revised wcec ea moe consultation meeting atmospheric

Appendix N Ministry of the Environment Meeting Summaries

This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately.

® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America

Reputation Resources Results Canada | USA | UK | UAE | India | China www.rwdiair.com

Memorandum Tel: 519.823.1311

Guelph: 519.823.1311 RWDI AIR Inc.

650 Woodlawn Road West Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1K 1B8

Email: [email protected]

Date: July 4, 2012 RWDI Reference #: 1100798

To: CC:

Tim Murphy, WM

Blair Shoniker, AECOM, Larry Fedec, AECOM

E-Mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

From: John DeYoe, Project Director Brad Bergeron, Project Manager

E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Re: January Meetings with Ontario Ministry of the Environment WCEC EA Revised Notes from Consultation Meetings

Prior to submission of the draft EA Detailed Impact Assessment Reports Waste Management of

Canada Corporation (WM) had requested that RWDI AIR Inc. (RWDI) meet with the Ontario

Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Air Quality and Noise reviewers who would be examining the

draft and final reports. The PowerPoint presentations that RWDI used in these discussions are

attached in Appendix A (Noise) and Appendix B (Air Quality) and essentially these detail our

side of the dialogue. The comments received from the MOE reviewers are detailed below.

The first meeting took place at the MOE’s St Clair Avenue offices in Toronto on January 26,

2012. The attendees were: Tim Murphy of WM; Brad Bergeron, John DeYoe and Nghi Nguyen

of RWDI; Dejan Zivkovic and Jeff Dea of the MOE, and Larry Fedec of Aecom (via conference

call). This minutes have been revised to incorporate the comments received by Mr. Dejan

Zivkovic from the MOE regarding the original notes provided on April 13, 2012. During our

presentation Dejan made a number of comments listed below:

• If there are PORs within Class III areas, the consultant should use guidelines from the

NPC-232 in order to assess the proposed expansion noise impacts at such PORs.

• The report should contain a detailed discussion of the proposed expansion noise

impacts at surrounding vacant lots, including lands south of Richardson.

• Include the roadway assessment portion in the normal roadway format so that Dejan can

review it more easily.

• There should be more discussion of the receptors to the west and the details of how they

are removed from the review, i.e., owned by WM and tenants removed.

• There should be a discussion of how the influence of wind direction is dealt with by the

model

• Clarify the details with regard to operation of stationary noise sources, including auxillary

facilities, such as the waste transfer facility.

Reputation Resources Results Canada | USA | UK | UAE | India | China www.rwdi.com

Tim Murphy Waste Management of Canada Corporation Revised Memorandum of Air Quality and Noise Consultation WCEC Environmental Assessment RWDI#1100798 July 4, 2012

Page 2

The second meeting took place at the MOE’s Kingston offices on January 31, 2012. The attendees were: Brad Bergeron, John DeYoe and Sarah Pellat of RWDI; and Mike Ladouceur of the MOE. Jeff Dea of the MOE as well as WM and Aecom personnel attended via conference call. The presentation was well received by Mr. Ladouceur and he had a few minor comments listed below:

• Details of how working face litter controls would be implemented during high winds

should be included in management plans.

• Dust management plan should include strict speed controls on site including a display

sign that shows the speed of passing trucks.

• BMP plans should include a provision for reporting trucks that are gross polluters.

• The predicted impacts of TCE should be noted since new criteria are expected for that

compound.

CLOSING

We trust this information meets your needs at this time. If you have any questions, comments

or additional requirements, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

RWDI AIR Inc.

John DeYoe, B.A.

Project Director / Associate

Brad Bergeron, A.Sc.T., d.E.T.

Senior Project Manager/Associate

APPENDIX APPENDIX A

Reputation Resources Results

Canada | USA | UK | UAE | India | China

www.rwdiair.com

WCEC Environmental Assessment Proposed Expansion



www.rwdiair.com

Overview

• Baseline Line Report– Review of Comments from Baseline Report

– Review of Revisions Made to Address Comments

• Detailed Impact Assessment– Preliminary Assessment and Results

– Proposed design Modifications for Noise Reduction

– Additional Mitigation measures being considered

– Preliminary Results including conceptual mitigation concepts

• Overall Discussions of Methodology and Results Presentation for the Impact Assessment Report (Noise)



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• November of 2011 WM, RWDI and MOE

engaged in preliminary discussions regarding

technical items from the draft baseline report.

• Formal correspondence was received on

November 29, 2011 outlining the specific items

from the baseline report that needed to be

addressed.

• Following slides summarize the comments and

provide general discussion of our approach to

address the items raised.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• Comment 1a

– Development of ambient sound levels at

nearby receptor areas.

• Concerns with inclusion of noise levels from adjacent industry without confirmation of compliance status with respect to ECAs

• Comments regarding use of AADT traffic values and generic hourly distribution profiles

• Addressing façade concerns for traffic noise regarding residential receptors facing the landfill with rear yards facing noted roadways



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• General Response to 1a

– With respect to the inclusion of the

neighbouring industrial activities, RWDI has

removed the evaluation of noise levels from

the baseline report.

