Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 Appendix L Landfill Atmospheric Studies August 2007

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION...L Project Description... L Study Area... L-1 2. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT...L Scope of Assessment... L Climate Data... L Particulate Matter Impact Assessment... L Regulatory Guidelines... L Assessment of Baseline Conditions for Particulate... L Landfill Particulate Emission Assessment Methodology... L Particulate Emission Model Scenarios... L Baseline L Scenario L Scenario L Particulate Matter Emission Rates... L Particulate Matter Dispersion Modelling... L Results of the Analysis... L Proposed Dust Mitigation Measures... L Landfill Gas Impact Assessment... L Assessment of Baseline Condition for Landfill Gas... L Landfill Gas Emissions... L Existing Rosewarne Drive Landfill... L Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion... L Landfill Gas Dispersion Modelling... L Baseline L Scenario L Scenario L Conclusion and Proposed Landfill Gas Mitigation Measures... L Odour Impact Assessment... L Background... L Estimating Odour Flux... L Modelling Odour Dispersion... L Modelled Odour Levels... L Scenario L Scenario L Conclusion and Proposed Mitigation Measures... L Blowing Litter Impact Assessment... L Background... L-40 Page L-i

3 Site Wind Conditions... L Conclusion and Proposed Mitigation Measures... L References... L ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE...L Scope of Assessment... L Regulatory Guidelines... L MOE Limits... L Implementation of Guidelines... L Existing Noise Environment... L Noise Level Monitoring Methodology... L Measured Environmental Noise Level... L Background Traffic Noise Level for L Background Traffic Noise Level for L Background Traffic Noise Level for L Operational Characteristics... L Landfilling Operations... L Noise Source Description... L Noise Impact Assessment... L Prediction Method... L Operating Assessment Scenarios... L Model Results... L Proposed Mitigation Measures... L Conclusions... L References... L-62 LIST OF TABLES Table L1.1 Table L2.1 Table L2.2 Table L2.3 Table L2.4 Table L2.5 Table L2.6 Table L2.7 Table L2.8 Table L2.9 Table L2.10 Table L2.11 Table L2.12 Table L2.13 Table L2.14 Table L2.15 Sensitive Receptors Used in the Assessment...L-2 Climate Data...L-5 Particulate Criteria used in the Assessment...L-7 Particulate Sampling Locations...L-8 Summary of particulate sampling results...l-9 Meteorological conditions during monitoring...l-9 Parameters used in emission factor calculations...l-11 Rosewarne Drive landfill Impact Analysis Years...L-11 Baseline 2006 Particulate Matter Emission Rates...L Particulate Matter Emission Rates...L Particulate Matter Emission Rates...L-15 Surface Parameters for Dispersion Modelling...L-16 Sensitive Receptors Used in the Assessment...L-17 Baseline 2006 Total Suspended Particulate Matter POI concentrations...l-19 Baseline PM 10 POI Concentrations...L-20 Scenario 2012 Total Suspended Particulate Matter POI concentrations...l-20 Page L-ii

4 Table L2.16 Table L2.17 Table L2.18 Table L2.19 Table L2.20 Table L2.21 Table L2.22 Table L2.23 Table L2.24 Table L2.25 Table L2.26 Table L2.27 Table L2.28 Table L2.29 Table L2.30 Table L2.31 Table L2.32 Table L2.33 Table L2.34 Table L3.1 Table L3.2 Table L3.3 Table L3.4 Table L3.5 Table L3.6 Table L3.7 Table L3.8 Table L3.9 Table L3.10 Table L3.11 Table L3.12 Table L3.13 Table L3.14 Scenario PM 10 POI Concentrations...L-21 Scenario Total Suspended Particulate Matter POI concentrations...l-22 Scenario PM 10 POI Concentrations...L-23 MOE Limits for Vinyl Chloride (O.Reg 419/05)...L-24 Reported Landfill Gas Emission...L-25 LandGEM Input parameters (Existing site)...l-26 Existing Landfill Waste Input Data...L-26 Existing Landfill Area Emission Estimates (LandGEM)...L-27 LandGEM Input parameters (Expansion Site)...L-30 Landfill Expansion Waste Input data...l-31 Proposed Landfill Expansion Area Emission Estimates (LandGEM)...L-32 Total Emission Rates used in Dispersion Modelling...L-33 Vinyl Chloride Ground Level Concentrations for Scenario L-34 Vinyl Chloride Ground Level Concentrations for Scenario L-35 Vinyl Chloride Ground Level Concentrations for Scenario L-36 Odour flux from Beiers Road Landfill...L-38 Zones of Impact for Blowing Litter...L-41 Litter Category versus Wind Speed...L-41 Frequency of Occurrence of Blowing Litter with Wind Speed...L-42 Sensitive Receptors Used in the Assessment...L-46 Limits of One Hour L eq (dba) by Time of day for Landfills...L-48 Measured Minimum Values of One Hour L eq (dba) by Time of day...l-50 Background Peak Traffic Counts for L-51 SPL Determined by STAMSON L-52 Estimated Background Peak Traffic Counts for L-53 Estimated Peak Traffic Counts Including Landfill Traffic for L-53 SPL (dba) Determined by STAMSON L-53 Estimated Background Peak Traffic Counts for L-54 Estimated Peak Traffic Counts Including Landfill Traffic for L-54 SPL (dba) Determined by STAMSON L-54 Scenario 2006 SPL at PORs...L-59 Scenario 2012 SPL at PORs...L-60 Scenario 2032 SPL at PORs...L-60 Page L-iii

5 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure L1.1 Receptor Locations For The Air Quality And Noise Impact Assessments...L-3 Figure L2.1 Windrose for the Owen Sound and Barrie area for the period based on the MOE meteorological data set for dispersion modelling (MOE, 2006a)...L-6 Figure L2.2 Receptor locations...l-18 Figure L2.3 LandGEM analysis for Existing Landfill L-29 Figure L2.4 LandGEM analysis for Proposed Expansion Landfill...L-33 Figure L3.1 Receptor locations...l-47 ATTACHMENTS A. Site Maps B. Background Air Monitoring C. Data Tables for Particulate Matter and Landfill Gas emissions. D. Stamson Results Sheets E. Measured Noise Levels of Key Sources And Input Data Used for Noise Modeling Page L-iv

6 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Project Description The District Municipality of Muskoka (Muskoka) is preparing a Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan to determine the preferred way to meet the waste management needs of the community until at least The plan will consider opportunities for both waste diversion and waste disposal. Work on the Plan has been going on since the spring of In 2005 a Report selected landfill expansion over a new landfill and identified three alternatives. Following a review of these alternatives, the expansion of the Rosewarne Drive Landfill Site was selected as the preferred option for landfill expansion. As part of an overall assessment of the landfill expansion, Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) has been retained to determine the potential air and noise impacts of the proposed landfill expansion Study Area The study area is shown in Figures A-1 and A-2 in Attachment A and consists of two parcels of land separated by Rosewarne Drive. These parcels include (a) the existing Rosewarne Drive Landfill Site which is located on the eastern side of Rosewarne Drive north of Taylor Road; and (b) the proposed Rosewarne Drive Expansion Site located to the west between Rosewarne Drive and Highway 11 and north of Taylor Road. To the north of the existing landfill site and south of Kirk Line, is a quarry and gravel extraction area owned by Fowler Construction. This site also includes a hot mix asphalt plant. The existing Rosewarne Drive Landfill Site is a natural attenuation site that has been operational since It has an approved fill area of 6.45 hectares within a total site area of 20.8 hectares. The total capacity for waste and daily cover is 550,400 cubic metres. The site currently includes the following features Scale and scalehouse; Reuse building; Household hazardous waste facility; Storage areas for wood, tires, freon units, scrap metal and propane canisters; Winter sand stockpile; Composting areas; Equipment storage buildings; and Temporary sediment pond. Page L-1

7 This site is expected to be closed in 2011 at which time an impermeable cap will be placed on the fill area. The proposed Rosewarne Drive Expansion Site will have a site area of 36 hectares and currently comprises a forested area and open aggregate pits. These aggregate pits are operational and are largely devoid of vegetation. The study area for the air quality and noise assessments essentially extends outward from the proposed expansion site a distance of metres. This includes residential, commercial and institutional receptor locations and is essentially bisected by Highway 11 which runs north/south through the study area. This area included a number of potential receptors and of these the following listed in Table L1.1 and shown in Figure L1.1 were selected for detailed study of the potential air quality and noise impact of the proposed landfill expansion. Table L1.1 - Sensitive Receptors Used in the Assessment Receptor ID Northing Easting Type POR Residential POR Residential POR Residential POR Commercial POR Residential POR Residential POR Residential POR School POR School POR Commercial POR Residential POR Residential POR Commercial Page L-2

8 Figure L1.1- Receptor Locations For The Air Quality And Noise Impact Assessments. Page L-3

9 2. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2.1. Scope of Assessment The purpose of the air quality assessment was to quantify the potential atmospheric impacts of the proposed landfill expansion. In particular, the assessment considered potential impacts from the following sources: i) Dust; ii) Landfill gases; iii) Odour; and iv) Blowing litter. Impacts due to environmental noise are covered in a subsequent section. Emissions of dust, landfill gases and odour over time were determined for both the existing landfill and the proposed expansion and their cumulative impacts on sensitive receptors in the area were modelled using the Ministry of the Environment approved dispersion models. Resulting receptor concentrations were then compared to applicable regulatory standards and guidelines. On-site assessments of total and inhalable particulate matter, vinyl chloride, methane, odour and noise were conducted during September 2006 to examine existing landfill conditions, provide site-specific emission rates and provide additional guidance for the calculation of site emission rates Climate Data The typical climate of the study area is shown in Table L2.1 below and was taken from the Canadian Climate Normals prepared by Environment Canada for various stations in Ontario. The station used here was the Dorset MOE station as being representative of the study area. Page L-4

