Reference No

Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment

Air Quality and Odour Detailed Impact Assessment Report DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

65 Sunray Street, Whitby Ontario L1N 8Y3 Canada 11102771 | Report No 26 | June 198

Table of Contents 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Background and Purpose .................................................................................................. 1

1.2

Description of the Preferred Landfill Footprint ................................................................... 2

1.3

Facility Characteristic Report ............................................................................................. 4

1.4

Air Quality and Odour Study Team .................................................................................... 4

2.

Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 4

3.

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1

Air Quality Indicators .......................................................................................................... 6

3.2

Criteria for Comparison ...................................................................................................... 7

3.3

Dispersion Model ............................................................................................................... 7

3.4

Meteorological Data ........................................................................................................... 8

3.5

Receptors and Terrain ..................................................................................................... 11

3.6

Background Air Quality .................................................................................................... 13

3.7

Emissions Estimates ........................................................................................................ 13

4.

Additional Investigations ............................................................................................................ 16

5.

Detailed Description of the Environment Potentially Affected .................................................... 17

6.

7.

5.1

Predicted Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 17

5.2

Cumulative Effects Assessment ...................................................................................... 18

5.3

Community Health Assessment Review .......................................................................... 20

Air Quality and Odour Net Effects .............................................................................................. 20 6.1

Potential Effects on Air Quality and Odour ...................................................................... 20

6.2

Proposed Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures ..................................................... 21

6.3

Net Effects ....................................................................................................................... 21

Climate Change Considerations ................................................................................................ 22 7.1

Potential Effects of the Undertaking on Climate Change ................................................ 22 7.1.1

7.2

Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 22

Effect of Climate Change on the Undertaking ................................................................. 23 7.2.1

Adaptation....................................................................................................... 23

8.

Environmental Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 23

9.

Commitments ............................................................................................................................. 23

10.

Other Approvals ......................................................................................................................... 23

11.

References ................................................................................................................................. 23

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION GHD | Draft Air Quality Impact Assessment Technical Report | 11102771 | i

Figure Index Figure 1.1

Preferred Landfill Footprint ................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2.1

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Site Location and Study Area ......................................... 5

Figure 3.1

Wind Class Frequency Distribution MOECC Site-Specific Data (2012 – 2016) ............... 9

Figure 3.2

Wind Rose MOECC Site-Specific Data (2012 – 2016) ................................................... 10

Figure 3.3

Air Quality and Human Health Receptors ....................................................................... 12

Figure 3.4

Project Phases Assessed for Air Quality and Odour ....................................................... 15

Table Index Table 3.1

Air Quality Criteria for Species of Interest ......................................................................... 7

Table 3.2

Dispersion Modeling Flags and Switches .......................................................................... 8

Table 3.3

Summary of Baseline Air Quality Concentrations for the Project .................................... 13

Table 3.4

Summary of Calculated Emission Rates for Existing Conditions and Four Phases of the Landfill Operations ................................................................................................. 16

Table 5.1

Summary of Maximum Predicted Concentrations ........................................................... 17

Table 5.2

Summary of Assessed Cumulative Effects ..................................................................... 19

Table 6.1

Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects ....................................................................................................... 22

Table 7.1

GHGs for Transportation of Wastes to the SCRF ........................................................... 22

Appendices Appendix A

Emissions Calculations

Appendix B

Community Health Assessment Review

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION GHD | Draft Air Quality Impact Assessment Technical Report | 11102771 | ii

1.

Introduction This report documents the Air Quality impact assessment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for landfill expansion at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF). In the preceding Alternative Methods phase of the EA, a net effects analysis, as well as a comparative evaluation of the six alternative landfill expansion options was carried out in order to identify a Preferred Landfill Footprint. The Preferred Alternative Landfill Footprint was determined to be Option #5 – Reconfiguration and Height Increase. The potential environmental effects and impact management measures to address the potential adverse environmental effects, and the remaining net effects following the application of the impact management measures were identified for the Preferred Landfill Footprint.

1.1

Background and Purpose In March of 2018, the recommended landfill expansion option (Option # 5) was presented to the public, stakeholders and the Government Review Team (GRT) for comments and feedback. Following the stakeholder and agency engagement, the Recommended option was confirmed and Option # 5 became the ‘Preferred’ Landfill Footprint (also referred to as the Preferred Method). Following confirmation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, a detailed impact assessment was carried out. The intent of the impact assessment is to allow for additional details to be developed on the Preferred Method from a design and operations perspective, and to then review the impact management measures and resultant net effects described in the Alternative Methods stage within the context of the more detailed design for the Preferred Landfill Footprint. Specifically, the following can be accomplished: • • • • •

Potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty. More site-specific impact assessment measures can be developed for application. Net environmental effects can be identified with more certainty. Appropriate monitoring requirements can be clearly defined. Specific approval/permitting requirements for the proposed undertaking can be identified.

At the completion of the impact assessment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint were identified. Climate change mitigation and adaptation measures will also be reviewed as part of the detailed site design established for the Preferred Method. In addition, during the impact assessment stage of the SCRF EA, Terrapure will complete an assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking and other non-SCRF projects/activities that are existing, planned/approved or reasonably foreseeable within the Study Area. A Facilities Characteristics Report (FCR) for the SCRF has been prepared so that potential environmental effects and mitigation or compensation measures identified for the Preferred Landfill Footprint during the Alternative Methods phase of the EA could be more accurately defined, along with enhancement opportunities and approval requirements. The discipline-specific work plans developed during the Terms of Reference outlined how impacts associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint would be assessed. The results of these

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION GHD | Draft Air Quality Impact Assessment Technical Report | 11102771 | 1

assessments have been documented in the following nine standalone Draft Detailed Impact Assessment Reports: • • • •

1.2

Atmospheric including; 1) Air Quality and Odour and 2) Noise, Geology and Hydrogeology Surface Water Terrestrial and Aquatic

• • • •

Transportation Land Use and Economic Design and Operations Human Health

Description of the Preferred Landfill Footprint The proposed expansion of the SCRF will increase the overall size of the landfill. Vertical limits will extend higher increasing the peak height by approximately 2.5 m. Horizontal limits will extend further toward the north, back to original approved footprint of the SCRF. The area currently approved to accept industrial fill will be replaced with a base liner system to accept residual material. The proposed layout of the SCRF is presented in Figure 1.1 below. The limits of the base liner system will be expanded back to the original approved footprint of 59.1 ha. The overall Site area of 75.1 ha will not change. The figure shows the final extent of the landfill area after the final cover has been installed (the Post-Closure phase). Minimum on-Site buffer distances of 30 m will be maintained around the perimeter of the residual material area throughout all phases. On-Site buffers currently extend to approximately 65 m in various areas along the east and south side of the Site, and up to approximately 130 m in the vicinity of the existing stormwater management facility in the northwest corner of the Site. These buffer distances will also be maintained. The proposed expansion of the SCRF will increase the approved capacity by 3,680,000 m 3, resulting in a total Site capacity of 10,000,000 1 m3 for post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous residual material. No changes are being proposed to the maximum approved fill rates of up to 750,000 tonnes of residual material in any consecutive twelve month period, or up to 8,000 tonnes per day. 0F

The SCRF will continue to accept post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. The SCRF will no longer be approved to accept industrial fill material. The SCRF will continue to accept residual material from sources from within the Province of Ontario. The overall composition of the residual material is expected to remain relatively consistent as the main sources (i.e., steel making industry, soils from infrastructure development projects) will not change. Additional descriptive details on the design of the preferred alternative can be found in the detailed FCR.

1

The total Site capacity may increase to 10,180,000, pending the MOEEC approval of the current ECA Amendment Application noted in the Facility Characteristics Report. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION GHD | Draft Air Quality Impact Assessment Technical Report | 11102771 | 2

Figure 1.1 Preferred Landfill Footprint


1.3

Facility Characteristic Report The Facility Characteristic Report (FCR) presents preliminary design and operations information for the Preferred Landfill Footprint (Option #5) and provides information on all main aspects of landfill design and operations including: •

site layout design including existing and proposed site characteristics;

•

stormwater management;

•

leachate management;

•

landfill 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.

