hourly average (equivalent) sound level, Leq. Sound levels at points of receptors are A-weighted to take into account the typical sensitivity of human hearing. Details and results of sound level predictions are contained in Appendix 2. A point of reception summary, listing worst case predictions at each critical receptor by noise source, is provided in Tables A2.7 and A2.8. P a g e 7

10 5.0 Recommended Mitigation Measures (Site Plan Recommendations) Mitigation measures to reduce noise emissions from the proposed asphalt plant operations are detailed below. Noise mitigation requirements: The maximum hours of asphalt plant operations shall be as set out in Table 2. A 6.6 m high berm of length 85 m shall be placed on the western side of the asphalt plant to provide shielding to receptors R2 and R3. (Note: It is recommended that, at the time of purchase of the asphalt plant, the noise data and mitigation measures should be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that MoE sound level limits are met at all nearby receptors. This review may lead to altered requirements for this berm.) Portable equipment for site preparations and rehabilitation Portable construction equipment will be used occasionally for site preparation (e.g. land clearing and construction of berms) and rehabilitation. This equipment would typically include excavators, hydraulic shovels and dozers. To minimize the impact of noise during site preparation and rehabilitation, the construction equipment used, excavators, bulldozers, etc., will comply with MoE Publication NPC-115 6, Construction Equipment, August This publication gives noise standards to be met by construction equipment in Ontario. Site preparation and rehabilitation activities will take place only during daytime hours (07:00 19:00). P a g e 8

11 6.0 Assessment Criteria, Performance Limits Sound level limits in the MoE guidelines 2 depend on the acoustical classification of the area as Class 1, 2 or 3. Class 1 Area (Urban) 'an area with an acoustical environment typical of a major urban area, where the background noise is dominated by urban hum (primarily road traffic noise)' Class 2 Area (Urban) 'an area with an acoustical environment that has qualities representative of both Class 1 and Class 3 Areas, and in which a low ambient sound level, normally occurring between 23:00 and 07:00 hours in Class 1 areas, will typically be realised as early as 19:00 hours. Class 3 Area (Rural) 'acoustical environment that is dominated by natural sounds having little or no road traffic.' In the vicinity of the proposed asphalt plant, the surrounding acoustical environment is dominated by significant road traffic along County Road 17. Hence, the acoustical environment for receptors R1 to R4 is considered as Class 2 Area (Urban). Receptors R5 and R6 are in rural areas well away from County Road 17. Hence their acoustical environment can be considered as Class 3 Area (Rural). The applicable outdoor sound limits at noise sensitive receptors, based on 1-hour equivalent sound levels, L EQ, are either the MOE exclusion noise limits given in Table 4, or higher limits if established by an assessment of background noise. Background sound assessment was carried out based on road traffic data from May 2011, supplied by the County of Prescott and Russell, see Appendix 3. The result of this assessment was that points of reception which are close to County Road 17 have higher sound level limits. Hence, the sound levels limits given in Table 5 are used in this assessment. Table 4: MoE Exclusion Sound Level Limits by Time of Day 2,3 Time of Day Class 2 Area (Urban) L EQ (dba) Class 3 Area (Rural) L EQ (dba) 07:00 19: :00 07: P a g e 9

12 Table 5: Sound Level Limits by Time of Day Point of Reception ID R1_Bldg R1_OLA R2_Bldg R2_OLA R3_OLA R4_OLA R5_Bldg POR Description Residence, single storey, # 6560 County Road 17. OLA for # 6560 County Road 17. Residence, two storey # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence on Lacelle Street. Residence, two storey, #796 Route 21 Sound Level Limit dba (Leq) (Performance Limits) Day 07:00 to 19:00 Early Day 05:00 to 07: * 58.8* 52.8* 49.6* 52.8* 49.6* R6_Bldg Residence, two storey, Concession Road Notes: Sound level limits are based on 1-hour equivalent sound levels. Bldg. Points of Reception are at the residential buildings, height m OLA = Outdoor Living Area, up to 30 m from the residence, height 1.5 m *Sound level limit determined by background road traffic noise, based on road traffic data from May 2011, see Appendix 3. P a g e 10

13 7.0 Impact Assessment Tables 6 and 7 compares the estimated sound levels at the selected critical points of reception for Day and Early Day periods with the sound level limits given in Table 5. These are worst case comparisons, comparing the sound level limits to the estimated sound levels: (i) with all permitted equipment operating simultaneously, and, (ii) with the noise mitigation set out in Section 5.0. From Tables 6 and 7 it is concluded that with implementation of the noise mitigation measures identified in Section 5, noise emissions from the proposed asphalt plant are in compliance with MoE sound level limits. It is recommended that, at the time of purchase of the asphalt plant, noise data and mitigation measures should be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that MoE sound level limits are met at all nearby receptors. This review may lead to altered requirements for the recommended berm. P a g e 11