10 Table L2.1 - Climate Data Month Temperature Total precipitation Days With more than ( C) (mm) 0.2 mm January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual Wind direction and wind speed data were not available for stations in the immediate area of the site. The wind frequency (wind rose) data shown in Figure L2.1 were derived from the surface meteorological data set for dispersion modelling made available by the Ontario Ministry of Environment for sites located in the Barrie and Owen Sound area (MOE, 2006a). This dataset is based on five years ( ) of one-hour surface meteorological data recorded at Pearson International Airport. The data is preprocessed in order for it to be representative of the region by the MOE. The information provides a background against which subsequent data may be evaluated. It is seen that the prevailing wind direction is from the southwest to north. Page L-5

11 Figure L2.1 Windrose for the Owen Sound and Barrie area for the period based on the MOE meteorological data set for dispersion modelling (MOE, 2006a) Particulate Matter Impact Assessment Particulate matter from landfill operations is emitted intermittently from two primary sources. These are construction activities associated with excavation and landfill cover application; and vehicle traffic on the site. Dust emissions occur mainly during dry weather and consist of total suspended particulate (TSP) and the inhalable fractions (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). Particulate matter is classified by the MOE according to its aerodynamic size mainly due to the different impacts associated with particulate of different diameters. TSP refers to particles that have an average aerodynamic diameter of less than 44 microns (1 micron = 10-6 metre) in diameter. Such particles may be carried some distance by the wind and are mainly related to nuisance impacts such as reduced visibility or soiling. The inhalable fraction of particles with average aerodynamic diameters of less than 10 microns is known as PM 10. This fraction may be carried over longer distances by the wind and are small enough to pass through the body s defenses and into the lungs. Page L-6

12 Regulatory Guidelines The provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and its regulations, in particular Regulation 419, govern airborne emissions from landfill operations. Section 33 of the Regulation notes that: No person shall cause or permit to be caused the emission of any air contaminant to such an extent or degree as may, (a) cause discomfort to persons; (b) cause loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; (c) interfere with normal conduct of business; or (d) cause damage to property. The MOE guidelines for offsite particulate concentration in micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m 3 ) are defined either in terms of an Ambient Air Quality Criterion (AAQC) or by the Point of Impingement (POI) impact concentration. The POI is usually the concentration at a defined receptor. This may be either a grid point at or beyond the property line or it may refer to a specific receptor (residence, school or other inhabited building). Table L2.2 shows the particulate criteria for different particle sizes and averaging periods. Table L2.2 - Particulate Criteria used in the Assessment Particle 30-Minute Criterion 24-Hour Criterion Type (μg/m 3 ) (μg/m 3 ) Annual Criterion (μg/m 3 ) 1 TSP PM 10 NA 50 NA 1 Criteria based on visibility impact 2 Interim criterion based on health impact NA No standard currently available To predict the particulate emission from the proposed expansion, the following sources were considered: Wind erosion from exposed surfaces such as sand or gravel storage piles; Dust generated through material handling (excavation, cover etc); Dust generated by vehicles (trucks, loaders, compactors etc.) travelling on the site including both paved and unpaved surfaces on the site; and Page L-7

13 Dust generated by vehicles travelling to and from the site on the primary access roads Assessment of Baseline Conditions for Particulate Onsite measurements were conducted to determine background levels for particulate matter. This assessment included the following: Measurement of ambient total (TSP) and inhalable (PM 10 ) particulate matter at three locations on the existing Rosewarne Drive landfill; and Collection of meteorological data for days when sampling was in progress On-site particulate sampling was carried out between September 26 and 30, Two types of particulate matter sampling equipment were used. A high volume Tisch samplers were used to collect TSP and PM10, and Airmetrics MiniVol samplers used to collect PM10. Samples were collected over 24-hour periods in accordance with standard practice and analyzed gravimetrically by Maxxam Analytical Laboratories, Burlington Ontario for the Tisch samples and by Airmetrics Laboratories, Oregon USA for the Airmetrics MiniVol samples. Measurement stations and equipment are listed in Table L2.3, locations are shown in Figures B1 B5 for S1, and Figures B6 B10 for S2 and S3, in Attachment B. Table L2.3 - Particulate Sampling Locations Station ID S1 Location Equipment Type Sampling period Maintenance area Tisch TM TSP High Volume sampler Tisch TM PM10 High volume sampler September S2 East of landfill Airmetrics Minivol PM10 sampler September S3 West of landfill Airmetrics Minivol PM10 sampler September Results of the sampling are shown in Table L2.4, detailed sampling data are provided in Attachment B. Page L-8

14 Table L2.4 Summary of particulate sampling results Site ID Date 24-Hour TSP Concentration (ug/m3) 24-hour PM10 Concentration (ug/m3) 24-Hour criterion exceeded? S1 Sept 26, No S2 Sept 26, No S3 Sept 26, No S1 Sept 27, No S2 Sept 27, No S3 Sept 27, No S1 Sept 28, No S2 Sept 28, No S3 Sept 28, No S1 Sept 29, No S2 Sept 29, No S3 Sept 29, No S1 Sept 30, No S2 Sept 30, No S3 Sept 30, No Average Meteorological conditions during the sampling period are summarized in Table L2.5 below. Table L2.5 - Meteorological conditions during monitoring Date Primary Wind Wind Speed Direction (km/hr) Weather Sept 26, 2006 S 12 Clear Sept 27, 2006 SW 16 Cloudy with Rainy periods Sept 28, 2006 NW 8 Clear Sept 29, 2006 N 9 Clear Sept 30, 2006 SSE 16 Cloudy with Rainy periods Page L-9

15 Landfill Particulate Emission Assessment Methodology The major source for reliable information on potential particulate emission rates from landfill operations is an emission factor database which has been compiled and published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In the EPA document AP-42, Chapter 13 Miscellaneous Sources, Section 13.2 Introduction to Fugitive Dust Sources. In their discussion on emission factors, the EPA notes that: An emission factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity related to the release of that pollutant. These factors are usually expressed as the weight of a pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume, distance or duration of the activity actually emitting the pollutant (e.g. kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram of earth moved). Such factors facilitate estimation of emissions from various sources of air pollution. In most case these factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable quality, and are generally assumed to be representative of long-term averages. (USA EPA, 2006) The general equation for emissions estimation by emission factors is: E = A x EF x (1 ER/100) Where : E= emission rate A = activity rate EF = emission factor, and ER = overall emission reduction or control efficiency applied (%). For landfill operations, dust emissions arise from mechanical disturbance of soils or sediments exposed to the air and the subsequent entrainment of that dust into the prevailing wind. The amount of dust so generated then depends on the type of activity or speed of vehicle; the type and size range of the impacted soil particles; the wind speed and the soil moisture content. Details of the calculation methodologies for the various emission sources and input values for the calculations are shown in Attachment C-1. Table L2.6 summarizes the parameters used in calculating the emission factors. Page L-10

16 Table L2.6 - Parameters used in emission factor calculations Parameter Value Source Silt Loading of paved internal road and 7.4 g/m 2 AP-42 Ch Table Rosewarne Drive Silt Loading of paved Taylor Road 0.2 g/m 2 AP-42 Ch Table Silt Loading of upaved internal road 6.4 % AP-42 Ch Table Moisture content of cover 12 % AP-42 Ch Table Moisture content of granular 7.4 % AP-42 Ch Table Vehicle speed 40km/h Particulate Emission Model Scenarios Two worst-case emission scenarios, with respect to both landfilling and construction activities, have been examined. The scenarios include two different stages of operation, one near the start of operations at the landfill expansion site, when construction activity would be high and one near the end of the landfill life when landfill gas emissions would be higher. The two scenarios reflect operations at the southern end of the landfill, and at the northern end of the landfill. The scenarios are identified for the years in which they would occur as Scenario 2012 and Scenario 2032, respectively. Table L2.7 - Rosewarne Drive Landfill Impact Analysis Years Year Total Annual Total Landfill Waste Quantity Volume Total Annual Daily Cover Volume Total Annual Final Cover Volume Total (tonnes) (m 3 ) (m 3 ) (m 3 ) (m 3 ) ,918 24,489 4, ,015 24,638 4, ,111 24,787 4, ,157 24,858 4,972 5,000 9, ,203 24,928 4,986 l l l ,629 71,737 14, ,871 72,109 14,422 8,250 22, ,115 72,485 14,497 Notes: Landfill volume based on apparent waste density of 0.65 tonnes/m 3. Daily cover volume assumed to be proportional to waste tonnage received. Page L-11

17 In the modelling exercise, it is assumed that construction activity is governed by the best industry practices for noise and dust reduction. Intense construction activities such as excavation of Cells 2 and 9 in years 2012 and 2032, respectively, are not considered typical landfilling activities. Therefore, in accordance with general practice, short-term construction activities have not been modelled in this assessment. However, typical construction and operational activities related to granular application for the leachate collection system and capping, landfilling and daily cover application have been included in the modelling. Due to the possibility that soils and sediment may be tracked outside of the facility boundary and onto Rosewarne Drive by the truck traffic, the silt loading of Rosewarne Drive has been conservatively assumed to be similar to the internal paved road of the landfill expansion. The landfill currently operates from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm from Monday to Friday, from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday, and from 11:00 am to 4:30 pm on Sunday Baseline 2006 Particulate matter emissions from the existing landfill was assessed using the current operational activities. Landfill traffic related particulate matter was assumed to be generated from waste and cover material truck traffic on unpaved roads on the landfill and along paved access route of Rosewarne Drive and Taylor Road. For 2006, the number of waste trucks was 12 and one cover material truck. The month of August was assumed to be representative of the worst case scenario in order to be consistent with the worst case scenarios that were developed for the expansion Scenario 2012 The worst-case scenario was developed by considering the summer as the most active for construction and waste influx with August being assumed the worst month from the historical data of the existing landfill. In Scenario 2012, waste is being landfilled in Cell 01, while the leachate collection system is being constructed in Cell 02. Vehicular Traffic Particulate Matter Eighteen Waste trucks per day, each truck traveling 240 m into and out of the landfill on unpaved roadway and 1,300 m into and out of the landfill on paved roadway along Rosewarne Drive and 620 m on paved roadway along Taylor Road from Highway 11 (total return distances). Two cover material trucks per day, each traveling a total of 300 m on unpaved roadway on the landfill supplying soil cover to the working face area (total return distances). Page L-12

