odour existing conditions reportleic.com/upload-ck/sd 1-2 odour existing conditions... · odorous...

Odour Existing Conditions Report

Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Landfill

Expansion Environmental Assessment

GFL Environmental Inc.

Moose Creek, Ontario

May 16, 2018

Prepared by:

Tetra Tech

1205 Rue Ampère, Suite 310 Boucherville, QC J4B 7M6

Supporting Document 1-2


Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment

Acknowledgements

This Report has been Prepared by:

Tetra Tech 1205 Ampère, Suite 310 Boucherville, QC

This report has been prepared on behalf of GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL). This Report may not be used by any other person or entity without the express written permission of GFL and Tetra Tech. Any use of this report by a third party, or any reliance on decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. GFL and Tetra Tech accept no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.

Odour Existing Conditions Report Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment

This page is intentionally left blank.



i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1

EOWHF Expansion Study Area ........................................................................................................... 2 2

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 5 3

3.1 Available Secondary Source Information Collection and Review ............................................. 6

3.2 Processes Undertaken .............................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Description of Field Studies ....................................................................................................... 8

Composting Facility Odour Emission Characterization Program ................................. 8 3.3.1

Landfill Gas Monitoring................................................................................................. 8 3.3.2

Description of the Existing Odour Environment .................................................................................... 8 4

4.1 Odour Based Standards and Guidelines ................................................................................... 8

4.2 Contaminants of Concern........................................................................................................ 10

Hydrogen Sulphide ..................................................................................................... 10 4.2.1

Combustible Gas ........................................................................................................ 10 4.2.2

Odour ......................................................................................................................... 10 4.2.3

Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) .................................................................................... 10 4.2.4

Other Odorous Contaminants of Concern.................................................................. 10 4.2.5

4.3 Composting Facility Biofilter Exhaust Testing ......................................................................... 11

4.4 Landfill Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 11

4.5 Modelled Emissions ................................................................................................................ 12

Operating Conditions.................................................................................................. 15 4.5.1

Emission Estimation Methodologies .......................................................................... 15 4.5.2

Data Quality ................................................................................................................ 15 4.5.3

Dispersion Model ........................................................................................................ 16 4.5.4

Meteorological Data ................................................................................................... 16 4.5.5

Terrain Data ............................................................................................................... 16 4.5.6

Source Data ............................................................................................................... 16 4.5.7

Averaging Time and Conversions .............................................................................. 16 4.5.8

Dispersion Modelling Results ..................................................................................... 16 4.5.9

4.6 Odour Complaints Received ................................................................................................... 18

Summary Odour Existing Conditions ................................................................................................ 19 5

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 20 6

References ........................................................................................................................................ 20 7

Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................................................. 21 8

Acronyms and Units .......................................................................................................................... 23 9


ii

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Odour Based Standards and Guidelines .............................................................. 9

Table 2: Biofilter Odour Test Data ......................................................................................................... 11

Table 3: Landfill Gas Monitoring Data ................................................................................................... 11

Table 4: Summary of Modelled Odour Emission Sources ..................................................................... 13

Table 5: Modelled Odour Emission Results .......................................................................................... 17

Table 6: Odour Complaints Summary ................................................................................................... 18

Table 7: Odour Impacts Summary ......................................................................................................... 19

List of Figures

Figure 1: Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2: Sensitive Receptor Locations .................................................................................................... 5

List of Appendices

A Terms of Reference Appendix B – Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources

B Site Plan



E-1

Executive Summary

This report outlines the existing odour conditions relevant to the proposed landfill expansion of the GFL

Environmental Inc. (formerly Lafleche Environmental Inc.) Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility

(EOWHF) located at 17125 Lafleche Road, Moose Creek, Ontario.

The study area identified as relevant to the landfill expansion has been set based on the dispersion

modelling requirements specified under Ontario Regulation 419/05 (O.Reg. 419/05). This study area (see

Section 2) includes a rectangular area with sides approximately 5 kilometres (km) from the facility

property line and includes the most affected nearby residential neighbours (i.e., sensitive receptors), as

well as portions of Highway 417 (Trans-Canada) and a number of populated areas including Casselman

and Moose Creek.

The relevant odour-based air quality standards for the contaminants of concern likely or known to be

emitted from the EOWHF have been identified (see Section 4.1) including provincial Ambient Air Quality

Criteria (AAQC), O.Reg. 419/05 Point of Impingement (POI) Standards and Guidelines, as well as the

conditions of the facility’s Certificates of Approval (CofA) and Environment Compliance Approvals (ECA).

The existing odour conditions within the study area around the EOWHF were assessed based on a

review of the available field study data and the subsequent advanced air dispersion modelling

assessments completed in 2018 for the EA Application and previously in support of previous ECA and C

of A applications for facility upgrades and expansions. The results of the air dispersion modelling studies

were then compared against the relevant odour based air quality standards to determine the predicted

compliance status. Information from odour complaints in the area received by the EOWHF or local

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has also been included in the review

of local odour conditions.

Based on the available data, the predicted odour conditions within the study area are expected to meet

the relevant odour-based air quality standards for all contaminants of concern most of the time.

Exceedances of the 1 OU/m3 standard specified in the ECA are limited to 0.6% of the time with maximum

concentrations approaching 5 OU/m3. Odour complaint logs at the EOWHF appear to confirm this

finding. Between the beginning of 2014 and the end of 2015 a total of five (5) odour related complaints

were logged by either the MOECC or directly by the EOWHF, and an additional seven (7) complaints were

received during 2016. This is equivalent to a frequency of occurrence of less than 1.6% of the time,

conservatively assuming that the reported odour persisted for a period of 24 hours for each complaint

event. In actuality, the odour complaints have been highly transient, lasting for only limited periods of

time. Operational adjustments relating to timely placement of interim and final cover, early installation of

additional landfill gas extraction wells, minimization of the area of the landfill tipping face, and suspension

of some composting operation activities during wind shifts from the prevailing easterly direction, are

expected to mitigate off-site odour impacts.


E-2

This page is intentionally blank.



1

Introduction 1

This report identifies and describes the existing odour conditions associated with the landfill expansion of

the GFL Environmental Inc. (formerly Lafleche Environmental Inc.) Eastern Ontario Waste Handling

Facility (EOWHF) Environmental Assessment (EA) Study Area (see Section 2) consistent with the

approach and requirements included in the Terms of Reference (ToR).

The approved ToR included a preliminary description of the existing conditions within the area

surrounding the EOWHF, with the commitment that the description would be expanded upon in the EA. In

accordance with the approved ToR, investigative studies were carried out, as necessary, to generate a

more detailed description and understanding of the existing natural, cultural, socio-economic, and built

environments for use in the assessment and evaluation of the two alternative methods for the landfill

expansion during the EA.

Upon completion, existing conditions reports will be made available for review during the EA via the

project website, at the project office, and upon request, and will become either a reference or supporting

document to the submitted EA Study Report. The EA Study Report will be based on and reflect the

information contained within the report.


2

EOWHF Expansion Study Area 2

The existing EOWHF is located on the western half of Lot 16 and Lots 17 and 18, Concession 10,

Township of North Stormont, United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, near the intersection

of Highway 417 and Highway 138. The municipal street address for the facility is 17125 Lafleche Road,

Moose Creek, Ontario.