– RWDI is aware that Cumberland Ready Mix

Plant does have any existing ECA, however

the noise levels are still considered part of the

“urban hum” as recommended in your

correspondence.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report


– Road traffic noise surrounding the WCEC includes Richardson SideRoad, Carp Road, William Mooney Road, Highway 7, and Highway 417.

– The noise impacts from each road have been separated into the following segments:

• Highway 7, south of Highway 417;

• Highway 417, west of Highway 7;

• Highway 417, west of Carp Road;

• Highway 417, east of Carp Road;

• Carp Road, north of Highway 417 and north of landfill entrance;

• Carp Road, north of Highway 417 and south of landfill entrance;

• Carp Road, south of Highway 417;

• Richardson Side Road, west of Carp Road; and,

• Richardson Side Road, east of Carp Road.

– Traffic volumes for William Mooney Road were unavailable (due to the low volumes); therefore this road is not included in the analysis.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report


– With the exception of Highway 417 west of Carp Road and Richardson Side Road east of Carp Road, hourly traffic volumes were provided by AECOM for each road segment (provided by on-site observations or data from the MTO).

– For Highway 417 west of Carp Road, since hourly traffic volumes were not available from the MTO, the AADT value for west of Carp Road was used with the hourly distribution for east of CarpRoad to approximate the hourly distribution for this segment.

– Similarly, for Richardson Side Road east of Carp Road, hourly traffic volumes were not available; therefore, the AADT value for this section was combined with the hourly distribution for west of Carp Road to approximate the hourly distribution for this segment.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• With respect to the façade of the homes and proximity to the road traffic noise, the assessment of the homes were modified for ambient noise levels.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• Comment 1b/1c/1d:– Clarification requested regarding “construction

equipment” and/or “motorized conveyances”, stationary noise sources and “ancillary activities” and the guidelines applied.

• Response 1b/1c/1d– Stationary noise sources and ancillary facilities were

compared to the NPC-205 and NPC-232 guidelines or applicable ambient levels as previously discussed (evening and night-time).

– Combined impacts from stationary, construction equipment, motorized conveyances and ancillary activities were compared to the MOE’s Noise Guideline limits for Landfill sites (daytime) or applicable ambient levels.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• Comment 2:

– Use of Noise Sensitive PORs and selection of

applicable noise sensitive receptors



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• In accordance with the approved ToR, the generic On-Site, Site-Vicinity and Regional study areas for the WCEC project were defined. The following is a summary of the areas each define:

– On-Site the lands owned or optioned by WM and required for the new landfill. The Site is bounded by Highway 417, Carp Road and Richardson Side Road;

– Site-Vicinity the lands in the vicinity of the site extending about 500 metres in all directions; and,

– Regional the lands within approximately 3-5 kilometres (km) of the Site.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• On-Site (5 Receptors)– Nearest 2-storey home at 427 William Mooney Road West

(NR3);

– Previous 2-storey home Carp Road Central (PR2);– Previous 2-storey home at 569 William Mooney Road NNW

(PR3);– Previous 2-storey home at 505 William Mooney Road NW

(PR5); and– Previous 2-storey home at 381 William Mooney Road SW (PR6).



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• Site Vicinity (11 Receptors)– Previous 2-storey home on Richardson Side Road NNW (PR4);– Previous 2-storey home at 2096 Carp Road South (PR7); – Previous 2-storey home David Manchester Road (PR9).– Nearest 1-storey home at 2485 Carp Road North (NR1);– Nearest 2-storey home at 2166 Carp Road East (NR2);– Nearest 2-storey home at 292 Moonstone Road South (NR4);– 2-storey Terrace Youth Residential Services (NR8)– Nearest 2-storey Sensitive Business Operation (NR9)– Representative 2-storey David Manchester Road Central

(RR12);– Representative 2-storey at 607 William Mooney Road (RR14);

and,– Representative 2-storey Wilbert Cox Drive (RR15).



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• Regional Receptors (15 Receptors)– Representative 2-storey Spruce Ridge Road Central (RR10);– Representative 2-storey David Manchester Road North (RR11);– Representative 2-storey David Manchester Road South (RR13);– Representative 2-storey Carp Road North (RR16);– Representative 2-storey Oak Creek Road (RR17);– Representative 2-storey West Carleton Industrial Park (RR18);– Representative 2-storey Timbermere (RR19);– Representative 2-storey Stittsville (RR20);– Representative 2-storey Jackson Trails (RR21);– Representative 2-storey Fairwinds (RR22);– Representative 2-storey Arcadia (RR23); and,– Representative 2-storey Kanata West (RR24).

– St. Stephen Catholic Elementary School (NR5);

– Huntleigh United Cemetery (NR6); and

– Lloydalex Park (NR7).



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

The Rural Commercial (CR) Zone permits

rural commercial uses such as animal

hospital, landscaping business, restaurant,

automobile service station, and accessory

dwelling units. Properties with this zone are

located on Carp Road south of Highway 417.

The exception zones relate to additional

permitted uses and provisions, but no uses

potentially incompatible with landfill or

mineral extraction activities are prohibited.