14 Table 6: Acoustic Assessment Summary Table Daytime Operating Hours: 07:00 to 19:00 All operations Point of Reception ID POR Description Estimated Sound Level at POR (Worst Case) dba (Leq) Verified by Acoustic Audit Performance Limit dba (Leq) Compliance with Performance Limit (Yes/No) R1_Bldg R1_OLA R2_Bldg R2_OLA R3_OLA R4_OLA R5_Bldg Residence, single storey, # 6560 County Road 17. OLA for # 6560 County Road 17. Residence, two storey # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence on Lacelle Street. Residence, two storey, #796 Route No 50 Yes 50.0 No 50 Yes 54.4 No 62.3 Yes 51.9 No 52.8 Yes 52.4 No 52.8 Yes 45.8 No 50 Yes 42.5 No 45 Yes R6_Bldg Residence, two storey, Concession Road No 45 Yes Notes: Performance limits are based on 1-hour equivalent sound levels. Bldg. Points of Reception are at the residential buildings, height m OLA = Outdoor Living Area, up to 30 m from the residence, height 1.5 m P a g e 12

15 Table 7: Acoustic Assessment Summary Table Early Day Operating Hours: 05:00 to 07:00 Delivery of Aggregate Raw Materials Only Point of Reception ID POR Description Estimated Sound Level at POR (Worst Case) dba (Leq) Verified by Acoustic Audit Performance Limit dba (Leq) Compliance with Performance Limit (Yes/No) R1_Bldg R1_OLA R2_Bldg R2_OLA R3_OLA R4_OLA R5_Bldg Residence, single storey, # 6560 County Road 17. OLA for # 6560 County Road 17. Residence, two storey # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence # 6622 County Road 17 OLA for residence on Lacelle Street. Residence, two storey, #796 Route No 45 Yes 43.3 No 45 Yes 51.8 No 58.8 Yes 48.7 No 49.6 Yes 47.3 No 49.6 Yes 36.9 No 45 Yes 33.1 No 40 Yes R6_Bldg Residence, two storey, Concession Road No 40 Yes Notes: Performance limits are based on 1-hour equivalent sound levels. Bldg. Points of Reception are at the residential buildings, height m OLA = Outdoor Living Area, up to 30 m from the residence, height 1.5 m P a g e 13

16 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations An acoustic assessment of operations at the proposed asphalt plant near Plantagenet, Ontario has been conducted. These operations include asphalt manufacture, truck loading for delivery of product off-site and the delivery of raw materials. Compliance has been assessed using conservative assumptions, both with respect to the noise sources and with respect to the background sound levels at receptors. Conclusions and recommendations are as follows. 8.1 It is concluded that, providing the mitigation measures identified in Section 5 are implemented, on-site noise generated by the proposed asphalt plant operations will in compliance with the MoE noise limits as set out in Publications NPC-232 and It is recommended that, at the time of purchase of the asphalt plant, noise data and mitigation measures should be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that MoE sound level limits are met at all nearby receptors. This review may lead to altered requirements for the berm proposed in Section 5.0. Hugh Williamson, Ph.D., P.Eng. Member, Canadian Acoustical Society P a g e 14

17 References 1. Ministry of Environment Publication NPC-233, Information to be Submitted for Approval of Stationary Sources of Sound, October Ministry of Environment Publication NPC-232, Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 (Rural) Areas, October Ministry of Environment Publication NPC-205, Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 1 & 2 (Urban) Areas, October Ministry of Environment, Sample Application Package, Basic Comprehensive Certificate of Approval (Air and Noise), July Ministry of Environment Publication NPC-104, Sound Level Adjustments, August Ministry of Environment Publication NPC-115, Construction Equipment, August International Standards Organization, Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation, ISO : 1996(E). P a g e 15

18 Appendix 1 Figures Contents Figure A1.1 Area Plan Figure A1.2 Immediate Area Figure A1.3 Zoning Plan Figure A1.4 Asphalt Processing Area Schematic Figure A1.5 Asphalt Processing Schematic P a g e 16

19 REPORT Ottawa River Concession 1 Rd. R6 Route 21 R5 R4 Subject Property Nation River S H I M L O A C O C O N T R G E D O N R L E R U A M T R A I L E R B A A H / C T A N K F U L A / D E C A E G L F H T T T E O A E A E N R U N D T K S O K B I N S E R F R E A E P D B U R N E R R1 Site North True North County Rd. 17 R3 R Figure A1.1 Area Plan P a g e 17