18 Twenty-nine dump trucks hauling clay, stone and sand, each truck traveling 240 m into and out of the landfill on unpaved roadway and 1,300 m into and out of the landfill on paved roadway along Rosewarne Drive, and 620 m on paved roadway along Taylor Road from Highway 11 (total return distances). Since light vehicular traffic (cars and pickups) is to be restricted to the designated waste drop-off location at the entrance to the existing landfill, the impact of this type of traffic does not contribute to the road dust emissions from the proposed expansion. Surface Particulate Matter Sources Working area soil cover of Cell 01 taken from neighbouring unconstructed Cells of volume 610 m 3. Working area cover area of approximately 210 m 2 and a similar exposed surface area from the neighbouring undeveloped cell where the cover was excavated. A completed Cell 02 with the exposed final sand layer of the leachate collection system of 13,000 m 2. Typical construction activity of application of granular material and capping Scenario 2032 The worst-case scenario was developed using the approach described in Scenario August was assumed the worst-case month for scenario development. In Scenario 2032, waste is being landfilled in Cell 08, while the leachate collection system is being constructed in Cell 09. Vehicular Traffic Particulate Matter Forty-eight waste trucks per day, each truck traveling 2,000 m into and out of the landfill on unpaved roadway and 1,300 m into and out of the landfill on paved roadway along Rosewarne Drive, and 620 m on paved roadway along Taylor Road from Highway 11 (total return distances). Three cover trucks per day, each traveling a total of 300 m on unpaved roadway on the landfill supplying soil cover to the working face area (total return distances). Thirty-seven dump trucks hauling clay, stone and sand, each truck traveling 2,100 m into and out of the landfill on unpaved roadway and 1,300 m into and out of the landfill on paved roadway along Rosewarne Drive, and 620 m on paved roadway along Taylor Road from Highway 11 (total return distances). Light vehicular traffic was excluded from the assessment as described above in Scenario Page L-13

19 Surface Particulate Matter Sources Working area soil cover of Cell 08 taken from outside of the landfill area but within the boundary of the proposed expansion; volume of cover soil approximately 1,007 m 3. Working area cover area of approximately 290 m 2 and a similar exposed surface area from the cover excavation site. A completed Cell 09 with the exposed final sand layer of the leachate collection system of 16,500 m 2. Typical construction activity of application of granular material and capping Particulate Matter Emission Rates Details of the calculation methodologies for the various emission sources and input values for the calculations are shown in Attachment C-1. Baseline 2006 Scenario 2012 Table L2.8 - Baseline 2006 Particulate Matter Emission Rates Source TSPM PM10 Paved internal & Rosewarne Drive (g/s) Taylor Rd (g/s) Unpaved (g/s) Landfilling (g/s) Table L Particulate Matter Emission Rates Source TSPM PM10 Paved Internal & Rosewarne Drive (g/s) Taylor Rd (g/s) Unpaved (g/s) Cover application (g/s) Cell 1 Cover/Excavated Erosion (g/s) 4.9E-5 2.3E-5 Cell 2 Granular (g/s) 8.3E-4 3.9E-4 Construction/overburden (g/s) Construction/compacting (g/s Page L-14

20 Scenario 2032 Table L Particulate Matter Emission Rates Source TSPM PM10 Paved Internal & Rosewarne Drive (g/s) Taylor Rd (g/s) Unpaved (g/s) Cover application (g/s) Cell 8 Cover/Excavated Erosion (g/s) 8.1E-5 3.8E-5 Cell 9 Granular (g/s) 1.0E-3 5.0E-4 Construction/overburden (g/s) Construction/compacting (g/s) Particulate Matter Dispersion Modelling AERMOD Dispersion Model Atmospheric dispersion has been modelled using the Lakes Environmental ISC- AERMOD View (v 5.6) version of the USA EPA AERMOD suite of dispersion models. The AERMIC (American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee) Regulatory Model, AERMOD was specially designed to support the US EPA s regulatory modelling programs. AERMOD is the next-generation air dispersion model that incorporates concepts such as planetary boundary layer theory and advanced methods for handling complex terrain. AERMOD was developed to replace the Industrial Source Complex Model-Short Term (ISCST3) as US EPA s approved model for most small scale regulatory applications. The Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) building downwash algorithms are incorporated into AERMOD. This provides a more realistic handling of downwash effects than previous approaches. The model accepts hourly meteorological data records to define the conditions for plume rise, transport and dispersion. The model estimates the concentration or deposition value for each source-receptor combination, for each hour of input meteorology, and calculates short-term averages, such as 1-hr, 8-hr and 24-hr averages. The hourly averages can also be combined into longer averages (monthly, seasonal, annual or period). All 1-hr average outputs from the model were also multiplied by to determine ½-hr average MOE POI limits from the 1-hr predicted levels (MOE, 2005). The AERMOD model has been approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for use in determining compliance from industrial or landfill sites. AERMOD includes provisions for deposition and dispersion and is run using five (5) years of meteorological Page L-15

21 data provided in the form of validated regional data sets by the Ministry of the Environment. For the Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion, the meteorological and terrain data set approved for use on projects in this area have been utilized. Meteorological Data The MOE approved meteorological data for dispersion modelling exercises for sites located in the Owen Sound and Barrie area were used in this study (MOE, 2006a). This data consisted of five years ( ) of one-hour surface meteorological data recorded at Pearson International Airport and the corresponding five years of hourly upper air data recorded at Buffalo NY, USA meteorological station. The data is further preprocessed for air dispersion modelling by the MOE. The majority of the land use surrounding the landfill was forested. Therefore the surface meteorological data preprocessed for a forested land use type was used. The following are the default seasonal values for the surface parameters of albedo, Bowen ratio, and aerodynamic roughness length. Table L Surface Parameters for Dispersion Modelling Season Albedo Bowen Ratio Surface Roughness Length (m) Winter Spring Summer Fall Terrain Data Canadian digital elevation terrain data for the region was used by the model. The digital data was at a scale of 1:50,000, with elevation data in metres above sea level, and based on the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) horizontal reference datum. Area of Modelling Coverage All modelling was undertaken in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. The coordinate system used for mapping was North American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983), Zone 17. Electronic drawings of the landfill areas and property boundary were overlaid onto the roadway and building location base map for digitization. A multi-tiered grid centred on Rosewarne Drive between the expansion and existing landfill was used to calculate concentrations and interpolate concentration isopleths. The multi-tiered grid spacing was as follows: Page L-16

22 intervals of 20 m up to 200 m away from the property boundary, intervals of 50 m up to 300 m away from the property boundary, intervals of 100 m up to 800 m away from the property boundary, intervals of 200 m up to 1800 m away from the property boundary, and intervals of 400 m up to 5000 m away from the property boundary. Thirteen additional discrete grid points were added, described below, bringing the total number of receptor grid points to Sensitive Receptors In addition to the modelling grid, thirteen sensitive receptors were chosen to help summarize the modelling results and at which a comparison was made to applicable criteria. These receptors were also used in the Noise Assessment Study. Table L Sensitive Receptors Used in the Assessment Receptor ID Northing Easting Type POR Residential POR Residential POR Residential POR Commercial POR Residential POR Residential POR Residential POR School POR School POR Commercial POR Residential POR Residential POR Commercial The nearest receptor POR13 was located approximately 30 m south of the expansion landfill boundary. The farthest receptor was POR09 located approximately 1100 m south of the expansion landfill property boundary. Receptors POR11 and POR12 were located approximately 900 m north of the landfill property boundary while all other receptors were and to the west to southeast of the facility. All of the receptor locations are also shown below in Figure L2.2 below. Page L-17

23 Figure L2.2 - Receptor locations. Page L-18

24 Results of the Analysis Baseline 2006 There were no receptors that saw exceedances of the MOE ½-hr (100 μg/m 3 ) and 24-hr (120 μg/m 3 ) limits for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSPM) (see Table L2.13). Table L Baseline Total Suspended Particulate Matter POI concentrations POR x y 1-hr 1/2-hr TSPM Concentrations with Background Levels (μg/m 3 ) % MOE 1/2-hr Limit Exceeds MOE ½-hr Limit 24-hr % MOE 24-hr Limit Exceeds MOE 24-hr Limit No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No There were no receptors that saw exceedances of the MOE 24-hr interim limit for PM 10 of 50 μg/m 3 including background ambient contribution (see Table L2.14 below). Page L-19

25 Table L Baseline 2006 PM 10 POI Concentrations PM 10 with Background (μg/m 3 ) Scenario 2012 POR x y 24-hr % MOE 24-hr Interim Limit Exceeds MOE Limit No No No No No No No No No No No No No None of the selected receptors saw exceedances of the MOE ½-hr (100 μg/m 3 ) and 24- hr (120 μg/m 3 ) limits for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSPM) (see Table L2.15). Table L Scenario Total Suspended Particulate Matter POI concentrations TSPM Concentrations with Background Levels (μg/m 3 ) POR x y 1-hr 1/2-hr % MOE 1/2-hr Limit Exceeds MOE Limit 24-hr % MOE 24-hr Limit Exceeds MOE Limit No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Page L-20