1.4

Air Quality and Odour Study Team The Air Quality and Odour study team consisted of GHD Limited staff. The actual individuals and their specific roles are provided as follows:

• • • •

2.

Gordon Reusing – Reviewing Principal Allison Barrett – Discipline Lead Stephen Koo – Dispersion Modeling and Emissions Inventory Taimur Asif – Junior Air Quality Technician

Study Area The specific Site Study Area and Local Study Area for the Preferred Landfill Footprint at the SCRF are listed below: Site Study Area

including all the lands within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, as amended. The Site retains an additional 18 ha for industrial fill area, as well as an additional 15 ha (approx.) of buffer zone; and

Local Study Area including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the Site Study Area boundaries. The Air Dispersion Modeling Guideline for Ontario requires facilities to assess the impact of facility operations from the fenceline up to 5 km from a facility, so dispersion modeling for this project included receptors outside the study areas defined above in order to confirm that maximum predicted concentrations occur within the 1.5 km radius Local Study Area. Ten (10) additional individual receptors were identified by the Community Health Assessment Review (CHAR) team, as being integral to their assessment, and so these were also included in the dispersion modeling and results provided directly to that team. The Air Quality and Odour Study Area is illustrated in Figure 2.1, below.


Figure 2.1 Stoney Creek Regional Facility Site Location and Study Area


3.

Methodology The assessment of impacts associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint was undertaken through a series of steps that were based, in part, on a number of previously prepared reports (Air Quality, Odour, and Meteorology Existing Conditions Report, Air Quality and Odour Comparative Evaluation Technical Memorandum and Atmospheric Environment Comparative Evaluation (Noise) Technical Memorandum). The net effects associated with the Six Alternative Landfill Footprint Options identified during the Alternative Methods phase of the EA were based on Conceptual Designs. These effects were reviewed within the context of the detailed design plans developed for the Preferred Alternative, as identified in the FCR, to determine the type and extent of any additional investigations required to ensure a comprehensive assessment of net effects. Additional investigations were then carried out, where necessary, in order to augment the previous work undertaken. With these additional investigations in mind, the potential impact on the Air Quality and Odour environment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint was documented. With a more detailed understanding of the Air Quality and Odour environment developed, the previously identified potential effects and recommended impact management measures associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint (documented in the Alternative Methods Report, March 2018) were reviewed to ensure their accuracy in the context of the preliminary design. Based on this review, the potential effects, mitigation or compensation measures, and net effects associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint were confirmed and documented. In addition to identifying mitigation or compensation measures, potential enhancement opportunities associated with the preliminary design for the Preferred Landfill Footprint were also identified, where possible. Following this confirmatory exercise, the requirement for monitoring in relation to net effects was identified, where appropriate. Finally, any Air Quality and Odour approvals required as part of the implementation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint were identified. The final input data and methodology for this assessment is summarized in the following sections.

3.1

Air Quality Indicators

In identifying the compounds to include in the assessment of future predicted air quality in the vicinity of the Facility, the following were considered: •

Airborne particulate, including suspended particulate matter (SPM), particulate matter nominally smaller than 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and particulate matter nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). PM10 has historically been measured on-site.

•

Odour, which is regulated as a nuisance issue in Ontario.

•

Landfill gas, including methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), and non-methane organic carbons (NMOC), has been measured at the Facility. Landfill gas is not a regulated compound, but a mixture of species that can be odorous and may have potential nuisance and health effects. It is not anticipated that the emissions of landfill gas will change as a result of the proposed changes at the Facility, and so historic landfill gas complaints were identified in the baseline air quality assessment, but were not carried forward for detailed assessment.


•

Combustion by-products (such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO)) were not assessed, as the proposed changes to the site will not result in changes to the number or types of mobile or stationary equipment at the Facility. The Facility has previously assessed combustion by-products in its ECA, and future emissions of these compounds are anticipated to be the same now as they will be after site modifications are made, so these compounds were not been carried forward for future assessment.

The potential sources of odour include the leachate pumping station and the aeration pond (located to the west of the facility, across First Road West). Neither the aeration pond, nor the leachate pumping station will change as a result of the recommended option modifications to the facility. Potential air emissions from the leachate pumping station were considered in the Assessment of Alternatives, but as the Preferred Landfill Footprint maintains the leachate pumping station in the same location and with the same operating parameters as the existing case, this source has not been carried forward for detailed consideration, as predicted effects are no different in the future than in the existing operations. As a result of the screening undertaken during the Comparison of Alternatives, only particulate (all three size fractions) have been carried forward for detailed assessment for the Preferred Landfill Footprint.

3.2

Criteria for Comparison

To provide context for the air quality assessment, predicted concentrations consisting of the modeled concentrations from the facility plus background concentrations were compared to criteria set by the MOECC as Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) or guidelines. A summary of the applicable guidelines or criteria is provided in Table 3.1. This table has been updated since the Baseline Conditions Report, based on the most up-to-date information from MOECC (MOECC, 2018). Table 3.1 Compound SPM PM10 PM2.5

Air Quality Criteria for Species of Interest CAS N/A N/A N/A

Averaging Period 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour

Guideline (µg/m3) 120 a 50 b 28 c

Notes: a b c

3.3

MOECC 2018. Interim AAQC, no longer supported by MOECC as of April 2018, provided for context only. Value previously included by MOECC in AAQC lists for guidance (MOECC, 2016) was 30 µg/m3. The current Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for PM2.5 (24-hour) is 28 µg/m3, going down to 27 µg/m3 in 2020.The Annual CAAQS for PM2.5 is currently 10 µg/m3, going down to 8 µg/m3 in 2020.

Dispersion Model

The U.S. EPA AERMOD model (version 16216r) was used for the assessment of this project. The relevant model options selected for dispersion modeling are presented in Table 3.2. Some data were generated for use in the CHAR only, and these have been clearly identified. Deposition was modeled for total particulates only, separately from SPM concentrations. This is a very conservative approach, as it effectively double-counts particulate mass (mass deposited onto the ground is not subtracted from airborne concentrations).


Table 3.2

Dispersion Modeling Flags and Switches

Model Options DFAULT CONC DEPOS WDEP DDEP ELEV VECTORWS Averaging Periods

3.4

Used (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1-hour Conc 24-hour Conc Monthly Depos Annual Conc Annual Depos

Rationale Incorporates standard meteorological and dispersion modeling processes, recommended by MOECC. Produces concentration results Produces total deposition results (used for CHAR only) Produces wet deposition results (used for CHAR only) Produces dry deposition results (used for CHAR only) Elevated terrain used per MOECC guidance. Vector winds used per MOECC documentation provided with the site-specific meteorological data set. CHAR Air Quality Assessment, CHAR CHAR Air Quality Assessment, CHAR CHAR

Meteorological Data

Based on that assessment, a new meteorological data set was obtained from the MOECC for the EA. The SCRF is located in an area zoned as "Special Policy Area B", which has been identified as the Taro East Quarry Landfill. The surrounding area is made up of community parkland, open space, low-density residential, high-density residential, institutional, and general commercial. The Facility is currently operating under ECA No. A181008. As part of their ECA, the Facility is required to monitor wind speed and wind direction, and provide these data monthly to the City of Hamilton. The monitoring equipment is managed and maintained by Rotek Engineering and included in the Facility’s annual PM10 monitoring Report. Between 2012 and 2016, the Facility was able to provide wind speed and direction data for more than 99% of the reporting period. The MOECC’s site-specific meteorological data set for the 2012 through 2016 period, created for this project, is summarized in the following figures. Figure 3.1 presents the wind class frequency distribution from the MOECC’s site-specific data set for the 2012 through 2016 period, showing the most common wind speed categories are 2.1 to 3.6 m/s (at 31.6% of the time) and 3.6 to 5.7 m/s (at 30.3% of the time). Figure 3.2 presents the Wind Rose diagram from the MOECC’s site-specific data set for the 2012 through 2016 period. Winds are predominantly from the southwest, with significant contributions from south-southwest through west-southwest.