The Rural (RU) Zone permits detached or

accessory dwellings and a limited range of

non-residential uses including cemetery,

greenhouse, forestry use, nursery, woodlot,

communications tower, amongst other similar

uses. Properties zoned RU are spread

around the 500m study area although

concentrated to the north and west of the

subject site. The RU-1 exception zone

prohibits residential uses, however, the

exception zone is limited to a small area to

the north of the subject site.

The Extractive Industrial (MX) Zone uses are

limited to a gravel pit, open storage area,

stone quarry and associated administrative

office. Properties within this zone correspond

to the Sand and Gravel Resource Area and

Limestone Resource Area of the Ottawa

Official Plan, in other words, to the north, east

and southwest of the subject site. The

exception zones generally permit additional

uses related to cement manufacturing and

concrete batching.



www.rwdiair.com

Baseline Report

• Comment 3:– Future Report that consider the expansion need to assess potential noise for on-

site vehicles as well as vehicles travelling to and from the site

• Response 3:– Agreed, the detailed impact evaluation considered this

• Comment 4:– Future reports for the landfill expansion should note that noise emissions from

construction equipment are subject to the limits set-out in NPC-115

• Response 4:– Agreed, this as been included in the detailed impact assessment report

• Comment 5:– Future reports should follow the Acoustic Assessment format in accordance with

NPC-233

• Response 5:– Report structure is provided for similarity within all disciplines for ease in the

public reviewing process. Future reports will include all necessary information as outlined in NPC-233 however may not strictly follow the typical reporting format.



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report

• Preliminary Data for Detailed Impact Assessment Report



www.rwdiair.com


• Preferred Proposed Landfill Footprint



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com


• The Facility Characterization Report (FCR) presents preliminary design and operations information for the Preferred Alternative Landfill Footprint (Option #2) and provides information on all main aspects of landfill design and operations including: – site layout design;

– surface water management

– leachate management;

– gas management; and,

– landfill development sequence and daily operations.

• The FCR also provides estimates of parameters relevant to the detailed impact assessment including estimates of leachate generation, contaminant flux through the liner system, landfill gas generation, and traffic levels associated with waste and construction materials haulage.



www.rwdiair.com


• In addition to the new landfill footprint, the WCEC will also include other ancillary facilities not subject to EA approval, including the following:

– A material recycling facility (MRF);

– A construction and demolition material recycling facility (CDF);

– An organics processing facility (OPF);

– Residential diversion facility;

– Community lands for parks and recreation;

– A landfill-gas-to-energy facility (GTE); and

– Greenhouses.



www.rwdiair.com


• Sound level data for the sources identified were obtained from a combination of on-site measurements, RWDI historical data of equipment at WCEC and other landfill sites, manufacturer data, and theoretical formulae.

• Sound source emissions for the existing noise sources at the WCEC were identified and measured during site visits by RWDI personnel on April 11, 2006 and July 27, 2011.

– Sound pressure level (SPL) measurements were consistent with ISO 3744:1994(E) and ISO 3746:1995 measurement standards, and the applicable portions of the MOE Publication NPC-103. Measurement equipment and weather conditions met the requirements set out in MOE Publication NPC-103. The SPL to PWL conversions, octave band sound power data, measurement weather conditions, and information pertaining to the sound level measurement equipment are detailed in the ECR.

• Theoretical formulae were used to estimate sound levels for the leachate blowers and evaporator treatment system based on available engineering data.

• Stationary noise sources and working face vehicles have been modelled as point sources.

• Sound levels from trucks on site roads were modelled as line sources within the Cadna/A model. The maximum number of trucks during the predictable worst-case hour was estimated based on data provided in the FCR.



www.rwdiair.com


• The following is a list of key assumptions particularly relevant to the baseline noise assessment.

– As a conservative approximation, landfill and construction activities were assumed to operate during daytime hours (7:00 am to 7:00 pm);

– As a conservative approximation, the flaring equipment, landfill gas-to-energy plant, MRF/OPF, and CDF were assumed to operate 24/7;

– The various working faces have been modelled at strategic locations for the predicted worst-case noise levels;

– The overburden and daily cover soil stockpiles have been assumed on the west side of the Preferred Alternative Landfill Footprint, immediately east of William Mooney Road;

– All SBR and sludge blowers, existing and future, were assumed to operate concurrently at the start of the construction of the new landfill footprint;

– As a conservative approximation, both leachate treatment systems (SBR and evaporator) were assumed to operate concurrently;

– The evaporator unit is located inside the building, however, the total casing radiated noise was assumed at the louvred openings on the building;

– The mound of the new landfill footprint was considered for source placements since higher noise impacts are expected due to elevated sources; and

– The number of trips per hour, as provided in the FCR, has been rounded for a complete trip (e.g., entry and exit).



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Scenario 1 Sources



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Scenario 2 Sources



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Preliminary Results Daytime Scenario 1 – No Mitigation



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Preliminary Results Daytime Scenario 2 – No Mitigation



www.rwdiair.com


• Due to the elevated noise levels at NR1 and the

incorporation of construction changes due to

groundwater requirements, the following design

changes were made:

– Relocation of the site entrance further away from NR1

– Commitment from WM to not use Bird Bangers or other impulsive noise sources for pest controls

– Addition of truck traffic to due to site preparation for groundwater.