26 There were no receptors that saw exceedances of the MOE 24-hr interim limit for PM 10 of 50 μg/m 3 (see Table L2.16 below). Table L Scenario 2012 PM 10 POI Concentrations PM 10 with Background (μg/m 3 ) Scenario 2032 POR x y 24-hr % MOE 24-hr Interim Limit Exceeds MOE Limit No No No No No No No No No No No No No Receptors 01, 04 and 13 saw exceedances of the MOE ½-hr limit of 100 μg/m 3 for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSPM) by 38 %, 25 % and 25 %, respectively with background levels of 22 μg/m 3 included. Estimated concentrations included the measured ambient levels. All other receptors were below the ½-hr MOE limit (see Table ). The frequency of exceedance was considered to be low. POR 01 is primarily affected by TSPM generated by landfill-based truck traffic along Rosewarne Drive from Taylor Road. Exceedances with the contribution of the background level only occurred for seven 1-hour periods over the entire simulation period. POR 13 is affected by TSPM generated by truck traffic on Rosewarne Drive and the landfill site. Seventeen 1-hour periods of exceedances were predicted over the modelling period. POR 04 is primarily affected by TSPM generated by truck traffic on the landfill site and there was only one hour that was in exceedance. There were no exceedances of the MOE s 24-hr POI limit with predicted POIs below the criterion at the identified receptors. Page L-21

27 Table L Scenario Total Suspended Particulate Matter POI concentrations TSPM Concentrations with Background Levels (ug/m3) % MOE POR x y 1-hr 1/2-hr 1/2- hr Limit Exceeds MOE Limit 24-hr % MOE 24-hr Limit Exceeds MOE Limit Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No There were no receptors that saw exceedances of the MOE 24-hr interim limit for PM 10 of 50 μg/m 3 (see Table L2.18 below). Page L-22

28 Table L Scenario 2032 PM 10 POI Concentrations PM 10 with Background (μg/m 3 ) POR x y 24-hr % MOE 24-hr Interim Limit Exceeds MOE Limit No No No No No No No No No No No No No Proposed Dust Mitigation Measures The above modelling of particulate matter dispersion were carried out without mitigation of dust generation and applying a conservative silt loading of the road surface of Rosewarne Drive. This silt loading was similar to the loading of the paved roadway of the landfill expansion. Maximum half-hour ground level concentrations of suspended particulate matter off-site of the landfill expansion facility always occurred on Rosewarne Drive south of the expansion facility s boundary. These maxima were above the MOE half-hour limit of 100 μg/m 3. No off-site exceedance in the 24-hour limit of 120 μg/m 3 were predicted. Applying the active mitigation measures described below, in particular watering and sweeping of the access routes of Taylor Road and Rosewarne Drive and the reduction in vehicular speed, can result in maximum ground level concentrations of suspended particulate matter to be below the MOE limit on Rosewarne Drive. For 2012, only Rosewarne Drive would require treatment, and by 2032 both access roads will require treatment. Passive Mitigation measures Most of the excavation work will occur below grade, which will serve to reduce the wind generation of dust and the spread of dust. Page L-23

29 Active Mitigation Measures On-site roads will either be paved or have hard packed surfaces to minimize dust generation; The speed limit for on-site traffic will be reduced; Dust suppression activities (water spraying, use of suppressants) will be in effect whenever road conditions are such that elevated dust generation is likely. Muskoka will request that the Town sweep or clean the access roads (i.e. Rosewarne Drive; Taylor Road) periodically Landfill Gas Impact Assessment Gas generated by decaying waste in a landfill will migrate upwards through the soil cover to the surface of the landfill. At the surface it is picked up by the prevailing winds and transported through the atmosphere. This migration is reduced once final cover is installed and the landfill capped. The landfill gas mainly consists of carbon dioxide and methane. There are also trace amounts of non-methane hydrocarbon (NMOCs) which typically account for less than 1% of the total landfill gas emission. Of these NMOCs, vinyl chloride is generally recognized as being the limiting contaminant of interest due to its low regulatory limits that are listed in Table L2.19. Table L MOE Limits for Vinyl Chloride (O.Reg 419/05) Pollutant Averaging period Criterion Limiting Effect Vinyl chloride 30-minute 24-hour Annual 3.0 ug/m3 1.0 ug/m3 0.2 ug/m3 Health Health Health Assessment of landfill gas emissions was conducted using the US EPA Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM version 3.02, May 2005) Assessment of Baseline Condition for Landfill Gas Annual landfill gas emissions from the existing site as reported to the MOE under O.Reg. 127/01 by Pinestone Engineering and Stantec Consulting are shown in Table L2.20. Page L-24

30 Table L Reported Landfill Gas Emission Parameter Carbon dioxide 1,231,000 1,053,000 1,414,000 Methane 448, , ,200 Volatile organic 2,869 2,450 3,294 Compounds (VOC) For volatile organic compounds, this translates as an emission rate of approximately 0.1 g/s based on the 2004 report. On September 29, 2006 five (5) samples of landfill gas were collected by evacuated Summa canisters. Each canister was equipped with a calibrated flow controller to allow for sampling over a 24-hour period. Samples were collected at locations around and from the centre of the existing landfill. Samples were analyzed for vinyl chloride as the limiting indicator of volatile organic compound emissions. The analysis was done by Maxxam Analytics, Burlington Ontario. All samples showed vinyl chloride concentrations below the method detection limit of 0.1 ppbv (see Attachment B). This supports the estimated emission rate of VOCs for the entire landfill calculated from the data given in Table L2.20 above Landfill Gas Emissions Landfill gas emissions, including methane and non-methane organic compounds were estimated using the latest version of USA EPA Landfill Gas Emission Model LandGEM (v 3.02, May 2005). LandGEM is a first-order decay model which estimates the annual flux of total landfill gas, methane, carbon dioxide, total non-methane organic compounds, and 46 species of air pollutants. Historical waste influx rates for the existing Rosewarne Drive Landfill (Pinestone Engineering / Stantec Consulting, 2003, 2004, and 2005) were used to generate emission estimates for the 2006 baseline year. Waste influx rates for the expansion was estimated by Dillon for 2009 to 2035 based on the waste characteristics of Muskoka which included waste diversion programs and projects, and population growth. This data was used to estimate landfill emissions for the Scenario assessment years 2012 and These assessment years were selected based on the maximum landfill gas predicted by LandGEM for the existing landfill and landfill expansion, respectively. The default LandGEM vinyl chloride concentration of 7.37 ppmv in the landfill gas was adjusted to 0.28 ppm based on the study by Tanapat (2004). This study examined the landfill gas concentrations of NMOC being generated by the Brady Road landfill in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This is a conservative estimate for the Rosewarne Drive Landfill since the Brady Road landfill is a large municipal landfill. Page L-25

31 Existing Rosewarne Drive Landfill Emissions from the existing landfill site were modelled as the baseline condition. Table L LandGEM Input parameters (Existing site) Parameter Units Value Comments Landfill open year 1971 Landfill closed year 2011 Methane generation rate (k) Per year Environment Canada recommended value for Ontario Potential methane L 3 /Mg 170 Environment Canada generation capacity (L o ) recommended value NMOC concentration ppmv hexane 4000 EPA conventional value Methane content % by volume 50 EPA conventional value Vinyl Chloride ppmv 0.28 Tanapat S. (2004) Concentration Table L Existing Landfill Waste Input Data Calculated Input Units Units Year (short (Mg/year) tons/year) ,648 8, ,807 9, ,812 7, ,503 10, ,595 10, ,630 11, ,630 11, ,235 20, ,636 20, ,027 22, ,730 21, ,333 22, ,664 22, * 19,664 22,366 * Conservatively assumed same as 2005 District Municipality of Muskoka Air Emissions Report Ontario Regulation 127/01 (2003, 2004, 2005). Page L-26

32 The results of the LandGEM analysis for the existing landfill baseline are shown in Table L2.23 below and graphically in Figure L2.3. Table L Existing Landfill Area Emission Estimates (LandGEM) Year Waste Total landfill Carbon Vinyl Methane Accepted gas dioxide chloride (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Page L-27

33 Table L Existing Landfill Area Emission Estimates (LandGEM) Year Waste Total landfill Carbon Vinyl Methane Accepted gas dioxide chloride (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) , , , , , , Page L-28

34 Figure L2.3 - LandGEM analysis for Existing Landfill Page L-29

35 Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion Landfill gas emissions from the landfill expansion were estimated and used as source inputs to the dispersion modelling. Table L LandGEM Input parameters (Expansion Site) Parameter Units Value Comments Landfill open year 2009 Landfill closed year 2035 Methane generation rate (k) Per year Environment Canada recommended value for Ontario Potential methane L 3 /Mg 170 Environment Canada generation capacity (L o ) recommended value NMOC concentration ppmv hexane 4000 EPA conventional value Methane content % by volume 50 EPA conventional value Vinyl Chloride ppmv 0.28 Tanapat S. (2004) Concentration Page L-30

36 Table L Landfill Expansion Waste Input data Year Input Units (Mg/year) Calculated Units (short tons/year) ,918 17, ,015 17, ,111 17, ,157 17, ,203 17, ,249 17, ,295 17, ,247 35, ,349 35, ,452 35, ,992 48, ,131 48, ,269 48, ,500 48, ,731 49, ,964 49, ,198 49, ,434 49, ,670 50, ,908 50, ,147 50, ,387 51, ,629 51, ,871 51, ,115 51, ,360 52, ,607 52,368 Page L-31