The EOWHF encompasses a site area of 189 hectares (see the Site Plan in Appendix B) which includes

the following waste management related activities and services:

66 hectare landfill site;

composting facility;

waste transfer and processing station;

waste water treatment facility;

small vehicle waste drop off;

landfill gas to energy facility;

Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) drop off;

Ontario Tire Stewardship (OTS) drop off; and

supporting facilities (office, vehicle maintenance).

As documented in the approved ToR, two landfill expansion options for the existing EOWHF have been

identified:

developing the areas of Stage 3B and Stage 4 as originally planned in the 1998 EA; and

developing Stage 3B as contemplated in the original approval (1998 EA) and the development of

a modified configuration of Stage 4.

As per the approved ToR, the study areas include the existing site as well as potentially affected

surrounding areas.

The Study Area specifically relevant to local odour impacts encompasses an area extending

approximately 5km in every direction from the facility property line as per the requirements of

Ontario Regulation 419/05 (O.Reg.419/05).

The Study Area includes a number of populated communities in the area including Casselman

and Moose Creek. The remainder of the study area covers mostly agricultural lands as well as

portions of the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 417) which passes less than 1km directly north

of the facility.

The Study Area has been defined based on the requirements of O.Reg.419/05 which dictates the

assessment of local air quality and odour impacts from facilities. O.Reg.419/05 requires that

facility emissions be assessed based on air dispersion modelling across an area that includes

modelled receptors located at the following intervals:

a) 20 metres, in an area that is bounded by a rectangle, where every point on the boundary of

the rectangle is at least 200 metres from every source of contaminant;



3

b) 50 metres, in an area that surrounds the area described in (a) and that is bounded by a

rectangle, where every point on the rectangle is at least 300 metres from the area described

in (a) (i.e., 50m spacing from 200m out to 500m from every source);

c) 100 metres, in an area that surrounds the area described in (b) and that is bounded by a

rectangle, where every point on the rectangle is at least 800 metres from the area described

in (a) (i.e., 100m spacing from 500m out to 1,000m from every source);

d) 200 metres, in an area that surrounds the area described in (c) and that is bounded by a

rectangle, where every point on the rectangle is at least 1,800 metres from the area

described in (a) (i.e., 200m spacing from 1,000m out to 2,000m from every source);

e) 500 metres, in an area that surrounds the area described in (d) and that is bounded by a

rectangle, where every point on the rectangle is at least 4,800 metres from the area

described in (a) (i.e., 500m spacing from 2,000m out to 5,000m from every source).

This receptor grid, or one comparable to it, was employed in the dispersion modelling assessments of

odorous emissions from the facility (see Section 3.1 below for the list of relevant dispersion modelling

assessments completed for the facility) to determine the extent of facility impacts on the surrounding area

and is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

82 Discrete Cartesian receptor locations were also included in the dispersion modelling

assessments of odour impacts (O2E Inc. Environmental Consultants, February 2011, Odour

Impact Assessment; See Section 3.1 below for full reference) as being representative of the

sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the facility. When modelling odour emissions, a

sensitive receptor is defined as any location where normal human activities can reasonably be

expected to occur at times when there is potential for adverse effects from odorous releases from

the facility, as per O.Reg.419/05 including:

a) Private residences or public facilities where people sleep (e.g., single and multiple unit

dwellings, nursing homes, hospitals, trailer parks, camping grounds)

b) Institutional facilities (e.g., schools, churches, community centers, daycare centers,

recreational facilities)

c) Outdoor public recreational areas (e.g., parks, walking trails, play grounds, picnic areas)

d) Other public areas where continuous human activities occur (e.g., office buildings,

Commercial plazas)

This differs from typical air quality modelling for hazardous contaminants where sensitive receptors are

defined as a location where a sensitive population is likely to reside, or inhabit for any period of time – i.e.

the very young, the very old and those who may be ill (e.g., daycares, schools, nursing homes and

hospitals).

These receptors were employed in the dispersion modelling assessment of odour emissions to determine

the magnitude and extent of the facilities odour impact on the surrounding area and specific Sensitive

Receptors. The nearest and the most affected Sensitive Receptors are identified in Figure 2 below.


4

Figure 1: Study Area



5

Figure 2: Sensitive Receptor Locations

The 82 individual receptor locations identified for the assessments include any location where normal

human activities can reasonably be expected to occur at times when there is potential for adverse effects

due to atmospheric releases from the facility as noted above.

Methods 3

This Odour Existing Conditions Report was developed based on the evaluation criteria, indicators and

data sources included in the approved ToR, which were developed in consultation with government

agencies and other stakeholders (refer to Appendix A).


6

3.1 Available Secondary Source Information Collection and Review

Available information was collected from secondary sources and reviewed to determine existing Odour

conditions within the study area. The following sources of information were collected and reviewed:

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), Ambient Air Quality Criteria

(AAQC), Standards Development Branch, April 2012, PIBS # 6570e01.

Provincial, effects based AAQC for contaminants of concern developed by the MOECC

for use in assessing the general air quality in an area. These criteria include limits on

contaminants that have the potential to create nuisance impacts such as odour.

MOECC, Summary of Standards and Guidelines to support Ontario Regulation 419/05 - Air

Pollution – Local Air Quality (including Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 419/05 on Upper Risk Thresholds),

Standards Development Branch, April 2012, PIBS # 6569e01.

Provincial, effects based Point of Impingement (POI) standards and guidelines for

contaminants of concern developed by the MOECC for use in assessing the impact of a

single facility on the local air quality. These criteria include limits on contaminants that

have the potential to create nuisance impacts such as odour.

MOECC, Ontario Regulation 232/98 (O.Reg.232/98): MOE Landfill Standards, May 1998.

Provincial standards for landfill gas collection system operations in Ontario.

MOECC, Ontario Regulation 419/05 (O.Reg.419/05): Air Pollution – Local Air Quality, December

22, 2009.

Provincial regulation governing the assessment and permitting of air pollution generated

by facilities within the province.

MOECC, Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario (ADMGO), Version 2.0, March 2009,

PIBs # 5165e02

Guidance for demonstrating compliance with the air dispersion modelling requirements

set out in O.Reg.419/05.

MOECC, Procedure for Preparing and Emission Inventory and Dispersion Modelling Report

(ESDM Guide), Version 3.0, March 2009; Version 4.0, February 2017.

Guidance for preparing an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) report

as per the requirements set out in O.Reg.419/05.

MOECC, Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) Air, Number 5427-7EVP89, Issued: October

29th, 2008

Environmental Approval for air emissions generated from the Lafleche Environmental Inc.

EOWHF aerobic composting facility.

Lafleche Environmental Inc. Odour Impact Assessment Report, February 11, 2011, O2E Inc.

Environmental Consultants (O2E Ref No. 10-082)

Odour dispersion modelling assessment prepared to demonstrate the facility’s

compliance with condition No. 2 of Environmental Compliance Approval No. 5427-

7EVP89, Issued: October 29th, 2008.



7

Envirosolve, Odour Emission Characterization Program, Lafleche Landfill – Eastern Ontario

Waste Handling Facility, November 10th, 2010, Report No. E10004.