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Revised Site Entrance



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Preliminary Results Scenario 1



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Preliminary Results Scenario 1

• All receptors identified are predicted to be in compliance with applicable limits with the exception of NR1.

• Based on the preliminary results, Receptor NR1 was predicted to exceed by 6 dB for Scenario 1 (worst-case receptor).

• The reconfiguration of the site entrance is predicted to reduce the impact at NR1 from 64 dBA to 61dBA. This includes the increased on-site traffic from the additional construction activities – In order to reduce the potential for noise, the following

conceptual berming design is being considered for additional mitigation.



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Conceptual On-Site Berms



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Conceptual Mitigation Scenario 1

• With the additional

berms as presented,

NR1 would be

reduced from a 6dB

difference to a 1 dB

difference.



www.rwdiair.com

Monitoring Requirements

• Prior to submitting the EA document, WM will also complete additional field measurements during the winter season for a further evaluation of the noise impacts at NR1 and background noise levels.

• Based on the results presented, WM is prepared to complete audit measurements at NR1 to confirm the sound levels at the receptor during construction and worst-case operations (Scenario 1).

APPENDIX APPENDIX B



www.rwdiair.com

WCEC Environmental Assessment Proposed Expansion



www.rwdiair.com

Overview

• Detailed Impact Assessment

– General Conceptual Layouts

– Receptor Areas

– Preliminary Results and Main Assumptions

from Odour; LFG; Dust and Combustion

Emissions

– Preliminary Results including conceptual

mitigation concepts and monitoring



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report - Atmospheric

• Preferred Proposed Landfill Footprint



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com


• In accordance with the approved ToR, the generic On-Site, Site-Vicinity and Regional study areas for the WCEC project were defined. The following is a summary of the areas each define:

– On-Site the lands owned or optioned by WM and required for the new landfill. The Site is bounded by Highway 417, Carp Road and Richardson Side Road;

– Site-Vicinity the lands in the vicinity of the site extending about 500 metres in all directions; and,

– Regional the lands within approximately 3-5 kilometres (km) of the Site.



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com


• The Facility Characteristics Report (FCR) presents preliminary design and operations information for the Preferred Alternative Landfill Footprint (Option #2) and provides information on all main aspects of landfill design and operations including: – site layout design;

– surface water management;

– leachate management;

– gas management; and,

– landfill development sequence and daily operations.

• The FCR also provides estimates of parameters relevant to the detailed impact assessment including estimates of leachate generation, contaminant flux through the liner system, landfill gas generation, and traffic levels associated with waste and construction materials haulage.



www.rwdiair.com


• In addition to the new landfill footprint, the WCEC will also include other ancillary facilities not subject to EA approval, including the following:

– A material recycling facility (MRF);

– A construction and demolition material recycling facility (CDF);

– An organics processing facility (OPF);

– Residential diversion facility;

– Community lands for parks and recreation;

– A landfill-gas-to-energy facility (GTE); and

– Greenhouses.



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com


• Studies Completed for Atmospheric Studies (Air Quality)

– Odour

– Landfill Gas

– Dust

– Combustion Emissions



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report - Odour

• Odour



www.rwdiair.com


• Under normal operating conditions, solid waste landfills have the potential to produce odours from several areas, including:

– Landfill gas and garbage odours from the landfill and waste acceptance activities:

• working face;

• interim cover areas;

• final cover areas;

• public waste drop off areas;

• installation of landfill gas wells;

• trenching activities; and

• cracks/fissures in the landfill cover.

– Leachate odours from the leachate management system.



www.rwdiair.com


• Section 14 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, an odour is deemed a nuisance if it is detected and considered unpleasant.

• The MOE does provide some guidance regarding the assessment of odour impacts in their document “Methodology for Modelling Assessments of Contaminants with 10-Minute Average Standards and Guidelines under O. Reg. 419/05”, April 2008.

– Odour concentrations need only be assessed at odour-sensitive receptor locations:

• Residences, daycares, schools, churches, retirement facilities; • commercial buildings, and• outdoor parks and recreation areas.

– Odour impacts that are greater than 1 odour unit (OU) per cubic meter (m3) are acceptable at sensitive receptor locations, as long as the frequency of exceedence is less than 0.5% of the time.

• Odour concentrations that may cause a complaint due to their ability to annoy typically range from 3 to 5 OU.

• Odour evaluation for frequency of time included both periods of time above 1 OU and 3 OU



www.rwdiair.com


• Construction of the preferred alternative landfill was assumed to begin in the year 2013 for this assessment

• The preferred alternative landfill will be filled in eight stages, each stage having an approximate surface area of 47,250 m2. The waste placement will generally occur in two main lifts.

– Lift 1 reflects sequentially from Stages 1 to 8, from East to West, to an elevation of approximately 16 metres above grade.

– Lift 2 reflects sequentially from Stages 1 to 8, from East to West, to an elevation of approximately 31 metres above grade.