37 The results of the LandGEM analysis for the expansion site are shown in Table L2.26 below and graphically in Figure L2.24. Table L Proposed Landfill Expansion Area Emission Estimates (LandGEM) Year Waste Accepted Total landfill gas Methane Carbon dioxide Vinyl chloride (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) (Mg/year) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Page L-32

38 Figure L LandGEM analysis for Proposed Expansion Landfill Landfill Gas Dispersion Modelling AERMOD was used to estimated the downwind ground level concentrations of vinyl chloride under the three scenarios described above. This was done for the receptors that were previously identified and used in the particulate matter assessment described in Section 2.3. The same meteorological data, surface parameters, terrain data, model grid spacing, and receptors for the particulate matter dispersion modelling was maintained. The LandGEM emission rates of vinyl chloride were used to generate the downwind ground level concentrations. Estimated emissions and downwind concentrations for 2012 and 2036 included the contribution from the existing landfill. Table L2.27 lists the emission rates used in the dispersion modelling study. Table L2.27 Total Emission Rates used in Dispersion Modelling Existing landfill Expansion Total Emission Contaminant Units Vinyl Chloride Mg/yr Page L-33

39 Baseline 2006 The location of the maximum off-facility ground level concentration for 1-hr, 24-hr, and annual averages was within 8 m SE, 4 m ESE, and 4 m ESE of the landfill boundary, respectively. The maximum concentration was μg/m 3, μg/m 3, μg/m 3, for 1-hr, 24-hr, and annual averages, respectively. Converting the 1-hr concentration to a ½-hr average indicated that it was less than 2% of the MOE limit of 3 μg/m 3. The 24-hr concentration was approximately 1% of the MOE limit of 1 μg/m 3. All vinyl chloride concentrations were below the MOE limits at the receptors. The highest ½-hr concentration was 1% of the MOE limit at receptor POR01. This level may still be considered as conservative since there were no detectable concentrations in the ambient air samples taken over the surface of the landfill. In reality the concentrations at all PORs should be near negligible. Table L Vinyl Chloride Ground Level Concentrations for Scenario 2006 Concentrations MOE POI Limit ug/m3 Annual 24-hr 1/2-hr Annual 24-hr 1-hr Receptor x y % POI Limit POR POR POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ 0 ~ POR ~ 0 ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ 0 near zero Page L-34

40 Scenario 2012 The location of the maximum off-facility concentration for 1-hr, 24-hr, and annual averages were all within 3 m ESE of the landfill boundary. The maximum ground level concentration was μg/m 3, μg/m 3, μg/m 3, for 1-hr, 24-hr, and annual averages, respectively. Converting the 1-hr concentration to a ½-hr average indicated that it was 2% of the MOE limit of 3 μg/m 3. The 24-hr concentration was less than 2% of the MOE limit of 1 μg/m 3. All vinyl chloride ground level concentrations were below the MOE POI limits at the receptors. The highest ½-hr concentration was 1.3% of the MOE limit at receptor POR01. This level may still be considered as conservative since there were no detectable concentrations in the ambient air samples taken over the surface of the landfill. In reality the concentrations at all PORs should be near negligible. Table L Vinyl Chloride Ground Level Concentrations for Scenario 2012 Concentration MOE POI Limit ug/m3 Annual 24-hr 1/2-hr Annual 24-hr 1-hr Receptor x y % POI Limit POR POR POR POR POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ 0 ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ POR ~ 0 near zero Scenario 2036 The location of the maximum off-facility ground level concentration for 1-hr, 24-hr, and annual averages was within 4 m N, 1 m N, and 2 m E of the landfill boundary, respectively. The maximum concentration was μg/m 3, μg/m 3, μg/m 3, for 1-hr, 24-hr, and annual averages, respectively. Converting the 1-hr Page L-35

41 concentration to a ½-hr average indicated that it was less than 3% of the MOE limit of 3 μg/m 3. The 24-hr concentration was approximately 3% of the MOE limit of 1 μg/m 3. All vinyl chloride concentrations were below the MOE limits at the receptors. The highest ½-hr concentration was nearly 2% of the MOE limit at receptor POR13. This level may still be considered as conservative since there were no detectable concentrations in the ambient air samples taken over the surface of the landfill. In reality the concentrations at all PORs should be near negligible. Table L Vinyl Chloride Ground Level Concentrations for Scenario 2036 Concentration MOE POI Limit ug/m3 Annual 24-hr 1/2-hr Annual 24-hr 1-hr Receptor x y % POI Limit POR POR POR POR POR POR POR POR POR ~ POR ~ POR POR POR ~ 0 near zero Conclusion and Proposed Landfill Gas Mitigation Measures The predicted ground level concentrations of vinyl chloride emissions at all receptors were significantly below the MOE limits for all scenarios. Concentrations were only up to 3% of the MOE limit for all of the averaging periods. Landfill gas mitigation measures will include: a final cap on landfill cells as they are completed, and continuous inspection of the cap to ensure that there are no fissures and cracks that would release gas. Page L-36

42 2.5. Odour Impact Assessment Background The odour assessment incorporates the same study area as for the particulate matter emissions, and the same receptors have been assessed for impact. While there is still no specific provincial standard for odour, the MOE uses a guideline for maximum allowable offsite impact of one odour unit per cubic metre 1 ou/m 3. For modelling purposes the MOE uses a 10-minute averaging period. One odour unit is defined as the quantity of an odorous substance that, when dispensed in one cubic metre of odour-free air, becomes just detectable by a normal human observer whose sensitivity to the odorous substance represents the mean of the population. The average odour detection threshold is then 1 ou/m 3 (RWDI, 2002) Estimating Odour Flux A number of potential odour sources were considered in the assessment. These included: The working area where waste is freshly applied; Areas which have been recently landfilled but which are covered by interim cover (soil cm deep); and Odour emissions from composting. Following an inspection of the existing site and the Beiers Road (Gravenhurst) Landfill site, it was concluded that odour emissions from the working area would be the dominant odour source at the proposed Rosewarne Drive Landfill expansion site. Areas with interim cover were not expected to be a significant odour source and similarly compost windrows, as presently operated, would also be expected to have minimal impact at or beyond the property boundary. In addition, the compost area would continue to be operated at its present location and would not affect the expansion assessment. The proposed Rosewarne Drive expansion should receive less odour-causing residential organics as the household organics composting program is implemented in However, to be conservative, our worst-case odour scenario for the expansion included organic waste influx. This was developed by assuming emissions would correspond to the Beiers Road Landfill which currently accepts residential organic waste. Page L-37

43 Odour emissions were measured at the Beiers Road Landfill on November 2, Measurements were made using a dynamic flux chamber which was placed over the surface of the working face. Tedlar bags of 10 L capacity were used to collect the air samples from the flux chamber. Filled sample bags were immediately sealed with Swagelok connectors. Sample bags were then analyzed for odour threshold within 24 hrs of being collected in the field. Four locations were chosen for the flux measurements that were considered representative of the working face, along with one upwind measurement and a blank sample of pure nitrogen. Odour flux was calculated from the odour threshold levels according to the USA EPA (1985) methodology for estimating emissions from landfills using a flux chamber. The following relationship was used to calculate the odour flux from each sample: Where Odour Flux (OU/m 2 /s) = C*Q/A C = odour concentration (OU/m 3 ); Q = nitrogen inflow rate (m 3 /s); and A = surface area of flux chamber (m 2 ). Chamber used had a surface area of m 2. The measured odour concentrations from the landfill surface ranged from 61 to 134 OU/m 3. This corresponded to an odour flux from the landfill working area of 0.05 to 0.15 OU/m 2 /s. The ambient odour concentration upwind of the landfill was measured at 40 OU/m 3. Table L2.31 lists the range in flux calculated from the field measurements. Table L Odour flux from Beiers Road Landfill Sample Q C Odour Flux (L/min) (OU/m 3 ) (OU/m 2 /s) Upwind Blank Mean ± SE 0.09 ± 0.02 Page L-38

44 Modelling Odour Dispersion The AERMOD dispersion model was used to estimate the dispersion of odour from the landfill for the impact assessment years 2012 and The same meteorological data, surface parameters, terrain data, model grid spacing, and receptors described in Section 2.3 for the particulate matter dispersion modelling was maintained. The maximum calculated flux was 0.15 OU/m 2 /s and this was chosen to conservatively represent the odour flux from the Rosewarne Drive expansion for both scenario assessment years of 2012 and The following scenarios were modelled for the dispersion of odour from the working areas of the landfill where the main source of odour would be. Scenario 2012: Cell 01 is located in the southern end of the landfilling area. Odour will primarily be emitted from the working face where fresh waste will be exposed daily and with minimal cover. The estimated working face area was 210 m 2 (see Section on the dust dispersion modelling). Scenario 2032: Cell 08 is located towards the northern part of the landfilling area. Odour will primarily be emitted from the working face where fresh waste will be exposed daily and with minimal cover. The estimated working face area was 290 m 2 (see Section on the dust dispersion modelling). Maximum one-hour average ground level concentrations of odour, expressed as OU/m 3, were estimated for the model grid points and receptors. These concentrations were then converted to 10-min averaged concentrations using the following expression for comparison with the MOE point of impingement (POI) guideline limit of 1 OU/m 3. POI 10-min = POI 1-hr * (t 1 /t 0 ) n, Where t 1 is the longer time period (1 hr), t 0 is the shorter time period (10 min), and n is Therefore, 1-hr POIs greater than 0.61 OU/m 3 would exceed the 10-min 1-OU/m 3 limit Modelled Odour Levels Scenario 2012 Maximum 10-min ground level concentration of 0.17 OU/m 3 was predicted to occur at the southern fenceline of the expansion facility. Odour levels beyond the fenceline were Page L-39