Odour sampling and analysis program carried out as per Method ON-6 of the Ontario

Source Testing Code, in compliance with the source testing requirements of MOECC

Environmental Compliance Approval (Air) No. 5427-7EVP89 (issued October 29, 2008)

which permits the operation of the aerobic composting facility and associated emissions

control equipment.

MOECC, Ontario Source Testing Code, June 2010, PIBs #1310e03

Guidance document which provides a set of guidelines and methodologies for the

measurement of airborne emissions from stationary sources for the purposes of

demonstrating compliance with the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and its

Regulations.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), AP-42 Compilation of Air Emission

Factors, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, November 1998

Guidance document describing the typical emission sources and emission estimation

methodologies employed for municipal solid waste landfills including but not limited to

landfill gas emissions.

Tetra Tech, GFL Environmental Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Emission Summary and

Dispersion Modelling Report, May 10th, 2018

Updated dispersion modelling assessment of odour emissions from existing and

proposed new sources from the facility.

MOE, Interim Guide to Estimate and Assess Landfill Air Impacts - Air Resources Branch, October

1992

Guideline for landfill gas odour concentrations.

3.2 Processes Undertaken

The following outlines the primary processes followed to determine existing Odour conditions:

1) Review the study area (identified in Section 2) and identify the relevant sensitive receptors.

2) Review of the Odour Impact Assessment Report and ESDM reports developed including the 2018

Tetra Tech ESDM Update and those prepared in support of the applications for Environmental

Compliance Approvals (ECA) for the expansion of the composting facility capacity (ECA No.

9112-9DMTGX) and the amendment to the Landfill Gas To Energy Facility (ECA No. 1110-

7ZWT7B) to identify the odorous contaminants of concern emitted from the facility and relevant to

the local odour conditions.

3) Review the provincial odour related standards and summarize those relevant to the identified

contaminants of concern.

4) Review and summarize the results of the odour sampling campaign of the primary odour exhaust

source (composting facility biofilter).

5) Review and summarize the available Landfill Gas Monitoring data collected at ten (10) shallow

gas probe locations along the perimeter of the site.


8

6) Summarize the results of the dispersion modelling assessments carried out and described in the

facility Odour Impact Assessment and ESDM reports identified above.

7) Review and summarize the historical odour complaints logged by the facility over the last two (2)

years to confirm / refute the findings of the dispersion modelling assessment

8) Summarize the available monitoring and modelling results for the area and provide a comparison

against the relevant odour based standards and guidelines.

3.3 Description of Field Studies

The following outlines the field studies undertaken to characterize existing Odour conditions:

Composting Facility Odour Emission Characterization Program 3.3.1

In October of 2010, Envirosolve conducted a source sampling campaign of the odour emissions from the

composting facility’s Biofilter exhausts. Samples of the air released from the composting facility’s

Biofilter’s three (3) exhaust chambers were collected and analyzed to determine the odour emission rates

for each exhaust. Triplicate samples were collected in Tedlar bags at each exhaust and analyzed by

olfactometer within 24 hours of testing. Odour emission rates (ou/s-m3) were calculated using the

olfactometer measured odour threshold values (OTV’s) and the corresponding Biofilter volumetric flow

rate measured at the time of sample collection. This odour emission rate data was then used as inputs to

the dispersion modelling assessment documented in the Lafleche Environmental Inc. – Odour Impact

Assessment Report (February 2011) prepared by E2O Inc.

Landfill Gas Monitoring 3.3.2

Landfill gas concentrations in the subsurface were collected at ten (10) locations around the perimeter of

the facility (Identified as GP-1 through GP-10 in the Site Plan in Appendix B) during the months of

January, February, March and August. Combustible gas concentrations were measured using calibrated

portable gas probes capable of measuring ppm level concentrations. The results or this testing were then

compared against the MOECC’s O.Reg.232/98 guideline for methane concentrations in the subsurface at

the property line of the landfill of < 2.5 % by volume (equivalent to < 25,000 ppmv).

Description of the Existing Odour Environment 4

4.1 Odour Based Standards and Guidelines

The MOECC has developed effects based air quality standards, including those specifically related to

nuisance effects such as odours for the purposes of assessing the general ambient air quality in an area,

(Ambient Air Quality Criteria – AAQC), as well as assessing the potential impacts from an individual

facility through the Point of Impingement (POI) standards and guidelines. AAQC are intended to be used

when assessing the local air quality in a region, while POI standards and guidelines are intended to be

used when assessing the specific impact of an individual facility on the local air quality. To date the

MOECC has published 58 odour specific AAQC standards and 59 odour specific POI standards and, or

guidelines for compounds of concern.

The MOECC regulates landfill gas emissions under O.Reg.232/98, which includes requirements for the

mandatory collection of landfill gas and air emissions controls to prevent its release to the environment. In

addition to the major constituents of landfill gas (methane and carbon dioxide), small quantities of other



9

contaminants of concern including hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans and non-methane organic compounds

can also be generated. These trace components can create nuisance odours and affect local air quality.

Where specifically required by the MOECC (i.e. as a condition of an ECA) facilities must demonstrate

compliance with an Odour Performance Limit of 1.0 odour unit per cubic metre (OU/m3) over a 10 minute

averaging period, where an odour unit (OU) is defined as the point where 50% of the population can detect

the smell or odour. Condition 2 of the ECA - Air (No. 5427-7EVP89) for the aerobic composting facility at

the EOWHF specifies the facility meet this Odour Performance Limit for facility operations at the most

impacted Sensitive Receptor.

Table 1 below presents the AAQC’s and POI’s relevant to the facility for comparison with the available

monitoring and modelling data for the study area. Where more than one (1) standard exists for a

contaminant for a particulate averaging period, the most stringent standard available is to be applied.

Table 1: Summary of Odour Based Standards and Guidelines

Contaminant Averaging Period MOECC AAQC

(µg/m3)

MOECC POI

(µg/m3)

ECA Air (OU/m

3)

Hydrogen Sulphide 10 minutes 13 13

Odour 10 minutes - - 1.0

Total Reduced Sulphur 10 minutes 13 13

1,2-Dichloropropane (propylene dichloride)

24 hour 2,400

Chlorobenzene 1 hour 3,500

Dimethyl sulfide 10 minutes 30

Ethyl Mercaptan (ethanethiol) 24 hour 13

Methyl mercaptan 10 minutes 13

Xylenes 10 minutes 3,000

Toluene 24 hour 2000

Ethyl ether 10 minutes 950

Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 1 hour 19,000

Carbon disulphide 24 hour 330

Ethyl acetate 1 hour 19,000

Tetrahydrofuran 24 hour 93,000

Methyl isobutyl ketone 24 hour 1,200

Ethyl benzene 10 minutes 1,900

Decane, n- 1 hour 60,000

In addition to these standards and guidelines, O. Reg. 232/98 includes maximum acceptable

concentrations for combustible gas at landfill sites. The combustible gases in landfill gas are typically

limited to methane. Small amounts of other compounds such as hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans and non-

methane organic compounds may also be present, and these have the potential to create odour impacts,

while the methane component of landfill gas is of particular concern as it poses an explosion hazard if it

becomes trapped in enclosed spaces at concentrations ranging from 5 to 15 percent by volume. Ontario

Regulation 232/98 addresses this concern by requiring an assessment of the potential for subsurface


10

migration and by setting concentration limits for methane. The concentration limits specified in the

Regulation are:

less than 2.5 percent methane gas in the subsurface at the property boundary;

less than 1.0 percent methane in an on-site building, or its foundation; and

less than 0.05 percent methane (i.e., not present) in a building, or its foundation, which is located

off-site.