• Two worst case scenarios were assessed as part of the Odour Detailed Impact Assessment: – Scenario 1: Intermediate operation scenario (Year 2018)

– Scenario 2: Final operation scenario (Year 2023).



www.rwdiair.com


• Scenario 1:

• Intermediate operation scenario (Year 2018)• Assumed that Lift 1 was completed and therefore half of the total waste,

approximately 2,000,000 tonnes, had been deposited in all eight stages of

the landfill.

• Area is has landfill gas collection system with a collection efficiency of 85%.

• Lift 2 was also assumed to have commenced, and approximately 250,000

tonnes of waste was deposited in Stage 1 during the year 2018.

• Assumed that the entire surface area (47,250 m2) of Stage 1 was

considered the “active stage”.

• Active stage area has an interim cover, which includes a working face (900

m2), where landfilling is actively occurring and waste has been deposited

within the modelled year. The active stage does not have a completely

installed landfill gas collection system, therefore only collecting the LFG with

a collection efficiency of 50%.



www.rwdiair.com


• Scenario 2

• Final Operation Scenario (Year 2023)– approximately 3,720,000 tonnes had been deposited in Lift 1 and Stages 1

through 7 of Lift 2 of the landfill.

– Entire landfill area, with the exception of Stage 8 of Lift 2, has final cover and a

landfill gas collection system with a collection efficiency of 85%.

– Lift 2 was assumed to have been complete with the last 250,000 tonnes of waste

deposited in Stage 8 during the year 2023.

– Assumed that the entire surface area (47,250 m2) of Stage 8 was considered the

active stage area.

– Active stage area has interim cover, which includes a working face, where waste

has been deposited within the modelled year.

– Active stage does not have a completely installed landfill gas collection system,

therefore only collecting the LFG with a collection efficiency of 50%.



www.rwdiair.com


• Preferred Leachate Management System– Disposal of leachate through pre-treatment and discharge to the

City of Ottawa sanitary system, in tandem with disposal through irrigation of trees. The leachate will be pre-treated on-site using a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) system, similar to the one proposed for the existing landfill with a pending Environmental Compliance Approval.

• Contingency Leachate Management System– The contingency method of leachate disposal would also involve

pre-treatment of the leachate using the SBR system with the addition of a leachate evaporator system. For the leachate evaporator, the current technology selected to be evaluated in the Detailed Impact Assessment is the E-Vap® Leachate Evaporator System, which has the capacity to treat 20,000 gallons of leachate per day.



www.rwdiair.com


• Odour Data– Odour emission rates for landfill gas migration through cover

based on landfill gas generation rates and the Ministry of Environment recommended odour concentration of 10,000 OU/m3 of landfill gas, outlined in the MOE’s “Interim Guide to Estimate and Assess Landfill Air Impacts”, 1992.

– Working Face and Interim Cover Area odour data based on RWDI odour data from other sites (Trail Road et al)

– SBR odour emissions were based on odour threshold data from compounds specific emissions

– Leachate evaporator was based on odour emission data from pilot study completed on similar system in Michigan

– Manholes and leachate clean-outs were assumed to be negligible since the emissions would be tied to the landfill gascollection system and destroyed



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Odour Sources



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Odour



www.rwdiair.com


• Mitigation Measures

– Development of Odour Best Management Plan.

– Progressive installation of landfill gas collection system.

– Increase in stack height of the Leachate Evaporator to 22m above grade at minimum.

– Leachate collection system under negative pressure and gas sent to LFG collection system.

– Minimal working face.

– Daily covering of working face.



www.rwdiair.com


• Odour Monitorng– Annual THC surface surveys to identify any cracks or

fissures or other hot-spots for landfill gas escaping (also including leachate collection manholes, etc)

– Continuous monitoring for temperature and flow on generators and landfill gas flares

– Annual VOC and Hydrogen Sulphide ambient air quality monitoring programs to continue to track annual emissions and identify increases in emissions over time.

– Source testing of SBR and Leachate Evaporator for odour source validation.

– Confirmatory measurement of on-site odour sources



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Landfill Gas

• Landfill Gas



www.rwdiair.com


• Landfill gas (LFG), although consisting mainly of

methane and carbon dioxide, contains trace

amounts of VOCs and reduced sulphur

compounds.

• Contaminants typically account for less than 1%

by volume of landfill gas escaping from the

landfill

• Concentrations were assessed in respect to

health and odour potential at residences or

businesses that surround the landfill site.



www.rwdiair.com


• Based on the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) Interim Guideline to Assess Air Impacts from Landfills and the ToR, 24 contaminants of interest in the landfill gas were reviewed.

– 20 VOCs and 4 reduced sulphur compounds

• The 24 target compounds emitted from the landfill were measured in the ambient air quality assessment.

• Contaminants emitted from the leachate management system were not previously assessed in the LFG Baseline Conditions report.

• Contaminants emitted in common from the landfill and the leachate management system were assessed (i.e. benzene and dichloromethane).

• Ammonia, which is solely emitted from the leachate management system, was also included in the evaluation.

• Therefore, including Ammonia there was a total of 25 compounds evaluated for the landfill gas assessment.



www.rwdiair.com


• Predicted concentrations of VOCs, reduced sulphur and ammonia compounds were compared against Ontario Regulation 419/05 Air Pollution, Local Air Quality (O.Reg. 419) Point of Impingement (POI) Limits.