Figure 3.1 Wind Class Frequency Distribution MOECC Site-Specific Data (2012 – 2016)


Figure 3.2 Wind Rose MOECC Site-Specific Data (2012 – 2016)


3.5

Receptors and Terrain

Gridded receptors were generated for this assessment, using MOECC guidance (MOECC, 2017). Figure 3.3 shows the dispersion modeling receptor locations in the context of the air quality and odour Study Area, and receptors identified for the Human Health Risk Study. Terrain data for this assessment were obtained from the MOECC (MOECC, 2018) and processed using AERMAP for all sources and receptors.


Lake Ontario (lac Ontario)

BARTON Battlefield Creek

! (1 SALTFLEET

2

Red Cre hill ek

! ( St Cr o e

y ne k e

! (3

11 ! ( 10 ! (9 ! (

Forty Mile Creek

(7 ! !8 ! ( ! (6(5

Airport CPF6

Sink ho Cree le k

GLANFORD

y eek

Twent ile Cr M

BINBROOK

GRIMSBY

Flamborough Legend

1 ! (

HAMILTON

Discrete Receptors

SITE

Gridded and Fenceline Receptors Site

Lake Ontario

CAISTOR

SITE

Local Study Area (1.5km) Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2015. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2018. Receptors, GHD 2018. Inset Map: ESRI Data & Maps 2008 Data Distribution Application (DDA).

0

500

1,000

1,500

Metres

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

G:\Legacy\Geomorphic\GIS_Projects\11102771\GIS Figures\MXD\11102771_Air_Quality_Human_Risk.mxd Print date: 13 Jun 2018 - 13:40

TERRAPURE STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST

AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK RECEPTORS

11102771

Jun 13, 2018

FIGURE 3.3

3.6

Background Air Quality

Historic data sources reporting on background air quality in the vicinity of the SCRF were assessed and summarized in the Draft Air, Odour, and Meteorology Existing Conditions Report (GHD, 2018). These values were added to predicted concentrations from the dispersion modeling in order to do a conservative cumulative effects assessment. The regional monitoring data collected for Hamilton and other southern Ontario areas similar to the Facility locale represent the existing and naturally occurring sources and contributions from longrange transport into the region. The emissions transported into the region could be considered to be the “existing air quality”. Based on feedback from regulators, and expert judgement, the 90th percentile of the available monitoring data is considered a conservative estimate of existing air quality. Median values have been assumed for this study, as the available stations are acknowledged to be in more industrialized areas that the SCRF, and likely to be more heavily impacted by local traffic and sources which are not likely to significantly affect the Site Study Area. A summary of the existing air quality concentrations, which were used for the assessment of the Facility, is provided in Table 3.3 for the particulate species that are being carried forward for further assessment. Table 3.3 Compound SPM PM10 PM2.5

Summary of Baseline Air Quality Concentrations for the Project Averaging Period 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour

Baseline Air Quality Concentration (µg/m3) Average

90th Percentile

52 23 8.1

— — 15

On-site monitoring has not been used as a source of baseline air quality in the Study Area, as existing site operations are currently contributing to measured concentrations. Existing monitoring programs in Hamilton and elsewhere in Ontario provided suitable concentrations for use in the cumulative effects assessment for PM2.5, PM10 and SPM. Odour and landfill gas management will continue at the Site, per the conditions of the Facility’s Environmental Compliance Approvals, but are not included as species of interest in the EA for the proposed changes at the Site, because it is not expected that the proposed work will affect odour or landfill gas emissions from the Site in future.

3.7

Emissions Estimates

Emissions were estimated for the existing case and four future potential operating phases of the Project. A fifth phase, “post-closure”, was not assessed, as it is anticipated there will be no emissions of particulates (vehicle traffic will have ceased and there will be no further material handling once the final cover has been constructed), and potential emissions of odours from the leachate pumping station and the aeration pond are anticipated to be virtually the same as in the current scenario. The operational phases presented are representative of possible future conditions, but in no way are meant to describe a particular period or year(s) during the lifetime of the facility. They are presented in order to demonstrate an overall progression in how the Facility may operate in future, and provide some guidance on any limitations that may need to be addressed in the future.


Figure 3.4 shows an overview of the phases assessed for this project. A general description of each phase is provided here. Existing Phase – This represents the current operations at the Facility, including the current road location, approximate active area of the landfilling activities, and the area currently under final cover. Phase 1 – In Phase 1, the final cover from the existing Facility extents will be removed, and additional material will be brought in to the Facility for landfilling up to the final proposed elevation. Activities may briefly be occurring very near the southwest property boundary of the Facility. Phase 2 – The southwest portion of the property will be put under final cover, and the roads may be realigned to adjust the location of primary activities. The Facility entrance and exit will remain in their existing locations, but the section of roadway leading off the active landfilling area may need to be extended or moved. Activities will primarily move toward the centre section of the Facility. Phase 3 – This represents a later operational condition at the Facility where active landfill is moving toward the northeast corner of the property. Roads may again need to be realigned, with some roads passing over the final cover in the south of the Facility, and the exit road may need to be realigned, depending on activities during the construction of the new base liner system in the northwest. Phase 4 – Activities in this phase will move generally toward the northwest of the Facility, likely along the same site road alignments as in Phase 3. Final cover will be added as each area is filled to the final elevation. Post-Closure – In this phase, the final cover has been constructed over the entire Site and Site traffic and operations have ceased. Fugitive dust emissions from Site operations will be zero and the Facility will be closed.


Legend

G:\Legacy\Geomorphic\GIS_Projects\11102771\GIS Figures\MXD\11102771_Fig3.4_Project_Phases_Air_Quality_Odour.mxd Print date: 31 May 2018 - 14:08

o

TERRAPURE

STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST

PROJECT PHASES ASSESSED FOR AIR QUALITY AND ODOUR

Project No. 11102771 Revision No. Date 05/31/2018

FIGURE 3.4 Data source: . Created by: aemerson

Emissions were calculated according to accepted practices, using the U.S. EPA’s AP-42 emission factors for paved and unpaved road dust, and material handling (at the drop points for the material brought on-site for landfilling). Appendix A provides the complete emissions calculations and inputs for each phase assessed. The phases are provided to demonstrate a progression of operations at the Site and do not relate to specific years in the Site’s operations, but are meant to be representative of possible scenarios which could occur through the lifetime of the Project. Daytime emissions are summarized in the following Table 3.4, showing the estimated grams-persecond (g/s) emission rate for Paved Roads (site entry and exit, and along the buffer zones), Unpaved Roads (across active landfill areas), and material handling (at the active face of the landfill), as identified in Figure 3.4. These emission rates are valid from 7 AM to 5 PM for the Facility. After 5 PM and before 7 AM, emission rates were assumed to be zero, as the Site is closed during these hours. Table 3.4 Summary of Calculated Emission Rates for Existing Conditions and Four Phases of the Landfill Operations Species

Existing

Unpaved Roads (g/s) SPM 1.93E+00 PM10 5.32E-01 PM2.5 5.32E-02 Paved Roads (g/s) SPM 3.02E-01 PM10 5.79E-02 PM2.5 1.40E-02 Material Handling (g/s) SPM 4.01E-02 PM10 1.89E-02 PM2.5 2.87E-03 TOTAL (kg/day) SPM 8.17E+01 PM10 2.19E+01 PM2.5 2.52E+00

4.