4.2 Contaminants of Concern

The following sections provide a description of the odorous contaminants of concern that are known to be

emitted from the facility, that have the potential to impact on the local air quality.

Hydrogen Sulphide 4.2.1

Hydrogen sulphide is a colourless gas with a characteristic rotten egg smell which is generated by the

partial combustion, or decomposition of sulphur rich materials. At the trace concentrations expected from

the decomposition of material within the landfill and composting facility, the primary concern is the

potential to cause odour impacts.

Combustible Gas 4.2.2

Landfill gas consists of a mixture of approximately 50% Methane and 50% Carbon dioxide with trace

quantities of odorous contaminants of concern including hydrogen sulphide and other reduced sulphur

compounds. Landfill gas is continuously emitted from landfills as the gas is capable of escaping through

the void spaces between soil particles, however the implementation of an effective landfill gas collection

and air emission control system on site will typically reduce the volume of escaping landfill gas to

negligible levels.

Odour 4.2.3

In Ontario odour is regulated under Section 14 of the Environmental Protection Act which prohibits

companies from discharging anything to the natural environment that may cause and adverse impact,

including loss of enjoyment of normal use of a property. Any smell that would typically be deemed as

unpleasant or offensive can constitute an odour.

Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) 4.2.4

Total reduced sulphur refers to a group of reduced sulphur compounds including dimethyl disulphide,

dimethyl sulphide, hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans. TRS is typically not released in sufficient

concentrations to create an adverse health effect, but is widely associated with nuisance odours as the

compounds included in the group all have a characteristic, strong rotten egg smell.

Other Odorous Contaminants of Concern 4.2.5

The remaining 15 odorous contaminants of concern include all contaminants identified as constituents of

landfill gas which have either MOECC AAQC’s or POI standards relevant to odour. These compounds

include volatile organic compounds (e.g., xylene, toluene) as well as sulphur containing compounds (e.g.,

mercaptans). Each of these substances is known to contribute to odorous impacts in elevated

concentrations.



11

4.3 Composting Facility Biofilter Exhaust Testing

Odour source testing was carried out on each of the three (3) exhaust chambers of the Composting

facility Biofilter on October 12th, 2010. Sampling and analysis were conducted according to Method ON-6:

Determination of Odour Emissions from Stationary Sources (MOECC. Ontario Source Testing Code.

2010). The results of the testing are presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Biofilter Odour Test Data

Biofilter Exhaust Chamber

Net OTV Test #1

Net OTV Test #1

Net OTV Test #1

Net OTV Geometric Mean

Odour Emission Rate (OU/s-m

3)

Receiving 16 29 27 23 307

Bunker B 27 23 21 24 311

Bunker A 174 145 159 159 2,097

Average 905

The Odour Emission Rates presented above were calculated based on the maximum flow rate for each

of the Biofilter fans of 13.2 m3/s. This emission rate data was subsequently employed in the dispersion

modelling assessment of odour impacts in the surrounding area described in Section 4.5 below.

4.4 Landfill Gas Emissions

The concentration of combustible landfill gas, consisting almost exclusively of methane, present in the

subsurface, at the perimeter of the landfill provides an indication of the general level of combustible gas

emissions from the facility and the effectiveness of the landfill gas collection system on site (See Section

3.3.2 above for information on the field study). Table 3 below provides the concentrations of Combustible

gas measured in the subsurface at ten (10) locations around the perimeter of the facility.

Table 3: Landfill Gas Monitoring Data

Shallow Gas Probe

Jan.10, 2014

(ppm)

Feb.4, 2014

(ppm)

Mar.21, 2014

(ppm)

Aug.29, 2014

(ppm)

Jan.12, 2015

(ppm)

Feb.4, 2015

(ppm)

Mar.9, 2015

(ppm)

Aug.12, 2015

(ppm)

Average (ppm)

GP-1 120 145 75 60 195 90 90 60 104

GP-2R 200 180 Not Found

30 300 180 Not Found

30 153

GP-3 80 40 20 10 Not Found

Not Found

Not Found

10 32

GP-4 0 40 40 0 50 70 20 0 28

GP-5R 20 110 110 30 70 90 10 30 59

GP-6 200 150 150 100 250 155 300 100 176

GP-7 30 110 110 110 200 90 110 190 119

GP-8 80 Not Found

225 70 Not Available

Not Available

Not Available

Not Available

125

GP-9 175 150 180 50 225 100 180 25 136

GP-10 200 140 240 60 230 200 240 50 170

Average 111 118 128 52 190 122 136 55 111


12

Based on the available data, the average concentration of combustible gas in the subsurface around the

perimeter of the facility is approximately 0.4% (111 ppm) of the MOECC Reg.232/98 standard of 25,000

ppm. This is indicative of a well-functioning landfill gas collection system with minimal emissions of landfill

gas to the environment.

4.5 Modelled Emissions

In the absence of empirical ambient air quality monitoring data specific to odour, odour from the facility

has been modelled based on the estimated odour concentrations associated with the facility operations

and the odorous contaminants of concern expected to be emitted from the facility. These contaminants

have been assessed based on air dispersion modelling studies using the US EPA’s advanced Gaussian

Plume dispersion model AERMOD as per the MOECC’s Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario

(ADMGO. 2009). These dispersion modelling studies were conducted in compliance with the conditions of

the Composting facility Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. 5427-7EVP89, as part of the

facility’s ECA applications and documented in the Odour Impact Assessment (E2O. 2010) and ESDM

reports (Tetra Tech. 2018; O2E. 2012; Comcor. 2011). These modelling reports were prepared as per the

MOECC’s Procedure for Preparing and Emission Inventory and Dispersion Modelling Report (MOECC.

2009, 2017).

Table 4 below provides a summary of the information on the modelled sources of odorous emissions from

the facility used in the preparation of the various dispersion modelling assessments.