20 REPORT Site North True North Proposed Asphalt Plant Plant Berm R3_OLA Internal Haul Route R1_OLA R2_OLA R1_Bldg R2_Bldg County Rd Figure A1.2 Immediate Area P a g e 18

21 Proposed Site RU RU RU Figure A1.3 Current Zoning Legend: RU = Rural, A = Agricultural, FP = Flood Plane ML = Light Industrial Zone P a g e 19

22 TANK TANK DRUM BAGHOUSE SILO COLD FEED BINS REPORT Site North True North Proposed Asphalt Plant Internal Haul Route Plant Berm Loader Stockpiles Figure A1.4 Asphalt Processing Area Schematic Notes: Plant details are schematic only Details of plant configuration are to be re-evaluated when technical details of the plant are known. Berm Dimensions, 6.6 m high (above plant elevation), 85 m long, shields R2 & R3, dimensions and location to be reviewed when technical details of the plant are known. P a g e 20

23 REPORT Internal Haul Route TANK TANK SILO BAGHOUSE DRUM Loader COLD FEED BINS Figure A1.5 Asphalt Processing Schematic P a g e 21

24 TANK TANK SILO REPORT BAGHOUSE DRUM COLD FEED BINS > db > 35.0 db > 40.0 db > 45.0 db > 50.0 db > 55.0 db > 60.0 db > 65.0 db > 70.0 db > 75.0 db > 80.0 db > 85.0 db Figure A1.5 Noise Contours for Day Operation (1.5 m above ground) P a g e 22

25 TANK TANK SILO REPORT BAGHOUSE DRUM COLD FEED BINS > db > 35.0 db > 40.0 db > 45.0 db > 50.0 db > 55.0 db > 60.0 db > 65.0 db > 70.0 db > 75.0 db > 80.0 db > 85.0 db Figure A1.6 Noise Contours for Early Day Operation (1.5 m above ground) P a g e 23

26 Appendix 2 Acoustic Modeling Details Modeling Notes: 1. Acoustic model developed uses Cadna-A software, Version Sound propagation is modeled according to ISO : 1996(E). 3. The ground in the immediate area of the asphalt plant is assumed to have a partially reflective ground absorption, alpha = 0.3. P a g e 24

27 Appendix 2 Table A2.1 Calculation Configuration P a g e 25

28 Appendix 2 Table A2.2 Point of Reception Location Table ID Height Coordinates, ground Above X Y Z Ground (m) (m) (m) (m) R1_Bldg R1_OLA R2_Bldg R2_OLA R3_OLA R4_OLA R5_Bldg R6_Bldg P a g e 26

29 Appendix 2 Table A2.3 Point Sources ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Direct. Height Coordinates Day Early Day Type Day Early Day x y z (dba) (dba) (dba) (min/hr) (min/hr) (m) (m) (m) (m) Asphalt_Plant Lw 60 0 T. North Loader Lw none Table A2.4 Line Sources Name Point Source PWL Numbers of vehicles per hour Modelling Speed Day Early Day Day Early Day (dba) (dba) (dba) (km/h) Haul_Route moving point source PWL-Pt HWYTruck_Slow 20 Table A2.5 Noise Source Library ID Type Spectra (db) Source* A lin Asphalt_Plant Lw Measured by HW Loader Lw Measured by HW HWYTruck_Slow Lw Measured by HW * Measured by Hugh Williamson Associates at a similar facility or in similar circumstances in Ontario. P a g e 27

30 Appendix 2 Table A2.6 Directivity of Asphalt Plant P a g e 28

31 Appendix 2 Table A2.7 Point of Reception Impacts by Source for Worst Cases, Day Source R1_Bldg R1_OLA R2_Bldg R2_OLA R3_OLA R4_OLA R5_Bldg R6_Bldg dba dba dba dba dba dba dba dba Asphalt_Plant Loader Haul_Route Total Table A2.8 Point of Reception Impacts by Source for Worst Cases, Early Day Source R1_Bldg R1_OLA R2_Bldg R2_OLA R3_OLA R4_OLA R5_Bldg R6_Bldg dba dba dba dba dba dba dba dba Asphalt_Plant Loader Haul_Route Total P a g e 29

32 Appendix 3 Background Traffic Noise Analysis This Appendix presents the results of an analysis of background noise from a road traffic on County Road 17 conducted in May The minimum background noise level is determined for two time periods: Day 07:00 to 19:00 the operational period for the asphalt plant Early day 05:00 to 17:00 period when only the delivery of aggregate raw materials is permitted Contents: Table A3.1 Traffic Volumes and Background Noise Estimates Traffic data from the County of Prescott and Russell Sample outputs from STAMSON P a g e 30