• The term POI is taken to be in the natural environment outside the boundaries of the property.

• For O.Reg 419 Guidelines and Standards with a 10-minute averaging period, the POI is taken to be any locations where andwhen human activities regularly occur (sensitive receptors).

• For compounds that do not have established Schedule 3 air quality standards, other criteria such as Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) and Jurisdictional Screening Level (JSL) were used for this assessment.



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com


• The same scenarios; S1 and S2 were evaluated for landfill gas as identified for odour.

• The following assumptions for Detailed Impact Assessment Report were used:– LandGEM for Landfill gas emissions (updated with site specific

LFG concentrations)

– Progressive installation of the LFG Collection system

– No correct factor applies to VOC emissions

– Correction Factor for H2S emissions were used in the Detailed Impact Assessment Report as outlined in Revised Baseline Report

– Contaminated soil based on 2004 measurements

– Leachate Management (Preferred and Contingency) based on emissions developed in ECA application and Source Testing Program for Leachate Evaporator System



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Vinyl Chloride



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Benzene



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Hydrogen Sulphide



www.rwdiair.com


• Mitigation Measures– Development of LFG Best Management Plan

– Progressive installation of landfill gas collection system

– Increase in stack height of the Leachate Evaporator to 22m above grade at minimum

– Leachate collection system under negative pressure and gas sent to LFG collection system

– Minimal working face

– Daily covering of working face



www.rwdiair.com


• LFG Monitoring

– Annual THC surface surveys to identify any cracks or

fissures or other hot-spots for landfill gas escaping (also including leachate collection manholes, etc)

– Continuous monitoring for temperature and flow on generators and landfill gas flares

– Annual VOC and Hydrogen Sulphide ambient air quality monitoring programs to continue to track annual emissions and identify increases in emissions over time.

– Source testing of SBR and Leachate Evaporator for source validation



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Dust

• Dust



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com


• Due to the elevated noise levels at NR1 and the

incorporation of construction changes due to

groundwater requirements, the following design

changes were made:

– Relocation of the site entrance further away from NR1

– Addition of truck traffic to due to site preparation for groundwater.



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com


Scenario modelled: – Routine Phase 1 Operation (ongoing landfilling in Stage 1 and

construction in Stage 3, worst case locations)

On-Site Haul Route (Landfill, WTF and Construction)- traffic numbers for 6 month construction period used (worst

case)- 38 trips/hr from off-site to landfill working face- 4 trips/hr from off-site to contaminated soil stockpiles- 8 trips/hr to and from landfill working face to daily cover pile (every hour of operation, conservative approach)

Construction traffic:- 34 trips/hr of construction material coming off-site to the construction working face (soil import)- 2 trips/hr from the construction face to the overburden pile



www.rwdiair.com


• Hours of landfill operation (which includes

construction): 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM

• Hours of WTFP: 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM

• Soil piles (overburden, contaminated soil

stockpile/cover soil) are placed on the west side of the

preferred alternative landfill footprint

• vehicle weight is based on the average of the empty

truck weight and the loaded truck weight (24.6 tons)– assumed that outbound vehicles from WTFP are all transfer

trailers (41.1)



www.rwdiair.com


• All on-site haul routes are paved, with the exception of haul route to the landfill active stage, construction working face and piles

• All on-site haul routes have two lanes, with the exception of the road from the entrance to the landfill access road (i.e. ENTRANCE 1 and ENTRANCE 2)

• Mobile 6.2 was used to determine PM10 and PM2.5 Emission factors (g/vmt)

• As Mobile 6.2 cannot be used to determine TSP Emission factors, the PM10 Emission factors were used for the TSP calculations

• Mobile 6.2 Vehicle classifications thought to best describe the on-site vehicle classifications are HDDV5, HDDV6, HDDV7, HDDV8A and HDDV8B



www.rwdiair.com


• Re-entrained road dust emissions were included and estimated using the US EPA AP-42 13.2.1 Paved Roads and 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads– For the Paved Roads, a road surface silt loading of 7.4 g/m2

(mean Municipal Solid Waste Landfill) was used

– For the Unpaved Roads, a surface material silt content of 6% was used, along with the Industrial Road constants

– A control efficiency of 80% was applied to all on-site haul routes

– The on-site haul route parameters were calculated using the NSSGA 2004 Modeling Fugitive Dust Sources

– An average truck height of 3.5 m was assumed

– Idling emissions were calculated for the proposed scale facility; it was assumed that all trucks entering the site would spend five (5) minutes at the scale



www.rwdiair.com


• Material Handling, Unloading and Wind Erosion– Material Handling, Unloading and Wind Erosion were varied by hour based on the

meteorological data from the Ottawa Airport– For material handling, unloading and wind erosion, the hourly emission rate was estimated to

be 0 if the meteorological data showed a precipitation flag of Medium or Heavy, and if the snow cover depth was more than 10 cm

– Material Handling and Unloading emission rates were calculated using US EPA AP-42 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles

– For the Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles, a moisture content of 12% was used– Material handling rates were based on the truck trips, and assumed truck capacity of 10 cu.m

of soil/granular material– a soil/granular material density was calculated based on the average density of clay (dry

excavated and wet excavated) and sand (wet and dry) (Source: Mass, Weight, Density or Specific Gravity of Bulk Materials web-site, http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm)

• Bulldozing was modelled at the construction face and overburden pile.– Emission rates were calculated using AP-42 Tables 11.9-1 Bulldozing overburden, as

indicated in Chapter 13.2.3 Heavy Construction Operation.– Material and silt loading contents were chosen to match the parameters used for the Material

Handling sources (Material: cover) - AP42 Table 13.2.4-1.– Bulldozing operations were assumed to be on going during the landfill hours of operation.



www.rwdiair.com


• Wind Erosion hourly emission rates are calculated using the Nickling and Gillies equation– An hourly wind erosion emission rate was calculated if

the corresponding hourly wind speed was greater than a threshold velocity of 6.25 m/s (7.26 m/s (construction site)/1.16 Speedup factor)

– to determine wind erosion PM2.5 and PM10 flux rates, multiplied TSP*0.3 for PM2.5 and TSP*0.5 for PM10

– Parameters used in modelling for material handling are based on the NSSGA 2004 Modeling Fugitive Dust Sources

• Truck Loading with Loader (release height of 14 ft, initial lateral dimension based on the width of the front loader bucket 3ft/4.3, and initial vertical dimension based on sidewall of truck 6ft/4.3)

• Truck Unloading (release height of 5 ft, initial lateral dimension based on the width of truck 10 ft/4.3, and initial vertical dimension based on maximum truck height 25 ft/2.15)

– 10% of the wind erosion emission rate was applied to the interim face of the active stage, as it was assumed that a small percentage of the interim surface area would be disturbed and therefore have loose

particles to be picked up by the wind.



www.rwdiair.com


• Leachate evaporator stack– emission rate from source testing results– particulate matter was assumed to be due to combustion, therefore all PM2.5

• Combustion Equipment– all PM2.5– all particulate emission rates taken from baseline study

• all 5 generators are CAT3250• Flares• new combustion equipment included are: Leachate Management System Emergency Generator,

Crusher Engine

• Crusher – Crusher emission rates taken from other portable crusher plants RWDI has evaluated– Crusher modelling parameters were duplicated from other sites

• Off-Site Sources (Baseline)– TSP baseline value of 28 µg/m³– PM10 baseline value of 9 µg/m³– PM2.5 baseline value of 5 µg/m³



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com



– Development of Dust Best Management Plan

– Paving internal main haul routes

– Watering and sweeping on internal haul routes

– Water suppressants on working faces, unpaved interim roads, construction surfaces, etc.

– Progressive vegetation seeding on surface areas

– Watering suppressants on ancillary sources (crushing activities, WTF sources and other outdoor sources



www.rwdiair.com


• Dust Monitoring

– Annual particulate monitoring at northeast,

northwest and southwest of proposed site at

fenceline

– Record keeping of dust suppressants

application

– Record keeping of waste and construction

activities locations



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Combustion Emissions

• Combustion Emissions



www.rwdiair.com


• Off-site/on-site roads

– same traffic number as baseline was used

– a growth factor of 1% increase in traffic was assumed for each year

– Assumed that the first year of operation would be 2013

– Landfill traffic was added to off-site roads (assumed same distribution

as used in noise and baseline study)

– Mobile 6.2 was used to calculate the emission factors (g/s), same

vehicle distribution and assumption regarding modelling parameters

used in the dust assessment were applied in the tailpipe assessment



www.rwdiair.com


• Leachate Management System

– no combustions emissions from SBR only emissions related to the leachate

evaporator which were measured in a recent source testing campaign and

emergency generator for SBR

• Flares and Generator

– AP-42 Chapter 2.4 "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills", November 1998