13

Table 4: Summary of Modelled Odour Emission Sources

Source Description Modelled Source Type

Modelled Source Data

Pollutant Emission

Rate

(g/s)

Pollutant Emission

Rate

(g/s) Diam (m)

Flow Rate

(m3/s)

Temp (oC)

Height* (m AG) / (m AR)

Gensets (4)

Landfill Gas Gensets

Stacks (4) 0.25 N/A 509 5.61 / 3.02

Dimethyl Sulfide 1.3E-04 Toluene 4.0E-03

Ethyl Mercaptan 3.7E-05 Ethyl ether 3.8E-06

Hydrogen Sulfide 3.2E-04 Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 2.5E-05

Methyl Mercaptan 3.2E-05 Ethyl acetate 1.0E-05

Carbon Disulphide 8.4E-06 Tetrahydrofuran 6.3E-05

Total Reduced Sulphur 1.1E-3 Methyl isobutyl ketone 1.5E-05


5.4E-06 Ethyl benzene 3.5E-05

Chlorobenzene 7.4E-06 Decane, n- 3.5E-05

Xylenes 3.4E-04

Flare Enclosed

Landfill Gas Flare

Stack 3.05 N/A 871 12.2 / -

Dimethyl Sulfide 4.8E-04 Toluene 1.5E-02

Ethyl Mercaptan 1.4E-04 Ethyl ether 1.4E-05

Hydrogen Sulfide 1.2E-03 Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 9.4E-05

Methyl Mercaptan 1.2E-04 Ethyl acetate 3.7E-05

Carbon Disulphide 3.1E-05 Tetrahydrofuran 2.3E-04

Total Reduced Sulphur 2.0E-3 Methyl isobutyl ketone 5.7E-05




Xylenes 1.3E-03

Biofilter Composting

facility biofiter exhausts (3)

Area (of total exhaust)

N/A 39.6 Amb. - Odour

1360 (OU/s)

Total Reduced Sulphur 4.94E-4

Landfill Landfill Gas

releases

Area (LFG

Collection Systems 1, 2 & 3)

N/A Passive Amb -

Dimethyl Sulfide 4.2E-03 Xylenes 1.1E-02

Ethyl Mercaptan 1.2E-03 Toluene 1.3E-01

Hydrogen Sulfide 1.1E-02 Ethyl ether 1.3E-04

Methyl Mercaptan 1.0E-03 Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 8.4E-04

Carbon Disulphide 2.8E-04 Ethyl acetate 3.3E-04

Total Reduced Sulphur 1.7E-2 Tetrahydrofuran 2.1E-03

Odour 2097

(OU/s) Methyl isobutyl ketone 5.0E-04





14

Source Description Modelled Source Type

Modelled Source Data

Pollutant Emission

Rate

(g/s)

Pollutant Emission

Rate

(g/s) Diam (m)

Flow Rate

(m3/s)

Temp (oC)

Height* (m AG) / (m AR)

Tipping Face

Landfill Active Tipping Face

Area N/A Passive Amb

Dimethyl Sulfide 3.6E-04 Xylenes 9.6E-04

Ethyl Mercaptan 1.1E-04 Toluene 1.1E-02

Hydrogen Sulfide 9.1E-04 Ethyl ether 1.1E-05

Methyl Mercaptan 9.0E-05 Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 7.2E-05

Carbon Disulphide 2.4E-05 Ethyl acetate 2.9E-05

Total Reduced Sulphur 3.5E-06 Tetrahydrofuran 1.8E-04

Odour 180 (OU/s) Methyl isobutyl ketone 4.3E-05




Leachate Leachate pond N/A – Negligible Source of Emissions**

Notes:

* Height listed as m above grade (m AG) and m above roof (m AR)

** Emissions of odorous compounds from the surfaces of the Leachate pond were considered in the 2012 ESDM update (E2O, 2012) but not

included in the modelling assessment as they were deemed to be negligible contributors to the overall odour impact from the facility.



15

Operating Conditions 4.5.1

It is expected that the Genset, Biofilter, Landfill and Tipping Face based emission sources identified in

Table 4 above will operate up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year. The Enclosed

Landfill Gas Flare stack is anticipated to operate as a standby landfill gas control combustion device and

the Landfilling operations are carried out between 7AM and 7PM on weekdays and between 8AM and

2PM on Saturdays. The facility is closed on Sundays.

The maximum operating conditions considered in the dispersion modelling assessment of the existing

conditions include the operation of four (4) reciprocating engine generators, the Enclosed Landfill Gas

Flare, the Biofilter, Landfill and Tipping Face emissions released / operating at maximum capacity for the

full 10 minute averaging period required to assess odour emissions.

Emission Estimation Methodologies 4.5.2

Emissions of odorous contaminants identified in Table 4 above were estimated base on a combination of

engineering estimates, published emission factors from Section 2.4 of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency’s (USEPA) AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, November 1998 and source

testing data from the Envirosolve, Odour Emission Characterization Program, Lafleche Landfill – Eastern

Ontario Waste Handling Facility, November 10th, 2010, Report No. E10004.

Emissions of odorous compounds from landfill gas including that combusted in the Genset and Flare

stack sources were estimated based on the US EPA AP-42 published emission factors and the laboratory

analysis of landfill gas samples attached in Appendix C.

Emissions of Odour from the Biofilter have been estimated based on the compliance source testing

conducted according to the Ministry’s guidelines and have been included above in Table 2 in Section 4.3.

Emissions of Odour from fugitive landfill gas emissions have been estimated based on the default Odour

intensity for landfill gas as per the MOE’s Interim Guideline (MOE 1992) and the gas generation rate

presented in the Conceptual Design Report of the Environmental Assessment application (Section 2.5.1).

Emissions of Total Reduced Sulphur from the Biofilter and Landfill sources have been estimated based

on engineering estimates from the facility’s original ESDM report submitted to the Ministry as part of the

facility’s initial air quality permit application, updated to include methyl mercaptans as well as hydrogen

sulphide and dimethyl sulphide as per the requirements of Section 1(2.4) of O.Reg. 419/05. The TRS

species concentration data from the manufacturer used to calculate the emission rate from the exhaust

flow rate are included in Appendix C.

Data Quality 4.5.3

The data quality rating of the emission estimates used in the dispersion modelling assessments of

odorous contaminants of concern are as follows:

Odorous compounds from landfill gas releases including residual from the combustion of landfill

gas in the Gensets and Flare emissions estimates are rated “E” quality by the US EPA. This is

equivalent to “Marginal” data quality according to the MOECC’s guidelines.

Odour emission estimates from the Biofilter facility are rated “Above Average” data quality.


16

Odour emission estimates from landfill gas fugitive emissions are rated “Marginal” data quality.

Total Reduced Sulphur emission estimates from the Biofilter and Landfill operations have been

assigned an “Average” data quality rating.

Dispersion Model 4.5.4

The dispersion modelling assessments were completed using the US EPA’s AERMOD dispersion

modelling software to predict the ground level concentrations of airborne contaminants. Real world

meteorological and terrain data were employed using the AERMET and AERMAP software.

Meteorological Data 4.5.5

5‐years of hourly surface meteorological data, including wind speed, wind direction, temperature, cloud

cover and humidity from the nearest surface/airport station (Moose Creek Ontario) and Radiosonde,

Upper Air data for mixing layer depth information were obtained from the Ministry and processed with the

AEMET software to create a dataset that for use by AERMOD.

Terrain Data 4.5.6

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) terrain data was obtained from WebGIS data in the form of USGS CDED

15 minute (1:50K, ~23m accuracy) format. This DEM data was processed in conjunction with the facility

building and source layout and receptors in the AERMAP software to be used by the AERMOD software.

Source Data 4.5.7

The Genset and Flare stack emissions were modelled within AERMOD as Point Sources, while the

Biofilter and Landfill operations were modelled as Area Sources. The details of the emission point

characteristics are presented in the Tetra Tech 2018 ESDM report.

The effects of building downwash on the stack based emissions were considered and modelled using the

Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) processing software.

Averaging Time and Conversions 4.5.8

The dispersion modelling was completed using one (1) hour and twenty-four (24) hour averaging times.