45 significantly below this maximum and therefore no receptor exceeded the MOE s 10-min 1 OU/m 3 limit (i.e., 0.61 OU/m 3 1-hr level). The closest receptor POR13 located approximately 30 m south of the fenceline had a 10-min maximum odour concentration of 0.08 OU/m 3. Based on the conservative odour flux of 0.15 OU/m 2 /s, landfill odour emissions were considered to have minimal impact on the immediate surrounding area Scenario 2032 Maximum 10-min ground level concentration of 0.23 OU/m 3 was predicted to occur at the northern fenceline of the expansion facility. Odour levels beyond the fenceline were significantly below this maximum and therefore no receptor exceeded the MOE s 10-min 1 OU/m 3 limit (i.e., 0.61 OU/m 3 1-hr level). The closest receptor POR07 located approximately 190 m west of the fenceline had a 10-min maximum odour concentration of 0.07 OU/m 3. Therefore, based on the conservative odour flux of 0.15 OU/m 2 /s, landfill odour emissions were considered to have minimal impact on the immediate surrounding area Conclusion and Proposed Mitigation Measures Odours emitted directly form the landfill surface are not expected to be an issue at the proposed expansion based on the above modeling results. To minimize the potential odour emissions the size of the working area should be kept to a minimum; waste should be covered every night and the existing fill area should be capped with final cover as soon as it is closed Blowing Litter Impact Assessment Background In the operation of a municipal landfill, nuisance to the community resulting from blowing litter which can be transported off-site during high wind episodes must be minimized. Previous work by RWDI (2002) indicates the following zones of impact for blowing litter as a function of wind speed. Page L-40

46 Table L Zones of Impact for Blowing Litter Distance from landfill Finding perimeter 0-500m 50% of escaping litter remains in this area m Remaining 50% retained in this area Beyond 1000 m Very little escapes beyond this distance RWDI (2002) Impact category Medium Low None In wind tunnel assessments performed by RWDI (2002) found that the following threshold speeds would be required for various categories of wind-blown litter. Table L Litter Category versus Wind Speed Wind speed range Litter description Impact category 0 22 km/h No blowing litter None km/h Newsprint, tissue, paper towel, some Light light bond paper km/h All the above plus plastic bags, small boxes, small cardboard tubes, paper bags, plastic sheets. Moderate Above 47 km/h All the above plus extensive heavy heavy bond paper RWDI (2002) Site Wind Conditions From the Ontario Wind Atlas (2006), the average annual wind speed at 10 metres above the ground is 2.4 m/s (8.6 km/h). Extrapolating this to the surface by assuming a logarithmic wind profile and aerodynamic roughness length of 1.1 m for a typical forest cover (mean annual roughness length based on the MOE meteorological data for the dispersion modelling used elsewhere in this report), the annual mean wind velocity at 2 m above the surface would be approximately 0.6 m/s or 2.3 km/h. The frequency of occurrence of potential blowing litter conditions are shown in Table L2.34 below for wind statistics in the local region estimated by the Ontario Wind Atlas (2006). Page L-41

47 Table L Frequency of Occurrence of Blowing Litter with Wind Speed Speed range Annual frequency (%) km/h <0.1 The majority of wind velocities experienced at the landfill would not result in any blowing litter. Wind velocities measured on site, shown in Table were all in the 0 22 km/h range Conclusion and Proposed Mitigation Measures Light blowing litter conditions have the potential to occur on an occasional basis at the Rosewarne Drive Landfill expansion site while moderate to heavy occurrences will be very infrequent or non-existent. The potential impact within 500 m of the site is rated as low while beyond 500 m the impact is rated as very low. These are conservative estimates as landfilling will occur below grade thus further reducing the possibility of litter being blown off from the currently active landfill cell. The following measures are proposed to ensure minimal off-site litter: Covering of waste haul trucks will be checked regularly; Covering the landfill working face each night; Maintenance of and improvement to vegetated lands buffering fill area; Use of a portable litter fence around the working area; Public education regarding recycling of plastic bags; and Continuation of regular litter inspection and clean-up. Page L-42

48 2.7. References USEPA AP-42 Fifth Edition Volume 1. Chapter 13 Miscellaneous Sources Section 13.2 Introduction to Fugitive Dust Sources Final Section January 1995 Section Paved Roads Draft Section March 2006 Section Unpaved Roads Draft Section March 2006 Section Heavy Construction Operations - Final Section January 1995 Section Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles Draft Section March 2006 USA EPA 1985: Measurement of gaseous emission rates from land surfaces using an emission isolation flux chamber user s guide, NTIS # PB , 57 pp. District of Muskoka Air Emissions Report Ontario Regulation 127/01 Reporting Year 2002, Pinestone Engineering / Stantec Consulting, May 26, 2003 District of Muskoka Air Emissions Report Ontario Regulation 127/01 Reporting Year 2003, Pinestone Engineering / Stantec Consulting, May 28, 2004 District of Muskoka Air Emissions Report Ontario Regulation 127/01 Reporting Year 2004, Pinestone Engineering / Stantec Consulting, July 21, 2005 Ontario Wind Atlas, 2006: Ministry of Natural Resources, Wind Resource Atlas Maps, Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2006a: Regional Meteorological Datasets for Air Dispersion Modelling, Southwestern Region, Barrie, Owen Sound, Forest Land Use Type, MOE, 2006c: Proposed approach for the implementation of odour-based standards and guidelines, Position Paper, Ministry of Environment, Government of Ontario, pp 12, June, Ministry of the Environment Landfill Standards Guideline RWDI, 2002: Trail Waste Facility Landfill Optimization Project Attachment L, landfill Atmospheric Studies. Page L-43

49 Tanapat S., 2004: A feasibility study of municipal waste-to-energy management: measurement of landfill gas quality at Brady Road Landfill in Canada, MSc Thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, 133pp. Page L-44

50 3. ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE 3.1. Scope of Assessment The existing Rosewarne Drive Landfill facility is slated to be closed by A nine cell landfill expansion is proposed adjacent to the existing facility to accommodate waste disposal in Muskoka until The purpose of the environmental noise assessment was to quantify the potential noise impacts of the proposed landfill expansion at worst-case stages in the life of the expansion with the relevant Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) criteria. In particular, the assessment considered potential impacts from the following sources: Waste and construction traffic; Landfilling activities; Local resident waste drop off activities at existing landfill; Composting activities at existing landfill; and Background traffic of adjacent roads and highway. On-site assessments of the existing noise environment and noise sources were made during September This included the following: Background noise levels over time were determined for the existing landfill.; Landfilling equipment; Landfilling activities; Waste drop off activities; Composting equipment; and Vehicular noise. Traffic counts were also made of the following roads in order to determine their contribution to the background noise levels and estimate traffic into the existing landfill: Rosewarne Drive, and Taylor Road. The site-specific noise emission rates allows for the calculation of site emission rates. The impact of the cumulative noise sources due to the landfill activity on sensitive receptors in the area were predicted using the DataKustik GmbH CADNA/A noise Page L-45

51 modeling program (v ). The resulting receptor noise levels were then compared to applicable regulatory standards and guidelines. The MOE STAMSON 5.0 noise model was used to estimate the noise impact of traffic on the various roads around the landfill. Traffic volume data for Highway 11 between Taylor Rd and Kirk Line were received from the Ministry of Transportation (2006). Thirteen sensitive receptors were selected for the noise impact assessment (Table L3.1). These receptors were the same receptors used in the air quality impact assessment presented elsewhere in this report. Table L3.1 - Sensitive Receptors Used in the Assessment Receptor ID Northing Easting Type POR Residential POR Residential POR Residential POR Commercial POR Residential POR Residential POR Residential POR School POR School POR Commercial POR Residential POR Residential POR Commercial Page L-46

52 Figure L3.1 Receptor locations. Page L-47

53 3.2. Regulatory Guidelines Noise sources associated with the operation of landfill sites typically fall into three categories: construction equipment carrying out the landfilling operation, including onsite movement of waste trucks and vehicles; ancillary facilities such as waste receiving and recycling facilities; and off-site movement of waste trucks and vehicles MOE Limits Landfilling Operations The MOE limits for sound levels due to the landfilling operation at a Point of Reception are given in Table L3.2 below (Section a, b in MOE (1998)). These levels are expressed in terms of the One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). Table L Limits of One Hour L eq (dba) by Time of day for Landfills Time of Day Sound Pressure Level Should the environment be dominated by noise sources from human activity, such as industry, commerce or road transportation, which produce a sound level in excess of the above limits, the higher sound levels may be used as the limit, provided noise abatement is not required for these other sources. Ancillary Facilities Facilities or equipment being used at the site, other than construction equipment or onsite vehicles, are considered to be stationary noise sources. The applicable limits established for the assessment of stationary sources of sound follow the guidelines in the MOE publication NPC 205 and NPC233 (MOE, 1995a, 1995b). Off-site Source Vehicles For a landfilling site employing off-site source vehicles (i.e., vehicles hauling waste or cover material to the site) that constitute a predominant component of the background noise, an access route should be selected which will result in a minimum noise impact. The selection process should be based on a detailed quantitative assessment of noise impact on individual receptors and the number of affected receptors along the alternative routes. Page L-48