– Flares and generators operating simultaneously at maximum capacity, 24 hours

per day, 365 days per year

– CO, NOx, Dioxins and Furans for generators from source testing

– Consistent with Baseline Report

• Crusher Engine– Assumed a 300 HP Crusher Diesel Engine

– AP-42 Chapter 3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines



www.rwdiair.com




www.rwdiair.com



– Minimizing on-site idling of vehicles

– Routine monitoring for waste vehicles arriving

to the site in unfit or un-maintained conditions

– Proper staging and planning for internal

vehicles arriving at the site and site

sequencing



www.rwdiair.com

Detailed Impact Assessment Report – Atmospheric

• Thank-You

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 13, 2012 To: Tim Murphy, Waste Management (WM) Cc: Christopher Prucha, Waste Management (WM) From: David Harding, WESA Inc. Project No: CB8831-12-04 Re: Summary Notes from Technical Review Meeting with MOE Environmental Assessment, West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC) _________________________________________________________________________________________ MESSAGE: Tim, As part of the government agency consultations completed for the WCEC Environmental Assessment (EA) project, we met with the Ontario Ministry of Environment’s Eastern Region Technical Support Section in Kingston, Ontario on January 27, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an overview of the groundwater modeling completed for the Detailed Impact Assessment for the WCEC EA project, and to discuss the results obtained from the modeling simulations. The following people attended the meeting: Frank Crossley, MOE Technical Support Section Kyle Stephenson, MOE Technical Support Section Tim Murphy, WM Chris Prucha, WM Bill McDonough, WM Michael Melaney, WESA David Harding, WESA Larry Fedec, AECOM (by teleconference) Jeffrey Dea, MOE EAAB (by teleconference) The presentation slides used to guide the discussions at the meeting are appended to this memo (refer to Appendix A). A PDF version of the slides was emailed to MOE following the meeting. The primary topics of discussion were as follows: Objectives of the modeling program – including the groundwater flow and contaminant transport components. The main objective was to develop a calibrated model to compare to existing conditions and to predict future scenarios based on the preferred alternative landfill footprint option. It was noted that the model was used to test the feasibility of controlling the contaminant source from the Existing Landfill plume, with or without a landfill expansion.

WESA Inc. 3108 Carp Rd, P.O. Box 430

Carp (Ottawa),Ontario K0A 1L0 Telephone: 613-839-3053

Fax: 613-839-5376 E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.wesa.ca

Model development and calibration – the model configuration was discussed, including the extent and boundary conditions; infiltration and recharge factors; calibration targets; source areas, etc. There was discussion about the sensitivity analyses completed to explore a range of results; WESA noted that the sensitivity analyses at this stage were limited to varying dispersivity values to obtain a best fit for the transport modeling, and providing different weighting factors for observed water levels to fit the simulated groundwater heads. At the detailed design stage of the mitigative measures (i.e., purge wells), further sensitivity analyses could be completed to optimize the design of the system. Potential effects on groundwater flow from the preferred alternative landfill footprint – the results of the groundwater flow simulations were discussed. These show localized effects on the groundwater heads and flow orientations in the vicinity of the new G2-lined landfill footprint, as well as the new stormwater management ponds. The effects are not predicted to impact off-site properties. Potential effects on groundwater quality from the Existing Landfill (future baseline conditions) – it was noted that the modeling simulations predict that the plume from the Existing Landfill would continue to migrate from the unlined portion that is outside of the zone of influence for the existing purge well system (i.e., further to the north). Hence, mitigative measures would be required in order to control these groundwater impacts. The simulation results indicate that a line of purge wells along the northern boundary of the Existing Landfill footprint could be used to mitigate the groundwater impacts and contain any impacts on-site. The final number and locations of the purge wells would be determined at the detailed design phase (EPA approval phase). It was noted that the continued development and operation of the Huntley Quarry east of Carp Road would not affect the plume migration; the quarry would continue to act as a hydraulic sink for groundwater flow regardless of its eventual size. Chloride was used as an indicator parameter for the purposes of the modeling simulations. Chloride was selected because it is a conservative parameter, and the modeling simulations of contaminant flux through the landfill liner provided source concentrations to be used in the groundwater model. No other parameters showed measurable concentrations of mass flux through the G2 liner. The influence of road salt chloride is much less to the north where the preferred alternative landfill footprint is located. In the area of the existing site, particularly south of the closed South Cell (Rump cell), the influence of road salting is such that chloride cannot be used as a leachate indicator or a modeling parameter. Potential effects on groundwater quality from the preferred alternative landfill footprint – the modeling simulations indicate that the operation of the stormwater management ponds and the area of the G2-liner would influence the potential future migration of the plume from the Existing Landfill. The effluent concentrations from the stormwater ponds would need to be controlled so that downgradient groundwater concentrations did not exceed Guideline B-7 limits. The modeling simulations also showed that the plume from the existing landfill would be split into two arms – one to the north, the other to the east, and that the potential effects on groundwater quality would need to be mitigated so that there were no off-site impacts. Proposed mitigative measures and net effects – the proposed mitigative measures to control the impacts as discussed above were presented. The proposed mitigative measures include operating the stormwater management ponds with an effluent concentration limit of 165 mg/L, and installing the line of purge wells along the northern boundary of the Existing Landfill footprint, as discussed earlier. The modeling simulations with these mitigative measures in-place indicate that the net effects on groundwater quality at the property boundary would be acceptable.

Current purge well system – following the discussions of the groundwater modeling results, there was discussion of the current purge well system operations. It was noted that the design intent of these purge wells was to control the source of the groundwater contamination, but not to draw back any contamination that had already migrated onto the CAZ properties east of Carp Road. The concentrations on the CAZ properties were noted to be stable or decreasing, but that the rate of decrease was tailing off since the groundwater impacts on the CAZ was now being naturally attenuated. It was noted that the purge wells could not be said to have complete capture 100% of the time (due to maintenance issues, etc.); however, the monitoring indicated that the source of groundwater impacts was being controlled. We trust the above summary reflects the nature of the discussions at the meeting. If you have any questions or need further information regarding the meeting or the results presented, please contact the undersigned anytime. Respectfully Submitted, David Harding, M.Sc. P.Eng. Senior Consulting Engineer Encl. Ref: CB8831-12 Memo_Jan27-TSS Meeting_April13-2012.docx

Appendix A

Presentation Slides from Meeting

revised wcec ea moe consultation meeting atmospheric

Documents