As the odour related POI concentration limits are all based on ten (10) minute averaging periods, the one

(1) hour averaging time for each modelling result was converted to ten (10) minute averages using the

method described in O.Reg. 419/05, s. 17 and shown below:

𝑃𝑂𝐼10𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑃𝑂𝐼1ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 × (𝑡1 ÷ 𝑡0)𝑛

Where: t1 = dispersion model averaging period (1hour)

t0 = desired averaging period (10min)

n = 0.28

Dispersion Modelling Results 4.5.9

The results of the dispersion modelling assessments, presented below in Table 5 are intended to be

indicative of the maximum off-site ground level odour impacts, based on the worst possible case



17

operating scenario(s) at the facility. As such, these results are expected to provide a reasonably

conservative estimate of actual airborne concentrations within the modelled study area.

Table 5: Modelled Odour Emission Results

*Note: Odour results are for the nearest most effected receptor

Based on the above modelling results the maximum predicted ground level concentrations of specific

contaminants of concern other than odour from facility operations are expected to be within the relevant

air quality standards at the nearest, most impacted sensitive receptor (i.e. neighbouring residence

identified as location “A” in Figure 2) and throughout the rest of the study area under normal operating

conditions. The modelled results for the maximum predicted ground level composite odour

concentration in the study area include exceedances of the 1 OU, 10 minute average up to a maximum

modelled odour concentration at the nearest, most effected residential receptor of 5.37 OU/m3.

The frequency of occurrence of odour-related impacts at the nearest, most impacted sensitive receptor

(i.e., neighbouring residence identified as location “A” in Figure 2) based on the AERMOD dispersion

modelling results is expected to be approximately 0.6% of the time, during which time the receptors are

expected to experience odours that range from detectable (>1 OU) to what may be considered a

nuisance (>5 OU). The modelling results indicate that the EOWHF meets the relevant air quality

standards for all odour-based contaminants of concern approximately 99.4% of the time. The other

Sensitive Receptor locations identified in Section 2 above were also modelled and were found to have

lower concentrations of all odorous emissions.

It should be noted that the modelling results do not account for the contributions of other potential

sources of odour in and around the study area including agricultural activities like fertilizer applications

and the nearby mushroom farm within the study area. These sources have the potential to generate

significant odour emissions under adverse circumstances.

Contaminant of Concern CAS No.

Air Quality Standard (µg/m

3)

Source of Standard

Averaging Period (hours)

Maximum Ground Level Concentration

(µg/m3)

Percent of

Standard

Dimethyl sulfide 75-18-3 30 AAQC / POI 10 minute 1.7 6%

Ethyl Mercaptan (ethanethiol) 75-08-1 13 AAQC / POI 10 minute 0.053


18

4.6 Odour Complaints Received

Between the beginning of 2014 and the end of 2015 a total of five (5) odour related complaints were

logged by either the MOECC or directly by the facility. An additional seven (7) complaints were received

during 2016. This is equivalent to a frequency of occurrence of less than 1.6% of the time (conservatively

assuming that the reported odour persisted for a period of 24 hours for each complaint event). Table 6

below provides a summary of these complaints.

Table 6: Odour Complaints Summary

Complaints have been received during both normal operations and while there were no facility operations

ongoing. The odour complaints have also been highly transient, lasting for only limited periods of time,

making it difficult to accurately discern the originating source based on the available data. It is worth

noting that the majority of complaints were related to odour impacts detected while travelling along area

roads, rather than on-site at residences or businesses.

The off-site odour impacts that have occurred are related to operational issues that can be addressed

through adjustments in operational practices, rather than the size of buffer areas, distances to off-site

receptors, or types of waste accepted at the landfill and associated facilities. Mitigative measures are

currently being contemplated to reduce and eliminate off-site odour impacts from the facility. These

include:

Adding cover material in areas where final cover has not yet been installed

Date and Time Location Facility Operations

June 17th, 2014 – 17:30

~ Intersection of Hwy 417 and Hwy 138

No operations; Facility was closed at 17:00

July 13th, 2014 – Late

morning to mid afternoon ~ Intersection of Hwy 417 and

Hwy 138 No operations; Facility was closed as it was a

Sunday

August 17th, 2014 –

Unspecified Time Residence on Sandringham

Road Normal operations

October 16th

, 2014 – Early morning prior to 11:20a.m.

MTO Weigh Scale on North Side of Hwy 417

Normal operations and Stage II landfill gas collection systems construction

July 10th, 2015 ~ 08:10

a.m. Residence on Sandringham

Road Normal operations

March 4th, 2016 11:01

a.m. Highway 417 at Hwy 138

Normal operations; ground leaf and yard waste moved from storage area to composting facility

on the afternoon of March 4th

August 9th, 2016 Lafleche Road

October 14th, 2016 9:00

a.m. & 6:00 p.m. Intersection of Hwy. 417 and

Hwy. 138 Normal operations

November 6th, 2016

Immediately north of landfill on Hwy 138

Landfill closed (Sunday)

November 8th, 2016 8:15

a.m.

Various (complaint from CLC that landfill gas odour impacts

increasing recently) Normal operations

November 9th, 2016 10:26

a.m. 5 km South of Site Normal operations

December 16th, 2016

11:54 a.m. Fournier, Casselman, St-Rose,

St-Isodore Normal operations



19

Improved sealing of landfill gas at extraction gas wellheads

Expansion of the landfill gas collection system

Evaluation of adding blower capacity for the landfill gas collection system to increase the vacuum

applied to the collection system

reducing the area of the waste tipping face and of the active landfill area

restricting some aspects of composting operations when winds shift from the prevailing direction

The most recent odour complaints, seven (7) during 2016, appear to be associated with landfill gas

impacts, and can be expected to be effectively mitigated by improving or implementing measures related

to the first four elements listed above.

Summary Odour Existing Conditions 5

Odour within the study area has been assessed based on the odour related contaminants of concern

consistent with those emitted from the existing EOWHF based on a combination of field test data and

advanced air dispersion modelling. In general, odour within the study area is expected to meet the

relevant air quality standards (see Table 1) for all contaminants of concern.

The following Table 7 summarizes the worst case estimates for odour impacts at the most affected

receptors within the study area based on the worst case operating scenario at the EOWHF.

Table 7: Odour Impacts Summary

The frequency of odour complaints logged in the area over the past three years is consistent with the

modelled frequency of exceedance and indicates that there were minimal detectable odours during the

majority of this time. In most instances, occurrences of off-site odour impacts were of limited duration.

Contaminant of Concern CAS No.

Air Quality

Standard (µg/m

3)

Source of Standard

Averaging Period (hours)

Maximum Ground Level Concentration

(µg/m3)

Percent of

Standard

Dimethyl sulfide 75-18-3 30 AAQC / POI 10 minute 0.69 2%

Ethyl Mercaptan (ethanethiol) 75-08-1 13 AAQC / POI 10 minute 0.03


20

Conclusions 6

Based on the available field data and subsequent advanced air dispersion modelling assessment results,

the odour impacts within the study area are expected to meet the relevant air quality standards for all

odour-based contaminants of concern for all but a minimal 0.6% of the time. The modelling results

indicate that the EOWHF meets the relevant air quality standards for all odour-based contaminants of

concern approximately 99.4% of the time. The infrequent occurrence of exceedances and complaints of

transient odours are expected to be related to operational issues that can be effectively mitigated by

adjusting operational practices.