54 Implementation of Guidelines Design of the landfill expansion has followed the MOE guidelines identified above for noise sources due to the landfilling activities. The noise assessment has been carried out with these considerations which include all existing facilities and activities that will continue with the expansion as well as the access route for off-site vehicular noise sources Existing Noise Environment Background sound levels at the proposed expansion were established based on the following: continuous background level monitoring conducted at the site; and traffic noise predictions using the MOE STAMSON noise model for traffic data along Rosewarne Drive, Taylor Road., and Highway Noise Level Monitoring Methodology The background sound level monitoring program was carried out in accordance with the procedures specified in MOE Publication NPC-103. All continuous background sound level measurements were made using two Larson- Davis Model 824 Type 1 integrating sound level meters. The sound level meters were calibrated with a Larson-Davis db 1 khz acoustic calibrator. The continuous sound level measurements were made with the noise meters set on the A weighting scale. This scale simulates the response of the human ear. The meters were calibrated at the beginning and end of the monitoring period. A windscreen was placed on each meter s microphone while monitoring to reduce the effects of wind induced noise. The monitoring program consisted of two sets of continuous measurements at the proposed expansion site. Monitoring was conducted from Tuesday September 26 to Thursday 28, 2006 for 36 hrs, and from Thursday September 28 to Saturday 30, 2006, for 48 hrs. The weather condition during the monitoring periods were clear to cloudy with temperatures ranging from 2 20 ºC and average relative humidities of %. There were rainy periods during the monitoring. Page L-49

55 The on-site monitoring took place approximately 25 m west of Rosewarne Drive on the proposed expansion site and mid-way between the northern and southern boundaries of the landfill facility. The expansion site is currently a mix of wooded areas and open gravel pits with the topography sloping down westwards towards the Highway 11. The sound monitoring instrument was mounted on a pole with the microphone approximately 1.8 m above ground Measured Environmental Noise Level The measured minimum values of 1-hr Leq (dba) by time of day at the proposed expansion site are given in Table L3.3. The observations indicated that the general area has fairly low background noise levels during all three Time of Day periods. Assessment of the site indicated that possible main noise sources were the traffic of the Highway 11, and sounds of nature such as birds, insects, and leaves rustling in the wind. Table L3.3 - Measured Minimum Values of One Hour L eq (dba) by Time of day Time of Day Sept Sept At the proposed site, the maximum difference between the minimum 1-hr Leq level for the three Time of Day periods was approximately 13 dba. The minimum Leq for the period hr occurred at the beginning or end of that period. The minimum Leq for the period hrs occurred early in the morning between 02 and 04 hrs for the two monitoring periods Background Traffic Noise Level for 2006 The predominant traffic noise source was Highway 11 which runs N/S immediately west of the landfill expansion. The Ontario Ministry of Environment (Ontario MOE) STAMSON 5.0 noise model was used to estimate the noise impact of traffic on the highway. Traffic volume data for Highway 11 between Taylor Rd and Kirk Line were provided by the Ministry of Transportation (2006) for The approximate hourly traffic volume projected for 2006 was vehicles per hour. Rosewarne Drive runs N/S through the landfill facility separating the existing landfill to the east and the expansion to the west. Traffic data for this road was determined through peak traffic counts by Dillon on September 14, Traffic volume for Taylor Page L-50

56 Road which runs E/W to the south of Rosewarne Drive and forms a T-junction with Rosewarne Drive was also determined by Dillon on September 14, Table L3.4 - Background Peak Traffic Counts for 2006 Vehicle Type Taylor Road Taylor Road Hwy 11 Taylor Ct. Taylor Ct - Rosewarne Rosewarne Dr Vehicle Type AM PM AM PM AM PM Heavy Trucks Medium Trucks Cars The traffic sound levels were estimated using the Ontario Ministry of Environment (Ontario MOE) STAMSON 5.0 noise model which is based on Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method for Environment and Transportation (ORNAMENT). STAMSON calculates sound levels using three vehicle categories: Automobiles All vehicles having two axles and four wheels designed primarily for the transportation of nine or fewer passengers or the transportation of cargo (e.g. vans and light trucks). Generally, the gross vehicle weight is less than 4,500 kg. Medium Trucks All vehicles having two axles and six wheels designed for the transportation of cargo. Generally, the gross vehicle weight is greater than 4,500 but less than 12,000 kg. City buses are also included in this category. Heavy Trucks All vehicles having three or more axles and designed for the transportation of cargo. Generally, the gross vehicle weight is greater than 12,000 kg. Inter-city buses are included in this category. Other key parameters utilized by STAMSON include vehicle speed, road surface, topography gradient, ground surface conditions (absorptive or reflective) and the presence or absence of sound barriers. The STAMSON model requires an hourly traffic flow of at least 40 vehicles/hour, travelling at least 40 km/h, and a receptor location with maximum distance of 500 m from the traffic source, in order to predict sound levels for road traffic. Page L-51

57 Receptors selected for the STAMSON traffic noise modelling were: POR01 impact from Rosewarne Drive; it was assumed that POR13 would be similar to POR01. POR03 impact from Taylor Rd. east to Highway 11. POR04 impact from Highway 11, Taylor Rd., and Taylor Crt. POR05 impact from Highway 11. Analysis for POR05 will be applicable to POR06, POR07, POR11. It was assumed that PORs 09 and 10 would not be significantly impacted by Highway 11. POR12 would only be impacted by non-landfill related traffic on Rosewarne Drive and therefore be similar to POR01. Because the hourly volumes for Taylor Rd. east of Rosewarne Drive did not meet the required minimum by STAMSON, background traffic noise levels were considered below MOE criterion for any receptor within 500 m of that segment of Taylor Rd. The STAMSON model estimated daily mean sound levels due to traffic for the identified PORs are presented below in Table L3.5. Table L3.5 - SPL Determined by STAMSON 2006 POR Estimated SPL (dba) 01 (12, 13) (06, 07, 11) 59 The results indicated that for the most part, the sound environment at the PORs was dominated by traffic sources along Rosewarne Drive, Taylor Road, Taylor Court, and Highway 11. The STAMSON model provides a conservative estimate of the impact of traffic on the noise environment. With this consideration, the modelled results are similar to the measured sound levels at the proposed expansion site. Attachment D contains the STAMSON outputs for the traffic noise predictions. Page L-52

58 Background Traffic Noise Level for 2012 The Ontario Ministry of Environment (Ontario MOE) STAMSON 5.0 noise model was used to estimate the noise impact of non-landfill activity traffic and also with the addition of the landfill related volumes. Traffic volumes were estimated by Dillon for Rosewarne Drive, Taylor Road segment between Taylor Court and Rosewarne Drive, and Taylor Road segment between Taylor Court and Highway 11. Table L3.6 - Estimated Background Peak Traffic Counts for 2012 Taylor Rd. Taylor Rd. Hwy 11 Taylor Ct. Taylor Ct Rosewarne Dr. Rosewarne Dr. Vehicle Type AM PM AM PM AM PM Heavy Trucks Medium Trucks Cars Table L3.7 - Estimated Peak Traffic Counts Including Landfill Traffic for 2012 Taylor Rd. Hwy 11 Taylor Ct. Taylor Rd. Taylor Ct Rosewarne Dr. Rosewarne Dr. Vehicle Type AM PM AM PM AM PM Heavy Trucks Medium Trucks Cars The STAMSON model estimated daily mean sound levels due to traffic volumes in 2012 for the identified PORs are presented below in Table L3.8. Table L3.8 - SPL (dba) Determined by STAMSON 2012 POR Non Landfill Traffic Including Landfill Traffic 01 (12*, 13) (06, 07, 11) * Not applicable for landfill related assessment. The results indicated that landfill related traffic did not impact the estimated background noise levels at the receptors. A 1 dba increase at POR01 and POR13 is negligible and not perceptible. General traffic is the predominant background noise source for assessment year Page L-53

59 Attachment D contains the STAMSON outputs for the traffic noise predictions Background Traffic Noise Level for 2032 The Ontario Ministry of Environment (Ontario MOE) STAMSON 5.0 noise model was used to estimate the noise impact of non-landfill activity traffic and also with the addition of the landfill related volumes. Traffic volumes were estimated by Dillon for Rosewarne Drive, Taylor Road. segment between Taylor Court and Rosewarne Drive, and Taylor Road. segment between Taylor Court and Highway 11. Table L3.9 - Estimated Background Peak Traffic Counts for 2032 Taylor Rd. Taylor Rd. Hwy 11 Taylor Ct. Taylor Ct - Rosewarne Rosewarne Dr Vehicle Type AM PM AM PM AM PM Heavy Trucks Medium Trucks Cars Table L Estimated Peak Traffic Counts Including Landfill Traffic for 2032 Taylor Rd. Taylor Rd. Hwy 11 Taylor Ct. Taylor Ct Rosewarne Dr. Rosewarne Dr Vehicle Type AM PM AM PM AM PM Heavy Trucks Medium Trucks Cars The STAMSON model estimated daily mean sound levels due to traffic volumes in 2032 for the identified PORs are presented below in Table L3.11. Table L SPL (dba) Determined by STAMSON 2032 POR Non Landfill Traffic Including Landfill Traffic 01 (12*, 13) (06, 07, 11) * Not applicable for landfill related assessment. The estimated results indicated that landfill related traffic marginally contributed to the background traffic noise levels for POR01 and POR13. For POR03 and POR04 the increase was only 1 dba. General traffic is the predominant background noise source for assessment year Page L-54

60 Attachment D contains the STAMSON outputs for the traffic noise predictions Operational Characteristics Landfilling Operations The following lists the operational characteristics of the existing landfill and proposed expansion. The number of days of operation per year are 360 days. Hours of landfilling operation: 08:00 hrs 16:30 hrs, Monday to Friday 09:00 hrs 16:30 hrs, Saturday 11:00 hrs 16:30 hrs, Sunday Hours of landfill construction: 08:00 hrs 16:30 hrs, Monday to Friday. Landfill (cell) development direction is from south to north and from west to east (low end to high end of landfill base). There will be continued composting activity at the existing landfill during the lifetime of the proposed expansion. Waste drop-off by local residents will continue to be at the existing landfill thereby separating this activity from the municipal waste and construction traffic of the proposed expansion Noise Source Description The existing facility has the following noise sources: Front end loader idling and operating at the working face. Landfill compacter idling and operating at the working face. Dump truck unloading cover at working face. Lift truck idling and operating at local residence waste collection depot. Compost loader with aerator idling and turning the compost windrows. Waste truck idling at weigh scales. Cars and pickups idling in line at the weigh scales. Page L-55