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

2.80E+00 7.74E-01 7.74E-02

9.51E-01 2.63E-01 2.63E-02

1.25E+00 3.45E-01 3.45E-02

1.42E+00 3.92E-01 3.92E-02

3.02E-01 5.79E-02 1.40E-02

3.14E-01 6.03E-02 1.46E-02

3.46E-01 6.64E-02 1.61E-02

3.42E-01 6.57E-02 1.59E-02

4.01E-02 1.89E-02 2.87E-03

4.01E-02 1.89E-02 2.87E-03

4.01E-02 1.89E-02 2.87E-03

4.01E-02 1.89E-02 2.87E-03

1.13E+02 3.06E+01 3.39E+00

4.70E+01 1.23E+01 1.57E+00

5.88E+01 1.55E+01 1.92E+00

6.48E+01 1.72E+01 2.09E+00

Additional Investigations No additional investigations were carried out in order to complete this study. Revised dispersion modeling, based on the Preferred Landfill Footprint facility layout and four (4) proposed operational phases describing the possible site operations and conditions throughout the life of the Project were considered.


5.

Detailed Description of the Environment Potentially Affected Air quality, as represented by the predicted concentrations for the three particulate size fractions (SPM, PM10 and PM2.5) was assessed for the existing and four (4) proposed operational phases of the Project. For each phase, concentrations of these species were modeled as a result of the anticipated vehicle traffic (vehicles per day, anticipated travel routes and travel distances), and material handling (amount of material per day, location of the active material handling area). A cumulative effects assessment was also carried out, by adding the estimated background particulate concentrations to the predicted results for the facility operations.

5.1

Predicted Air Quality The predicted air quality effects due to site operations are summarized in Table 5.1 below for the existing and four anticipated operational phases. Note that as there are no anticipated dust emissions in the post-closure phase, since predicted concentrations as a result of the Facility operations will be zero. The Facility is capable of operating in compliance with MOECC guidelines, both now and in the future. There is a possibility that, during operations such as those estimated for Phases 1 and 3, maximum predicted 24-hour concentrations of SPM at the fenceline may exceed MOECC POI criteria under the current assumptions and under specific meteorological conditions, so it will be especially important that the Facility be rigorous in its dust mitigation efforts when operations extend nearer the property boundary. The predicted concentrations under Existing Operations, and the estimated operations during Phases 2 and 4 demonstrate that the Facility can meet air quality guidelines, and so it will be necessary for the Facility to maintain a rigorous dust management plan, be sensitive to meteorological conditions, and ensure that when Facility operations are nearer the fenceline, additional dust control measures are implemented to reduce possible dust emissions. Table 5.1 Compound

Summary of Maximum Predicted Concentrations Averaging Period

Existing Conditions SPM 24-hour PM10 24-hour PM2.5 24-hour Phase 1 SPM 24-hour PM10 24-hour PM2.5 24-hour Phase 2 SPM 24-hour PM10 24-hour PM2.5 24-hour

Concentration (µg/m3) Guideline

Predicted Maximum

120 50 a 28 b

67 19 2.0

120 50 a 28 b

153 42 4.3

120 50 a 28 b

62 47 2.2


Table 5.1 Compound

Summary of Maximum Predicted Concentrations Averaging Period


Predicted Maximum

Phase 3 SPM 24-hour 120 132 a PM10 24-hour 50 36 b PM2.5 24-hour 28 4.1 Phase 4 SPM 24-hour 120 72 a PM10 24-hour 50 42 PM2.5 24-hour 28 b 4.6 Post-Closure SPM 24-hour 120 0 PM10 24-hour 50 a 0 b PM2.5 24-hour 28 0 Notes: a Not a current guideline or standard. Previously identified by MOECC for informational purposes only. b Current CAAQS. Will go to 27 µg/m 3 in 2020. MOECC Regulation 419/05 guidelines are based on single-facility operations, and most commonly used for Environmental Compliance Approvals, which do not include mobile equipment for most facilities (especially if the facility has implemented a fugitive dust management plan). Further, the PM10 and PM2.5 “guideline” values provided are either interim values or are no longer in effect and have been shown for reference purposes only. Frequency analysis in the modeling output indicated that the number of times the 24-hour SPM concentration was predicted to exceed 120 µg/m3 during Phase 1 was 4 times in 5 years (or 0.2% of the time). In Phase 3, the number of times that the 24-hour SPM concentration was predicted to exceed 120 µg/m3 was 2 times in 5 years (or 0.1% of the time). SPM concentrations greater than 120 µg/m3 for the 24-hour averaging period were only predicted at fenceline receptors (i.e., no residences were predicted to experience these concentrations). This indicates that with additional care for dust mitigation, the Facility is likely to be able to meet the SPM 24-hour criteria all, or nearly all of the time, minimizing the potential nuisance effects of dust in the vicinity of the Site. The CAAQS for PM2.5 is currently 28 µg/m3 on a 24-hour basis, and will be lowered to 27 µg/m3 as of 2020. Based on the modeling completed to date, the Facility will meet these criteria during all phases of the work.

5.2

Cumulative Effects Assessment A cumulative effects assessment was also undertaken, by adding maximum predicted concentrations as a result of Facility operations for the various operational phases, to the estimated “baseline” or background concentrations of particulates already present in the region, as a result of other activities and sources. The results of the cumulative effects assessment are summarized in Table 5.2. For each species, the averaging period, MOECC guideline value and baseline concentration (previously reported in the Draft Air, Odour, and Meteorology Existing Conditions Report (GHD,


2018)) are provided, along with the predicted maximum concentration from Table 5.1. The sums of the baseline and the predicted maximum concentration are reported as “cumulative”. MOECC Regulation 419/05 guidelines are based on single-facility operations, and most commonly used for Environmental Compliance Approvals (not for cumulative effects assessments), and so these guidelines typically would not apply to the scenario presented below. MOECC guideline values have been presented for comparison only, and to provide context to the predictions. Baseline concentrations of SPM represent 43% of the MOECC’s guideline of 120 µg/m3 on a 24-hour basis, and baseline concentrations of 46% of the historic MOECC interim PM10 guideline of 50 µg/m3 on a 24-hour basis. To ensure that operations are not causing an adverse effect in the vicinity of the Facility, the Facility will be required to maintain or even enhance their proposed dust mitigation plan, especially when operations are anticipated to be occurring in close proximity to the Facility fenceline. Table 5.2 Compound

Summary of Assessed Cumulative Effects Averaging Period


Baseline

Predicted Maximum

Cumulative

Existing Conditions SPM 24-hour 120 52 67 119 PM10 24-hour 50 a 23 19 42 b PM2.5 24-hour 28 8.1 2.0 10 Phase 1 SPM 24-hour 120 52 153 205 a PM10 24-hour 50 23 42 65 PM2.5 24-hour 28 b 8.1 4.3 12 Phase 2 SPM 24-hour 120 52 62 114 PM10 24-hour 50 a 23 47 70 b PM2.5 24-hour 28 8.1 2.2 10 Phase 3 SPM 24-hour 120 52 132 184 a PM10 24-hour 50 23 36 59 PM2.5 24-hour 28 b 8.1 4.1 12 Phase 4 SPM 24-hour 120 52 72 124 PM10 24-hour 50 a 23 42 65 b PM2.5 24-hour 28 8.1 4.6 13 Post Closure SPM 24-hour 120 52 0 52 a PM10 24-hour 50 23 0 23 PM2.5 24-hour 28 b 8.1 0 8.1 Notes: a Not a current guideline or standard. Previously identified by MOECC for informational purposes only. b Current CAAQS. Will go to 27 µg/m 3 in 2020.