References 7

BPR (BPR-Infrastructure Inc.). 2015. 2014 Annual Report, Site Development, Operations and Environmental Monitoring Report, Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility

Tetra Tech (Tetra Tech QI Inc.). 2016. 2015 Annual Report, Site Development, Operations and Environmental Monitoring Report, Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility

O2E (O2E Environmental Consultants Inc.). 2012. Lafleche Environmental Inc., 17125 Lafleche Road, Moose Creek, Ontario K0c 1w0, Emission Summary And Dispersion Modelling Report,

August 1st, 2012, O2E Ref. No. 12‐033

Comcor (Comcor Environmental Limited). 2011. Emission Summary And Dispersion Modelling Report, Laflèche Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility, Landfill Gas To Energy Facility, Moose Creek, Ontario, December 22

nd, 2011, Project No. 9-398

MOECC, SDB (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Standards Development Branch). 2012. Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC), April 2012, PIBS # 6570e01.

MOECC, SDB (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Standards Development Branch). 2012. Summary of Standards and Guidelines to support Ontario Regulation 419/05 - Air Pollution – Local Air Quality (including Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 419/05 on Upper Risk Thresholds), April 2012, PIBS # 6569e01.

MOECC (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change). 1998. Ontario Regulation 232/98: Ministry of the Environment Landfill Standards, May 1998.

MOECC (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change). 2009. Ontario Regulation 419/05: Air Pollution – Local Air Quality, December 22, 2009.

MOECC (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change). 2009. Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario, Version 2.0, March 2009, PIBs # 5165e02.

MOECC (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change). 2009. Procedure for Preparing and Emission Inventory and Dispersion Modelling Report, Version 3.0, March 2009, PIBs # 3614e03

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. AP-42 Compilation of Air Emission Factors, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, November 1998

Tetra Tech, GFL Environmental Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report, May 10, 2018

MOE, Interim Guide to Estimate and Assess Landfill Air Impacts - Air Resources Branch, October 1992



21

Glossary of Terms 8

Glossary of Terms

Term Definition

Approval Permission granted by an authorized individual or organization for an undertaking to proceed. This may be in the form of program approval, Environmental Compliance Approval or provisional Environmental Compliance Approval.

Environment As defined by the Environmental Assessment Act, environment means:

air, land or water;

plant and animal life, including human life;

the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community;

any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans;

any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities; or

any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them (ecosystem approach).

Environmental Assessment (EA)

A systematic planning process that is conducted in accordance with applicable laws or regulations aimed at assessing the effects of a proposed undertaking on the environment.

Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA)

A licence or permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change for the operation of a waste management site/facility.

Evaluation criteria Evaluation criteria are considerations or factors taken into account in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives being considered.

Indicators Indicators are specific characteristics of the evaluation criteria that can be measured or determined in some way, as opposed to the actual criteria, which are fairly general.

Landfill site An approved engineered site/facility used for the final disposal of waste. Landfills are waste disposal sites where waste is spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and typically covered by soil.

Mitigation Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment.

Proponent A person who:

carries out or proposes to carry out an undertaking; or

is the owner or person having charge, management or control of an undertaking.

Receptor The person, plant or wildlife species that may be affected due to exposure to a contaminant.

Stakeholder Any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake in or may be impacted by a given approach to environmental regulation, pollution prevention, energy conservation, etc.

Terms of Reference A terms of reference is a document that sets out detailed requirements for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment.

Undertaking Is defined in the Environmental Assessment Act as follows:

An enterprise or activity or a proposal, plan or program in respect of an enterprise or activity by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario, by a public body or public bodies or by a municipality or municipalities;

A major commercial or business enterprise or activity or a proposal, plan or program in respect of a major commercial or business enterprise or activity of a person or persons other than a person or persons referred to in clause (1) that is designated by


22

Term Definition

the regulations; or

An enterprise or activity or a proposal, plan or program in respect of an enterprise or activity of a person or persons, other than a person or persons referred to in clause (a), if an agreement is entered into under section 3.0.1 in respect of the enterprise, activity, proposal, plan or program; ("enterprise").

Waste Refuse from places of human or animal habitation; unwanted materials left over from a manufacturing process.



23

Acronyms and Units 9

List of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

AAQC Ambient Air Quality Criteria

ADMGO Air Dispersion Modelling Guide for Ontario

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

ECA Environmental Compliance Approval (Precursor to ECA)

EA Environmental Assessment

EAA Environmental Assessment Act

EASR Environmental Assessment Study Report

ECA Environmental Compliance Approval

EOWHF Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility

EPA Environmental Protection Act

ESDM Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report

MOECC (Ontario) Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

OEAA Ontario Environmental Assessment Act

POI Point of Impingement

ToR Terms of Reference

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

List of Units

Unit Definition

µm micrometre

cm centimetre

ha hectare

km kilometre

m metre

µg micrograms

g grams

MW megawatt

m³

cubic metres

ppm parts per million

tpy Tonnes per year

ou/s-m3 Odour emission rates



A

Appendix A

Terms of Reference Appendix B – Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and

Data Sources



A-1

Evaluation Criteria

Rationale Indicators Data Sources

Natural Environment

Environmental Component: Atmospheric Environment

Air quality Waste disposal site and associated operations can emit contaminants that can degrade air quality. Construction and operation activities at a waste disposal site can also lead to increased levels of particulates (dust) in the air.

Predicted off-site point of impingement air concentrations of indicator compounds

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses/farms, institutions)

Published meteorological and climate data Annual dust monitoring data Applicable MOECC guidelines and

technical standards Aerial photographic mapping and field

reconnaissance Off-site receptors confirmed on recent

mapping Available background ambient air data Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operation data Annual site specific noise monitoring data Manufacturer provided noise specifications Applicable MOE guidelines and technical

standards Aerial mapping and field reconnaissance to

confirm off-site receptors Land use zoning plans Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data Published meteorological and climate data Site odour related data Existing emissions summary and dispersion

modelling (ESDM) report Site odour complaint history Aerial mapping and field reconnaissance to

confirm off-site receptors Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data Applicable MOECC guidelines and

technical standards

Noise Construction and operation activities can result in increased noise levels associated with the waste disposal facility.

Predicted site-related noise levels (dBA)


Odour The proposed expansion may result in changes in the degree and frequency of odours from the Facility.

Predicted off-site odour concentrations (µg/m3and odour units)



A-2

Evaluation Criteria


Environmental Component: Geology & Hydrogeology

Groundwater Quality

Contaminants associated with waste disposal sites have the potential to enter the groundwater and impact off-site groundwater

Predicted effects to groundwater quality at property boundaries and off-site

Existing hydrogeological and geotechnical studies

Water well records

Determination of water well users in the area

Annual site monitoring reports

Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals

Leachate generation assessment

Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN)

Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data Existing hydrogeological and geotechnical

studies

Water well records

Determination of water well users in the area

Annual site monitoring reports

Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data

Groundwater Quantity

Physical works may disrupt natural groundwater flows

Predicted groundwater flow characteristics

Environmental Component: Surface Water Environment

Surface Water Quality

Contaminants associated with waste disposal sites have the

potential to seep or runoff into surface water

Predicted effects on surface water quality; onsite and off-site

Topographic maps Air photos Facility layout, drainage maps and figures On-site stormwater management system design for expanded landfill Annual monitoring reports Published water quality and flow

information from MOECC, Environment Canada and

local conservation authorities Site reconnaissance Provincial Water Quality Monitoring

Surface Water Quantity

Construction of physical works may disrupt natural surface drainage patterns and may alter runoff and peak flows. The presence of the expanded landfill may also affect base flow to surface water.