61 The above noise sources were measured over a five-day noise survey at the existing facility. The measured noise data from these sources are presented in Attachment E Noise Impact Assessment Prediction Method Off-site landfill related activity, such as waste and construction truck traffic along Taylor Road and Rosewarne Drive were modelled using the MOE STAMSON 5.0 noise model. This assessment has been presented above in Section 3.3. The acoustical predictions for on-site activity were conducted with the DataKustik GmbH CADNA/A noise modeling program (v ). The outdoor noise propagation model is based on ISO 9613, Part 1: Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere, 1993, and Part 2: General Method of Calculation (ISO :1996). The sources were assumed to radiate sound spherically. The atmospheric conditions were assumed to be calm (i.e., no wind), at 10 C and 70% relative humidity. The ground absorption coefficient G was set to 1.0, a fairly acoustically absorbent ground due to the surrounding landfill and natural landscape. Due to the existence of the forested nature of the surrounding landscape, wooded areas were accounted for in the modelling. They are taken into account in the calculation according to ISO The number of reflections for the model was set to zero. This implies that there were no reflection for individual acoustic rays during propagation calculations. This was considered reasonable because of general open nature of the surrounding landscape. Although the terrain is elevated and highly uneven and landfill activities would essentially be below grade, the noise modelling was done assuming a flat terrain. This assessment can be considered as a worst case scenario where the noise propagation is unimpeded by terrain Operating Assessment Scenarios Three operating scenarios were modelled: 1. Scenario 2006 Establishing a baseline prior to expansion. 2. Scenario 2012 Construction of Cell 02 and filling of Cell 01. Assessing the impact of the worst-case intensive activity during the early stages of the proposed expansion which includes waste handling and cell construction activity. Page L-56

62 3. Scenario 2032 Construction of Cell 09 and filling of Cell 08. Assessing the impact of the worst-case intensive activity during the latter stages of the proposed expansion which includes the maximum waste handling and cell construction activity for the life of the landfill. All scenarios followed the landfill operating characteristics identified in Section Landfilling Operations. The following details the key assumptions for the above scenarios. Scenario 2006 The noise sources identified in Section Noise Source Description were used. Waste and cover fill traffic to the working face on the landfill was modelled using the traffic data that was collected by Dillon on September 14, Number of waste trucks was 12, and one cover material truck. Distance traveled on landfill was approximately 380 m from weigh scale to working face. Scenario 2012 Day-to-day equipment will be CAT 826 landfill compactor, CAT 966 rubber-tired loader and a CAT D6 bulldozer. The measured noise emission data for the landfill compactor and the rubber-tired loader at the existing landfill was applied to the above equipment. An emission level of 87.4 dba at 7.6 m was assumed for the CAT D6 bulldozer (Kimberly-Horn and Associates, 2005). Landfill compactor spreads and compacts waste. Rubber-tired loader excavates and delivers daily/intermediate cover. Bulldozer spreads daily cover and strips daily cover for reuse, it will also be used to push garbage to the working face. Waste, construction, and cover truck traffic to the working face and Cell 02 on the proposed expansion landfill was modelled assuming return travel for the following one-way travel: Truck traffic from landfill entrance to weigh scale modelled as trucks waiting and idling. Page L-57

63 Number of waste trucks was 18, on-site distance traveled by each truck 120 m Number of construction trucks 29, on-site distance traveled by each truck 120 m Number of cover trucks 2, traveling 150 m each Composting and local residences waste drop-off activities continuing at the existing landfill. Scenario 2032 Day-to-day equipment will be CAT 826 landfill compactor, CAT 966 rubber-tired loader and a CAT D6 bulldozer. The measured noise emission data for the landfill compactor and the rubber-tired loader at the existing landfill was applied to the above equipment. An emission level of 87.4 dba at 7.6 m was assumed for the CAT D6 bulldozer (Kimberly-Horn and Associates, 2005). Landfill compactor spreads and compacts waste. Rubber-tired loader excavates and delivers daily/intermediate cover. Bulldozer spreads daily cover and strips daily cover for reuse, it will also be used to push garbage to the working face. Waste, construction, and cover truck traffic to the working face and Cell 09 on the proposed expansion landfill was modelled assuming return travel for the following one-way travel: Truck traffic from landfill entrance to weigh scale modelled as trucks waiting and idling. Number of waste trucks was 48, on-site distance traveled by each truck 1000 m Number of construction trucks 37, on-site distance traveled by each truck 1050 m Number of cover trucks 3, traveling 150 m each Composting and local residences waste drop-off activities continuing at the existing landfill. Page L-58

64 Model Results The sound power level (PWL) data, presented in Attachment E, were used in CADNA/A to model the sound pressure levels (SPL) in dba at the receptor locations. In addition, the SPL isopleths in dba were calculated around the proposed expansion site. The three scenarios used for the impact assessment are described below. Scenario 2006 The model predicted the noise generated by the existing landfilling activities to have no impact on the receptors surrounding the facility. The nearest receptor to the landfill boundary was POR13, approximately 200 m southwest of the existing landfill, which had a maximum daytime sound pressure level of 37 dba. There were no sound emissions at night. The allowable limits at a receptor are 55 dba and 45 dba for daytime and nighttime landfill operations (MOE, 1998). Scenario 2012 Table L3.12 -Scenario 2006 SPL at PORs Day ID (dba) POR01 34 POR02 34 POR03 32 POR04 33 POR05 31 POR06 30 POR07 29 POR08 29 POR09 22 POR10 24 POR11 25 POR12 25 POR13 37 The model predicted the noise generated by the proposed expansion activities to have no impact on the receptors surrounding the facility. The nearest receptor to the landfill boundary was POR13, approximately 60 m south of the proposed expansion, which had a maximum daytime sound pressure level of 48 dba. There were no sound emissions at night. The allowable limits at a receptor are 55 dba and 45 dba for daytime and nighttime landfill operations. Page L-59

65 Table L Scenario 2012 SPL at PORs Day ID (dba) POR01 41 POR02 41 POR03 44 POR04 45 POR05 43 POR06 41 POR07 42 POR08 41 POR09 35 POR10 36 POR11 35 POR12 34 POR13 48 Scenario 2032 The model predicted the noise generated by the proposed expansion activities to have no impact on the receptors surrounding the facility. The receptor with the highest SPL levels was POR13, approximately 60 m south of the proposed expansion, which had a maximum daytime sound pressure level of 44 dba. There were no sound emissions at night. The allowable limits at a receptor are 55 dba and 45 dba for daytime and nighttime landfill operations. Table L Scenario 2032 SPL at PORs Day ID (dba) POR01 40 POR02 39 POR03 41 POR04 43 POR05 41 POR06 41 POR07 42 POR08 41 POR09 33 POR10 35 POR11 37 POR12 37 POR13 44 Page L-60

66 3.6. Proposed Mitigation Measures The following measures will be implemented during the operation of the proposed expansion to further reduce any impact noise generation would have on receptors. These measures have not been incorporated in the modelling assessment. Passive Mitigation Measures Most of the excavation work will occur below grade, which will serve to reduce the spread of noise; The large fill area buffer will be treed, further reducing the noise impact. Active Mitigation Measures Vehicles will be properly maintained and will have normal noise suppression equipment; Vehicles on-site will minimize idling time; Slopes of access roads or ramps in the excavation will be established to minimize engine noise to the extent practical Conclusions The following key conclusions were drawn from the preceding information: Based on sound level monitoring and field observations it was determined that the background/existing sound environment in the immediate vicinity of the proposed landfill expansion was dominated by traffic and nature. The sound levels generated by the existing operations of 2006 and the proposed operations for the 2012 and 2032 assessment years do not exceed the minimum daytime 1-hr Leq of 48 dba measured in No noise is generated during nighttime as the landfill is closed. The operations also do not exceed the MOE landfill operations guideline of minimum Leq of 55 dba and 45 dba during the daytime and nighttime, respectively (MOE, 1998). Traffic related noise on the roads predicted by STAMSON were generally above that of landfill generated noise for the baseline 2006 year and the 2032 assessment year at all Page L-61

67 receptors. For 2012, landfill activities resulted in the closest receptor (POR13) being above the background traffic noise by an imperceptible 1 dba. Since the landfill activities, other than traffic to the landfill are generally below grade, the sound level predictions are conservative as they were modelled assuming a flat terrain. Even with this consideration, the noise model indicated that the landfill facility will comply with the receptor sound level limits References Kimberly-Horn and Associates, 2005: Hanson Aggregates Channel Road Resource Extraction Major Use Permit and Reclamation Plan, Hanson Aggregates, November, Ministry of Transportation, 2006: TM count summary for Personal communication from Steve Simpson, October 23, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 1998: Landfill standards, a guideline on the regulatory and approval requirements for expanding landfilling sites, May, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 1995a: NPC Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 1 & 2 Areas (Urban), October, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 1995b: NPC Information to be Submitted for Approval of Stationary Sources of Sound, October Page L-62

68 ATTACHMENTS

69 ATTACHMENT A Site maps A-1 General Site Map A-2 Area Receptors

70

71

72 ATTACHMENT B Background Air Monitoring

73 APPENDIX B Background Air Monitoring B1 B5 Total Particulate Data September 26-30, 2006 B6 B10 PM10 Data September 26-30, 2006 B11 Vinyl Chloride Data

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84