Frequency analysis in the modeling output indicated that the number of times the 24-hour SPM concentration was predicted to exceed 120 µg/m3 during Phase 1, including background concentrations, was 24 times in 5 years (or 1.3% of the time). No residential receptors were predicted to be affected, and these concentrations were predicted to occur along the southwest side of the property. In Phase 3, the number of times that the 24-hour SPM concentration was predicted to exceed 120 µg/m3, including background, was 9 times in 5 years (or 0.5% of the time) on the property boundary. Maximum predicted concentrations were on the north side of the property line. It is possible that some homes in a future residential community north of Green Mountain Road may be affected (frequency of 0.1% or 2 times in 5 years). In Phase 4, the number of times that the 24-hour SPM concentration was predicted to exceed 120 µg/m3, including background, was 1 time in 5 years (or 0.05% of the time) on the property fenceline. Cumulative effects SPM concentrations greater than 120 µg/m3 for the 24-hour averaging period were only predicted at or near fenceline receptors and, except in Phase 3, no residences were predicted to experience these concentrations. This indicates that with additional care for dust mitigation, the Facility is likely to be able to meet the SPM 24-hour criteria all, or nearly all of the time even when background concentrations are included in the total, minimizing the potential nuisance effects of dust in the vicinity of the Site. The CAAQS for PM2.5 is currently 28 µg/m3 on a 24-hour basis, and will be lowered to 27 µg/m3 as of 2020. Based on the modeling completed to date, and including regional background sources, apart from the SCRF ambient air quality in the area is predicted to meet these criteria even including baseline concentrations.

5.3

Community Health Assessment Review The data provided to Intrinsik Environmental for the CHAR is provided in Appendix B and represents predicted concentrations at 10 sensitive receptors identified in the original EA for this Facility. These locations are not part of the air quality assessment, as they do not represent the locations of the maximum predicted concentrations for any of the scenarios considered.

6.

Air Quality and Odour Net Effects As mentioned, the previously identified potential effects and recommended mitigation or compensation measures associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint were reviewed to ensure their accuracy in the context of the preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative, based on the more detailed understanding of the Air Quality and Odour environment developed through the additional investigations.

6.1

Potential Effects on Air Quality and Odour The SCRF is anticipating operating 10 hours per day, with up to 100 trucks per day of waste coming onto the site and being deposited into the active area of the landfill. While some roads on Site are currently paved (or may be paved in future), unpaved roads and material handling operations are known to be potentially significant sources of fugitive dust, which can have an effect on nearby sources. In order to mitigate potential effects of these operations on local and regional air quality, in particular airborne dust, it is necessary for mitigation measures to be implemented, and special care may be required if operations are occurring in close proximity to the Facility fenceline. Dispersion modeling has shown that with reasonable mitigation, the Facility is able to meet air quality criteria


during future operations. When operations are particularly close to the fenceline, it is possible that the MOECC’s SPM standard may be exceeded (up to 5 times per year or 1.3% of the time), including background contributions to air quality. Based on differences in road and active area configuration, there are some differences between the predictions of airborne dust for the different phases of this project. The potential sources of odour emissions remain the same (the leachate pumping station and the aeration pond) throughout the life of the project, and so potential future effects on odour from site operations are identical to the current scenario (i.e., there is no measurable change for odour between current and future operations).

6.2

Proposed Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures The SCRF currently has a dust mitigation plan. For the purposes of this assessment, best practices dust mitigation were assumed to be implemented at the site for all phases of the work, including: •

Paving Site access roads (entry and exit) within the buffer area, including any roads which do not cross active or closed portions of the landfill;

•

Use of road watering on paved and unpaved roads, to minimize dust generation on Site;

•

Minimizing the level of daily activity, or increasing dust mitigation activities, when operations are near the fenceline; and

•

Continued use of the wheel-washing station near the Site exit, to reduce track-out of material from the Site onto First Road West.

For the purposes of the assessment, it was assumed the Site would achieve a 75% overall re-suspended road dust suppression. This is highly achievable in this area, as Hamilton already receives measurable precipitation 156 days per year (Environment Canada, 2018), providing natural dust mitigation, so additional watering on dry days should provide adequate dust suppression. It has also been assumed that on-Site vehicles will not travel more than 30 km/hr, and that material handling operations will be undertaken in such a way as to limit, as much as reasonable, fugitive dust emissions (such as from drop operations, or the use of loaders, bulldozers, or graders on active landfill sections). Finally, it was assumed that once a section has been filled to the planned capacity, the area will be capped and re-vegetated to eliminate windblown dust. These measures were included in the emissions estimates for this Facility, and therefore included in the dispersion modeling and the effects assessment for the planned capacity increase for the SCRF.

6.3

Net Effects A facility such as the SCRF may periodically contribute to local elevated particulate concentrations, particularly under windy or dry conditions which can increase fugitive dust emissions from the Site. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, particularly for the control of fugitive dust from paved and unpaved roads, and material handling on Site, the net effects of the proposed activities on the local and regional air quality is expected to be able to meet MOECC guidelines and current and future Federal CAAQS, with some added mitigation or slightly reduced operations during periods when operations are occurring near the Facility fenceline, particularly in Phase 3 when operations may be occurring near the north side of the property.


The Facility will be expected to continue to document air quality complaints related to dust or odour, and to investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to Facility operations (versus those related to off-Site/unrelated air quality concerns). The Net Effects as assessed in this Impact Assessment are summarized in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects Potential Effect

Mitigation/Compensation

Net Effect

Elevated dust concentrations in the local study area

Implementation of dust mitigation plan. Logging of complaints and investigation into contribution(s) of the site to local air quality issues. Logging of complaints and investigation into contribution(s) of the site to local air quality issues.

Facility can meet MOECC and CAAQS guidelines, provided care is taken when operations are occurring near the fenceline.

Odour in the local study area

7.

The site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area.

Climate Change Considerations 7.1

Potential Effects of the Undertaking on Climate Change The potential greenhouse gases (GHG) generated by the SCRF over the proposed lifetime of the project were previously assessed in the development of the Terms of Reference (GHD, 2017) as amended. Table 14 from that report is reproduced here as Table 7.1. The GHGenius model (version 5.0) for Ontario was used to generate these values. Table 7.1

GHGs for Transportation of Wastes to the SCRF

Location

GHG Emissions (tonnes of CO2 Equivalent/yr)

Hamilton Toronto and Scarborough Nanticoke Mississauga Guelph Oakville Brantford Other Cities and Towns TOTAL

1,088 2,553 345 206 233 111 137 1,211 5,884

These estimated GHGs are not anticipated to change as a result of the proposed operations and designed emissions mitigation for the Site. 7.1.1

Mitigation

No additional mitigation of GHG emissions from transportation are proposed.


7.2

Effect of Climate Change on the Undertaking Future climate is not anticipated to have any significant effect on the air or odour emissions for this Site during operations or post-closure. 7.2.1

Adaptation

No additional adaptation measures are proposed for the Facility.

8.

Environmental Monitoring The SCRF currently supports a monitoring station (operated by Rotek Environmental, under contract to Terrapure Environmental) specifically to monitor for airborne PM10 and local meteorological conditions (for investigating the likely source(s) of air quality and odour complaints). This station will continue to operate through the lifetime of the Facility, per the Facility’s waste Environmental Compliance Approval.

9.

Commitments The following commitments have been assumed as part of this assessment:

10.

•

Terrapure Environmental will update their Best Management Practices Plan with respect to the mitigation/control of re-suspended road dust;

•

On-Site roads in the buffer zone or at the entrance and exit to the Facility will be paved;

•

The SCRF will continue to use a wheel-washing station near the SCRF exit to reduce trackout of road dirt from the Site onto public roads; and

•

The SCRF will continue to operate the existing air quality monitoring station and investigate the likely conditions and/or sources contributing to any air quality or odour complaints received by the Facility.

Other Approvals The facility is not required to register for an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR), or apply for an Environmental Compliance Approval (air and noise), under current regulations. The SCRF should, however, maintain their Dust Management Plan in order to ensure they are not adversely contributing to local air quality concerns.

11.

References Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2013. Backgrounder: Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed 20 September, 2017:http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=56D4043B-1&news=A4B2C28A-2DFB-4BF48777-ADF29B4360BD. Environment Canada. 2018. Canadian Climate Normals for Hamilton Airport. Accessed 10 May, 2018:http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?searchType=stnNam


e&txtStationName=hamilton&searchMethod=contains&txtCentralLatMin=0&txtCentralLatSec=0&txt CentralLongMin=0&txtCentralLongSec=0&stnID=4932&dispBack=0. GHD. 2018. Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment. Draft Air, Odour, and Meteorology Existing Conditions Report. 2 March, 2018. Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2013. 2012 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017:http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2014. 2013 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017: http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2015. 2014 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017:http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2016. 2015 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017:http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2017. 2016 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017:http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx MOECC. 2016. Air Contaminants Benchmarks (ACB) List: Standards, guidelines, and screening levels for assessing point of impingement concentrations of air contaminants. Version 1 – December 13, 2018. MOECC. 2017. Air Dispersion Modeling Guideline for Ontario (Guideline A-11), Version 3. PIBs #5165e03. February 2017. MOECC. 2017. Accessed 14 September, 2017:https://www.ontario.ca/environment-andenergy/map-regional-meteorological-and-terrain-data-air-dispersion-modeling MOECC. 2018. Air Contaminants Benchmarks (ACB) List: Standards, guidelines, and screening levels for assessing point of impingement concentrations of air contaminants. Version 2 – April 2018. MOECC. 2018. MOECC Terrain Data for Air Dispersion Modeling, Accessed May 2018: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/map-regional-meteorological-and-terrain-data-airdispersion-modeling. Newalta Corporation. 2014. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2013. June 27, 2014. Newalta Corporation. 2015. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2014. June 30, 2015. Terrapure Environmental Operating Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 2017. Environmental Compliance Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2015. June 30, 2016. Terrapure Environmental Operating Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 2017. Environmental Compliance Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2016. June 30, 2017.


Appendices

GHD | Draft Air Quality Impact Assessment Technical Report | 11102771

Appendix A Emissions Calculations


Appendix A

Emissions Calculations – On-Site Vehicle Traffic – Unpaved Roads

Description of Activities Residual or industrial waste arrives on-site via transport truck, between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM. Trucks are weighed, directed to their unloading area, then unload material, and proceed to the weighing station again prior to proceding through the site wheel and undercarriage washing station near the site exit. Up to 250 trucks may arrive per day, though 100 trucks per day is expected to be more typical. The haul route over the active waste disposal area is unpaved, compacted dirt. The U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads has been used to calculate emissions from on-site truck traffic, using factors for unpaved industrial roads (municipal solid waste landfills). While the facility does not accept MSW, these surface soil conditions are likely to be representative of conditions at the site. The facility has implemented a Fugitive Dust Management Plan which involves a wheel washing station near the site exit (to reduce dirt track-out onto First Road West) and regular road watering when conditions warrant it. Typically, a well-implemented road watering program can reduce dust emissions by approximately 75%, so this has been applied as a further control factor for the final emissions calculations. No additional natural mitigation has been applied on top of this (i.e., the total assumed dust mitigation has been assumed to be 75% including natural mitigation due to precipitation and the dust management program). Emission Factor Calculation

𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎 𝑊𝑊 𝑏𝑏 𝐸𝐸 = 𝑘𝑘 × � � × � � × (1 − 𝐶𝐶) 12 3

Where: E = annual size-specific emission factor (g/VKT) k = size-specific emission constant (g/VKT) from AP-42 s = surface material silt content (assumed to be 6.9% based on overburden from AP-42 Chapter 11.9) W = mean vehicle weight (tons) a = size-specific constant from AP-42 b = size-specific constant from AO-42 C = % dust mitigation due to management program and existing precipitation

GHD | Emissions Estimates | Appendix A | 11102771 (x) | Page 1

The following table summarizes the inputs and outputs for this calculation, for each scenario. Factor (units)

Existing

Common Data Road Length 1.1848 (km) Number of 100 vehicles per day Distance 118.48 travelled per day (VKT) s (%) 6.9 W (tons) 22.9 SPM k (g/VKT) 1381.31 a 0.7 b 0.45 SPM (g/s) 1.93E+00 PM10 k (g/VKT) 426.14 a 0.9 b 0.45 PM10 (g/s) 5.32E-01 PM2.5 k (g/VKT) 42.61 a 0.9 b 0.45 PM2.5 (g/s) 5.32E-02

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

1.7228

0.5849

0.7678

0.8727

100

100

100

100

172.28

58.49

76.78

87.27

6.9 22.9

6.9 22.9

6.9 22.9

6.9 22.9

1381.31 0.7 0.45 2.80E+00

1381.31 0.7 0.45 9.51E-01

1381.31 0.7 0.45 1.25E+00

1381.31 0.7 0.45 1.42E+00

426.14 0.9 0.45 7.74E-01

426.14 0.9 0.45 2.63E-01

426.14 0.9 0.45 3.45E-01

426.14 0.9 0.45 3.92E-01

42.61 0.9 0.45 7.74E-02

42.61 0.9 0.45 2.63E-02

42.61 0.9 0.45 3.45E-02

42.61 0.9 0.45 3.92E-02


Appendix A

Emissions Calculations – On-Site Vehicle Traffic – Paved Roads

Description of Activities Residual or industrial waste arrives on-site via transport truck, between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM. Trucks are weighed, directed to their unloading area, then unload material, and proceed to the weighing station again prior to proceeding through the site wheel and undercarriage washing station near the site exit. Up to 250 trucks may arrive per day, though 100 trucks per day is expected to be more typical. The main haul route, across the site, including the entry, exit, weigh station and wheel-washing station areas is paved. The U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1 Paved Roads has been used to calculate emissions from on-site truck traffic, using factors for paved industrial roads (municipal solid waste landfills). While the facility does not accept MSW, these surface soil conditions are likely to be representative of conditions at the site. The facility has implemented a Fugitive Dust Management Plan which involves a wheel washing station near the site exit (to reduce dirt track-out onto First Road West) and regular road watering when conditions warrant it. Typically, a well-implemented road watering program can reduce dust emissions by approximately 75%, so this has been applied as a further control factor for the final emissions calculations. No additional natural mitigation has been applied on top of this (i.e., the total assumed dust mitigation has been assumed to be 75% including natural mitigation due to precipitation and the dust management program). Emission Factor Calculation

𝐸𝐸 = 𝑘𝑘 × (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)0.91 × (𝑊𝑊)1.02 × (1 − 𝐶𝐶)

Where: E = annual size-specific emission factor (g/VKT) k = size-specific emission constant (g/VKT) from AP-42 sL = surface material silt content (assumed to be 7.4 g/m 2 based on MSW landfills in AP-42 Chapter 13.2, Table 13.2.1-3) W = mean vehicle weight (tons) C = % dust mitigation due to management program and existing precipitation



Existing

Common Data Road Length 0.8919 (km) Number of 100 vehicles per day Distance 89.19 travelled per day (VKT) sL (g/m2) 7.4 W (tons) 22.9 SPM k (g/VKT) 3.23 SPM (g/s) 3.02E-01 PM10 k (g/VKT) 0.62 PM10 (g/s) 5.79E-02 PM2.5 k (g/VKT) 0.15 PM2.5 (g/s) 1.40E-02