Change in drainage areas Predicted occurrence and degree of

off-site impacts



A-3

Evaluation Criteria


Network Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data

Environmental Component: Ecological Environment

Terrestrial

Ecosystems

Continued or expanded operation of

the waste disposal facility may disturb the functioning of natural terrestrial habitats and vegetation, including rate, threatened or endangered species.

Predicted impact on vegetation communities

Predicted impact on wildlife habitat Predicted impact on vegetation and

wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

Predicted changes in water quality Predicted impact on aquatic habitat Predicted impact on aquatic biota

including rare, threatened or endangered species

Existing information and associated agreement with MNR regarding on-site natural environment

Annual monitoring report data Published data sources and mapping Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data

Aquatic Ecosystems

Continued or expanded operation of the waste disposal facility may disturb the functioning of natural aquatic habitats and species, including rate, threatened or endangered species.

Socio-Economic Environment

Environmental Component: Economic

Economic effects on/benefits to local community

The continued operation of the landfill will provide economic benefits to the local community in the form of new employment opportunities. This may also increase employment in local firms

Employment at site (number and duration)

Opportunities to provide products or services

Census data for Township of North Stormont and Untied Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry


Effects on local

community

Waste disposal facilities can

potentially affect local residents in the vicinity of the site

Number of residents Predicted changes to use of

property

Aerial mapping and field reconnaissance Census information Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data

Visual Impact of Facility

The contours of the waste disposal facility may affect the visual appeal of a landscape.

Predicted changes in perceptions of landscapes and views.

Site grading plans Aerial mapping and field reconnaissance Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data


A-4

Evaluation Criteria


Cultural Environment

Environmental Component: Social

Cultural and heritage resources

The use and enjoyment of cultural resources may be disturbed by the ongoing operation.

Cultural and heritage resources (built and landscapes) on-site and in vicinity and predicted impacts on them.

Published data sources Ministry of Tourism and Culture - Built

Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Checklist

Cultural/heritage assessment Commemorative statements Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data Existing Stage 1 Archaeology Assessment MTCS Correspondence (February 25,

2015)

Archaeological resources

Archaeological resources are non-renewable cultural resources that can be destroyed by the construction and operation of a waste disposal facility

Archaeological resources on-site and in vicinity and predicted impacts on them.

Built Environment

Environmental Component: Transportation

Effects from

truck transportation along access roads

Truck traffic associated with

continued operations of the landfill may adversely affect residents, businesses, institutions and movement of farm vehicles in the site vicinity

Disturbance to traffic operations Existing information and traffic data Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data

Environmental Component: Current and Planned Future Land Use

Effects on current and planned future land uses

The continued operation of the landfill may not be fully compatible with certain current and/or planned future land uses in the off-site study area. Waste disposal facilities can potentially affect the use and enjoyment of recreational resources in the vicinity of the site.

Current land use Planned land use Type(s) and proximity of off-site

recreational resources within 1000m of a landfill footprint potentially affected

Type(s) and proximity of off-site sensitive land uses (e.g. dwellings, churches, parks) within 1000m of a landfill footprint potentially affected

United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Official Plan and Zoning By-law

Township of North Stormont Official Plan and Zoning By-law

Aerial photographic mapping and field reconnaissance

Published data on public recreational facilities/activities

Provincial Policy Statement Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data



A-5

Evaluation Criteria


Environmental Component: Aggregate Extraction & Agricultural

Aggregate resources

Aggregate resources may be present in the area of the expanded landfill

Presence of known or identified aggregate resources and the predicted impact of impairment of their use due to the proposed footprint, construction and operation on-site.

Aggregate resources inventory mapping (ARIM)

Ontario geological survey Borehole logs from previous field

investigations Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data Provincial Policy Statement United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and

Glengarry Official Plan and Zoning By-law Township of North Stormont Official Plan

and Zoning By-law Aerial mapping and field reconnaissance Canadian Lands Inventory (CLI) mapping Proposed facility characteristics Landfill design and operations data

Effects on agricultural land

Adjacent agricultural land may be affected by the development of the facility.

Current land use Predicted impacts on surrounding

agricultural operations Type(s) and proximity of agricultural

operations (e.g. organic, cash crop, livestock).

Environmental Component: Design and Operations

Site design and operational characteristics

The characteristics of the existing and proposed site design and engineered system requirements will affect site activities and operational and maintenance requirements.

Complexity of site infrastructure Operational flexibility

Existing and proposed site environmental control system designs and operational requirements




Appendix B

Site Plan

LEGEND

EXISTING BOREHOLE / GROUNDWATER

MONITORING WELL LOCATION

LANDFILL GAS PROBE LOCATION

PNEUMATIC PIEZOMETER LOCATION

INCLINOMETER LOCATION

DUST MONITOR LOCATION

LEACHATE PIEZOMETER LOCATION

NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATION

EXISTING CPT OR BOREHOLE LOCATION

NORTH LEACHATE POND MONITORLOCATION

SETTLEMENT PLATE LOCATION

Phone: 450 655-8440 Phone: 450 655-9640

Fax: 450 655-7121

LEACHATE PUMP LOCATION

P-

GP-

I-

P-

R-

S

SP-

LPZ-

LP-

DM-

CPT-

REFERENCE

BASE PLAN PROVIDED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT BYJ.L. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED.(FILE: C1-OSP JAN13.dwg DATE: 17 JANUARY 2013)

UPDATE OF BASE UAV TECHNOLOGY SURVEY OFDECEMBER 18th, 2015

Executive Summary1 Introduction2 EOWHF Expansion Study Area3 Methods3.1 Available Secondary Source Information Collection and Review3.2 Processes Undertaken3.3 Description of Field Studies3.3.1 Composting Facility Odour Emission Characterization Program3.3.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring

4 Description of the Existing Odour Environment4.1 Odour Based Standards and Guidelines4.2 Contaminants of Concern4.2.1 Hydrogen Sulphide4.2.2 Combustible Gas4.2.3 Odour4.2.4 Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS)4.2.5 Other Odorous Contaminants of Concern

4.3 Composting Facility Biofilter Exhaust Testing4.4 Landfill Gas Emissions4.5 Modelled Emissions4.5.1 Operating Conditions4.5.2 Emission Estimation Methodologies4.5.3 Data Quality4.5.4 Dispersion Model4.5.5 Meteorological Data4.5.6 Terrain Data4.5.7 Source Data4.5.8 Averaging Time and Conversions4.5.9 Dispersion Modelling Results

4.6 Odour Complaints Received

5 Summary Odour Existing Conditions6 Conclusions7 References8 Glossary of Terms9 Acronyms and Units

odour existing conditions reportleic.com/upload-ck/sd 1-2 odour existing conditions... · odorous...

Documents