33 Table A3.1: Traffic Volumes and Background Noise Estimates for Highway 17 near Proposed Asphalt Plant Project: Proposed Plantagenet Asphalt Plant Traffic count from County of Prescott and Russell, Tuesday/Wednesday 17/18 May 2011 Count from County Road 17, location: 1.5 km west of County Rd. 19 (near Wendover) Posted Speed Limit: 80 km/h Noise Predictions Estimated split in dba, STAMSON Total Cars Medium Heavy R2_OLA R2_bldg Vehicles Trucks Trucks R3_OLA Hour Count d = 70 m d = 20 m Beginning no. no. no. no. h = 1.5 m h = 4.5 m 0: n. r. n. r. 1: n. r. n. r. 2: n. r. n. r. 3: n. r. n. r. 4: ** 58.8** 5: : : : * 62.1* 9: : : : : : : : : : : : n. r. n. r. 21: n. r. n. r. 22: n. r. n. r. 23: n. r. n. r. Total * Minimum background sound level for Day, 07:00 to 19:00 inclusive ** Minimum background sound level for Early Day 05:00 to 07:00 inclusive n.r. = not relevant, not calculated. P a g e 31

34 Data from County of Prescott Russell, hourly traffic counts P a g e 32

35 Data from County of Prescott Russell, Traffic Mix 1 3 = Cars 4 6 = Medium Trucks 7 12 = Heavy Trucks P a g e 33

36 Samples of Traffic Noise Predictions using STAMSON STAMSON 5.0 NORMAL REPORT Date: :38:24 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY / NOISE ASSESSMENT Filename: hwy_17.te Time Period: 1 hours Description: R2 or R3 OLA, 08:00 to 09:00 (minimum background traffic noise for day period, 07:00 19:00) Road data, segment # 1: Hwy Car traffic volume : 128 veh/timeperiod Medium truck volume : 20 veh/timeperiod Heavy truck volume : 6 veh/timeperiod Posted speed limit : 80 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete) Data for Segment # 1: Hwy Angle1 Angle2 : deg deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : m Receiver height : 1.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00 Results segment # 1: Hwy Source height = 1.40 m ROAD ( ) = dba Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq Segment Leq : dba Total Leq All Segments: dba TOTAL Leq FROM ALL SOURCES: P a g e 34

37 STAMSON 5.0 NORMAL REPORT Date: :57:10 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY / NOISE ASSESSMENT Filename: hwy_17.te Time Period: 1 hours Description: R2 plane of 2nd storey window, 05:00 to 06:00 Minimum background traffic noise for Early Day period Road data, segment # 1: Hwy Car traffic volume : 282 veh/timeperiod Medium truck volume : 44 veh/timeperiod Heavy truck volume : 14 veh/timeperiod Posted speed limit : 80 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete) Data for Segment # 1: Hwy Angle1 Angle2 : deg deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : m Receiver height : 4.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00 Results segment # 1: Hwy Source height = 1.42 m ROAD ( ) = dba Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq Segment Leq : dba Total Leq All Segments: dba TOTAL Leq FROM ALL SOURCES: P a g e 35

38 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada RESUMÉ: Dr. HUGH WILLIAMSON, P.Eng. QUALIFICATIONS: Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, 1972 B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, (with Distinction), University of Alberta, 1967 Member, Professional Engineers, Ontario Member, Canadian Acoustical Association KEY COMPETENCIES: Environmental noise and vibration assessments, Certificates of Approval. Noise assessment for land use planning Architectural and building acoustics, acoustics of office spaces, meeting rooms, auditoriums and studios, noise and vibration control of building mechanical services. Industrial noise and vibration assessment and control. Transportation noise and vibration. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Hugh Williamson is a professional engineer with many years of experience in the measurement, analysis and control of noise and vibration. Hugh Williamson Associates was incorporated in 1997 and provides consulting services in architectural, building, industrial, transportation and environmental acoustics and vibration. Clients include architects, engineering firms, industrial firms and government departments. Prior to establishing Hugh Williamson Associates, his career included extensive periods in industry as well as university level research and teaching. He is a former Director of the Acoustics and Vibration Unit at the Australian Defence Force Academy. He has published over 50 engineering and scientific papers and has been an invited speaker on noise and vibration at national and international conferences. He has more than 20 years of experience as a consultant. CLIENT LIST: Hugh Williamson Associates provides consulting services to large and small clients including: National Research Council, National Capital Commission, J. L. Richards & Associates, Trow Associates, HOK Urbana Architects, Genivar, Nasittuq Corporation, PWGSC, R. W. Tomlinson, Bot Construction and Miller Paving. Postal Address: PO Box 74056, RPO Beechwood, Ottawa, Ontario, K1M 2H9, Canada Phone/Fax: (613) , hughwilliamson@hwacoustics.ca