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

0.8919

0.9278

1.0220

1.0116

100

100

100

100

89.19

92.78

102.2

101.16

7.4 22.9

7.4 22.9

7.4 22.9

7.4 22.9

3.23 3.02E-01

3.23 3.14E-01

3.23 3.46E-01

3.23 3.42E-01

0.62 5.79E-02

0.62 6.03E-02

0.62 6.64E-02

0.62 6.57E-02

0.15 1.40E-02

0.15 1.46E-02

0.15 1.61E-02

0.15 1.59E-02


Appendix A

Emissions Calculations – On-Site Vehicle Traffic – Material Handling

Description of Activities Two major forms of material handling occur on site: truck dumping operations (where residual or industrial fill material is unloaded from trucks via a drop operation), and general fill handling, tier shaping, etc. by other mobile equipment on site. Particulate from material drop operations may be calculated based on the mass of material dropped, and the mean wind speed and material moisture content, based on U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles. Particulate emissions from landscaping/tier shaping, general ground-based material handling, scrapers, loaders, and other miscellaneous site construction operations have been calculated based on U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 11.9 (Western Surface Coal Mining) based on recommendations in Chapter 13.2.3 for Heavy Construction Operations. For the purposes of emissions estimates, both of these operations have been assumed to occur in an area bounded by the haul route used to bring material to the centre of the landfill site. It has been assumed that wind erosion is controlled through the Facility's Dust Management Program. Material is compressed, during the tier shaping operations, and does not remain loose (to become wind-blown) for a significant length of time. Further, these calculations have been undertaken assuming all material has similar properties to soil, a very conservative assumption as the site may accept all sorts of non-dust generating industrial fill which would not be significant sources of particulates during drop operations. Handling of material once it has been deposited by the haul trucks has been assumed to be similar to bulldozing of overburden (Table 11.9-2), and it has been assumed that handling occurs approximately half of each day of activity at the site (such that material is brough and dropped at the site 7 AM to 5 PM, but other work at the active face only occurs 50% of the time). Emission Factor Calculation – Drop Operations

𝑈𝑈 1.3 �2.2� 𝐸𝐸 = 𝑘𝑘 × 0.0016 × 𝑀𝑀 1.4 Where: � � 2

E = annual size-specific emission factor (kg/tonne) k = size-specific particle size multiplier from AP-42 U = mean wind speed (m/s) from Hamilton Airport Climate Normals (1981 – 2010) M = moisture content (assumed to be 7.9% based on overburden from AP-42 Chapter 11.9)



Existing

Common Data U 4.5 M 7.9 Material 3288 Handling (tonnes/day) Area (m2) 17312.6 SPM k (g/VKT) 0.74 SPM (g/s) 4.01E-02 PM10 k (g/VKT) 0.35 PM10 (g/s) 1.89E-02 PM2.5 k (g/VKT) 0.053 PM2.5 (g/s) 2.87E-03

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

4.5 7.9 3288

4.5 7.9 3288

4.5 7.9 3288

4.5 7.9 3288

43663.8

18392.6

23537.8

45274.9

0.74 4.01E-02

0.74 4.01E-02

0.74 4.01E-02

0.74 4.01E-02

0.35 1.89E-02

0.35 1.89E-02

0.35 1.89E-02

0.35 1.89E-02

0.053 2.87E-03

0.053 2.87E-03

0.053 2.87E-03

0.053 2.87E-03

Emission Factor Calculation – Bulldozing

𝑔𝑔 2.6 × 𝑠𝑠1.2 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑔𝑔 1 ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝐸𝐸 � 2 � = × 1000 × ÷ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴(𝑚𝑚2 ) 1.3 𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑀 ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 3600 𝑠𝑠 Where:

E = annual size-specific emission factor (g/m2/s) s = silt content (assumed to be 6.9% based on overburden from AP-42 Chapter 11.9) M = moisture content (assumed to be 7.9% based on overburden from AP-42 Chapter 11.9) PM10 assumed to be 75% of SPM and PM2.5 assumed to be 10.5% of SPM (based on AP-42) The following table summarizes the inputs and outputs for this calculation, for each scenario. Factor (units)

Existing

Common Data Area (ha) 1.73126 s (%) 6.9 M 7.9 SPM SPM (g/s) 4.99E-01 PM10 PM10 (g/s) 1.87E-01 PM2.5 PM2.5 (g/s) 2.62E-02

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

4.36638 6.9 7.9

1.83926 6.9 7.9

2.35378 6.9 7.9

4.52749 6.9 7.9

4.99E-01

4.99E-01

4.99E-01

4.99E-01

1.87E-01

1.87E-01

1.87E-01

1.87E-01

2.62E-02

2.62E-02

2.62E-02

2.62E-02


Appendix B Community Health Assessment Review


GHD - 11102771

Community Health Assessment Review Dispersion Modelling Results

Contribution to Particulate Concentrations from Facility Only

CAS No. Species of Interest TSP PM10 PM2.5

N/A N/A N/A

Existing

Phase 1

Maximum Predicted 1-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 8.0E+01 3.3E+02 2.2E+02 2.6E+02 2.3E+02 1.5E+02 1.3E+02 7.9E+01 8.1E+01 8.8E+01 2.2E+01 9.2E+01 6.0E+01 7.0E+01 6.3E+01 4.3E+01 3.7E+01 2.2E+01 2.1E+01 2.5E+01 2.5E+00 1.0E+01 6.9E+00 7.5E+00 6.8E+00 4.7E+00 4.0E+00 2.3E+00 2.5E+00 2.6E+00


AAQC (µg/m3) — — —

POI (µg/m3) — — —

AAQC (µg/m3) 1.2E+02 — —

POI Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.2E+02 3.6E+00 2.3E+01 1.9E+01 2.3E+01 2.0E+01 9.5E+00 7.2E+00 5.5E+00 5.0E+00 4.9E+00 — 9.7E-01 6.3E+00 5.1E+00 6.2E+00 5.4E+00 2.6E+00 2.0E+00 1.5E+00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 — 1.1E-01 7.1E-01 6.1E-01 6.7E-01 5.9E-01 3.0E-01 2.2E-01 1.8E-01 1.6E-01 1.5E-01 Existing

Phase 1

AAQC (µg/m3) — — —

POI (µg/m3) — — —

Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.9E-01 5.3E-01 1.2E+00 5.9E-01 4.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 9.5E-02 9.3E-02 7.1E-02 5.1E-02 1.4E-01 3.2E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01 6.9E-02 5.6E-02 2.5E-02 2.4E-02 1.9E-02 6.0E-03 1.7E-02 4.0E-02 1.8E-02 1.4E-02 7.9E-03 6.4E-03 3.0E-03 2.9E-03 2.2E-03


Phase 2

Phase 3

AAQC (µg/m3) — — —

POI (µg/m3) — — —



AAQC (µg/m3) 1.2E+02 — —

POI Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.2E+02 1.8E+00 1.1E+01 7.8E+00 1.1E+01 7.3E+00 6.4E+00 5.6E+00 3.6E+00 3.2E+00 3.7E+00 — 1.2E+00 5.4E+00 4.7E+00 4.8E+00 4.0E+00 3.0E+00 2.7E+00 1.6E+00 1.4E+00 1.6E+00 — 6.2E-02 3.2E-01 2.6E-01 3.3E-01 2.6E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.2E-01 Phase 2

Phase 3

AAQC (µg/m3) — — —

POI (µg/m3) — — —

Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.1E-01 2.6E-01 6.2E-01 2.9E-01 2.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 4.81E-02 4.46E-02 3.8E-02 2.8E-02 6.6E-02 1.6E-01 7.8E-02 6.1E-02 3.5E-02 2.9E-02 1.2E-02 1.1E-02 9.7E-03 3.6E-03 8.8E-03 2.2E-02 9.4E-03 7.5E-03 4.5E-03 3.7E-03 1.6E-03 1.5E-03 1.3E-03


Phase 4

Post-Closure

AAQC (µg/m3) — — —

POI (µg/m3) — — —



AAQC (µg/m3) 1.2E+02 — —

POI Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.2E+02 2.9E+00 2.0E+01 1.4E+01 1.1E+01 9.7E+00 8.7E+00 7.5E+00 5.9E+00 5.9E+00 5.0E+00 — 7.5E-01 5.5E+00 3.9E+00 3.0E+00 2.6E+00 2.5E+00 2.2E+00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.3E+00 — 9.5E-02 6.3E-01 4.2E-01 3.4E-01 3.0E-01 2.7E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.6E-01

AAQC (µg/m3) — — —

POI (µg/m3) — — —

Existing CAS No. Species of Interest TSP PM10 PM2.5

N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

Phase 1

Phase 2 CAS No. Species of Interest TSP PM10 PM2.5

N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

Phase 3


N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.3E+00 2.5E+01 2.0E+01 3.3E+01 2.9E+01 1.3E+01 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 7.8E+00 1.4E+00 6.9E+00 5.3E+00 9.0E+00 8.0E+00 3.6E+00 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 2.8E+00 2.1E+00 1.6E-01 7.6E-01 6.3E-01 9.4E-01 8.4E-01 3.7E-01 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.4E-01

Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 3.3E+00 2.1E+01 1.8E+01 9.2E+00 7.3E+00 6.4E+00 5.9E+00 4.7E+00 4.7E+00 4.0E+00 8.6E-01 5.7E+00 5.0E+00 2.5E+00 1.9E+00 1.6E+00 1.4E+00 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E-01 6.4E-01 5.5E-01 2.9E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 1.6E-01 1.4E-01

Post-Closure Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Phase 4

Post-Closure

Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.5E-01 4.7E-01 9.0E-01 4.0E-01 3.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.6E-01 7.9E-02 7.4E-02 5.9E-02 4.0E-02 1.2E-01 2.3E-01 1.1E-01 8.7E-02 5.3E-02 4.4E-02 2.1E-02 2.0E-02 1.6E-02 4.9E-03 1.5E-02 2.9E-02 1.2E-02 9.9E-03 6.3E-03 5.2E-03 2.6E-03 2.5E-03 1.9E-03

Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Note: HHRA4 is no longer present.

Page 1 of 3

June 2018

GHD - 11102771


Concentrations from Site Contributions + Background Existing CAS No. Species of Interest TSP PM10 PM2.5

Phase 1 3

AAQC 3 (µg/m ) — — —

POI 3 (µg/m ) HHRA1 HHRA2 — 1.3E+02 3.9E+02 — 7.4E+01 1.4E+02 — 5.4E+01 6.2E+01

Maximum Predicted 1-hour Concentrations (µg/m ) HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 2.8E+02 3.1E+02 2.8E+02 2.1E+02 1.8E+02 1.3E+02 1.3E+02 1.4E+02 1.1E+02 1.2E+02 1.1E+02 9.5E+01 8.9E+01 7.4E+01 7.3E+01 7.7E+01 5.9E+01 6.0E+01 5.9E+01 5.7E+01 5.6E+01 5.4E+01 5.5E+01 5.5E+01

AAQC (µg/m3) 1.2E+02 — —

POI (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 1.2E+02 5.6E+01 7.5E+01 — 2.4E+01 2.9E+01 — 8.2E+00 8.8E+00

Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m ) HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 7.1E+01 7.5E+01 7.2E+01 6.2E+01 5.9E+01 5.8E+01 5.7E+01 5.7E+01 2.8E+01 2.9E+01 2.8E+01 2.6E+01 2.5E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 8.7E+00 8.8E+00 8.7E+00 8.4E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00

AAQC (µg/m3) — — —

POI (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 — 5.2E+01 5.3E+01 — 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 — 8.1E+00 8.1E+00

Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m ) HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.3E+01 5.3E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00

AAQC 3 (µg/m ) — — —

POI 3 (µg/m ) HHRA1 HHRA2 — 8.8E+01 2.4E+02 — 3.3E+01 7.7E+01 — 9.3E+00 1.4E+01

Maximum Predicted 1-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.4E+02 1.3E+02 1.2E+02 1.1E+02 1.2E+02 4.6E+01 5.2E+01 4.9E+01 4.7E+01 4.4E+01 4.1E+01 3.9E+01 4.1E+01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 1.0E+01 9.8E+00 1.0E+01

AAQC (µg/m3) 1.2E+02 — —



AAQC (µg/m3) — — —


Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.3E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00

AAQC (µg/m3) — — —



AAQC (µg/m3) 1.2E+02 — —



AAQC (µg/m3) — — —


Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.3E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00

N/A N/A N/A

3

Maximum Predicted 1-hour Concentrations (µg/m ) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.7E+02 4.4E+02 3.8E+02 4.9E+02 4.3E+02 2.6E+02 2.4E+02 1.7E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 5.6E+01 1.3E+02 1.1E+02 1.4E+02 1.3E+02 7.9E+01 7.4E+01 5.6E+01 5.4E+01 5.3E+01 1.2E+01 1.9E+01 1.8E+01 2.0E+01 1.9E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 1.1E+01


N/A N/A N/A

Phase 1 3

Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m ) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.7E+01 7.7E+01 7.2E+01 8.5E+01 8.1E+01 6.5E+01 6.2E+01 6.2E+01 6.2E+01 6.0E+01 2.4E+01 3.0E+01 2.8E+01 3.2E+01 3.1E+01 2.7E+01 2.6E+01 2.6E+01 2.6E+01 2.5E+01 8.3E+00 8.9E+00 8.7E+00 9.0E+00 8.9E+00 8.5E+00 8.4E+00 8.4E+00 8.4E+00 8.3E+00

3

3

Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m ) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.2E+01 5.3E+01 5.3E+01 5.3E+01 5.3E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00


N/A N/A N/A

Phase 1 3


N/A N/A N/A

Phase 3 Maximum Predicted 1-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 1.2E+02 3.9E+02 2.4E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 1.0E+02 9.8E+01 9.7E+01 4.2E+01 1.2E+02 7.4E+01 4.8E+01 4.7E+01 4.1E+01 4.0E+01 3.6E+01 3.6E+01 3.5E+01 1.0E+01 1.9E+01 1.4E+01 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 9.7E+00 9.6E+00 9.5E+00


N/A N/A N/A

Phase 3 Maximum Predicted 24-hour Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.5E+01 7.3E+01 7.0E+01 6.1E+01 5.9E+01 5.8E+01 5.8E+01 5.7E+01 5.7E+01 5.6E+01 2.4E+01 2.9E+01 2.8E+01 2.6E+01 2.5E+01 2.5E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 8.2E+00 8.7E+00 8.6E+00 8.4E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 8.2E+00


N/A N/A N/A

Phase 3 Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.3E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00 8.1E+00


N/A N/A N/A



N/A N/A N/A



N/A N/A N/A

Post-Closure Maximum Predicted Annual Concentrations (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Note: HHRA4 is no longer present. Background Concentrations (from Baseline Report) Averaging Period Baseline Air Quality Concentration (µg/m3) Compound Mean Average 90th Percentile 24-hour TSP 52 24-hour PM10 23 24-hour 8.1 15 PM2.5 Annual 8.1 -

Page 2 of 3

June 2018

GHD - 11102771


Particulate Deposition from Site Contributions (no background data available)

CAS No. Species of Interest TSP

N/A

Existing

Phase 1

Maximum Predicted Monthly Total Depostion (g/m2) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 5.2E-02 7.6E-02 3.5E-01 1.0E-01 8.2E-02 4.1E-02 3.4E-02 8.3E-03 8.6E-03 5.6E-03

Maximum Predicted Monthly Total Depositions (g/m2) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 6.5E-02 8.8E-02 3.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.2E-01 5.5E-02 4.5E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 9.0E-03

AAQC (g/m2) —

POI (g/m2) —

AAQC (g/m2) —

POI Maximum Predicted Annual Total Depostion (g/m2) (µg/m3) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 — 3.3E-01 4.7E-01 2.0E+00 6.6E-01 5.2E-01 1.9E-01 1.5E-01 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 3.9E-02

AAQC (g/m2) —

POI (g/m2) —

AAQC (g/m2) —


AAQC 2 (g/m ) —

POI 2 (g/m ) —

AAQC (g/m2) —


Existing CAS No. Species of Interest TSP

N/A


N/A

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3



Phase 2 CAS No. Species of Interest TSP

N/A


N/A

Phase 3

Species of Interest TSP

N/A

Maximum Predicted Annual Total Depostion (g/m2) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E+00 2.5E-01 2.1E-01 9.1E-02 7.6E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.2E-02

Phase 4

Post-Closure

Maximum Predicted Monthly Total Depostion (g/m2) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 4.0E-02 5.8E-02 2.3E-01 6.9E-02 0.05561m 2.5E-02 2.1E-02 6.5E-03 6.7E-03 4.2E-03

Maximum Predicted Monthly Total Depostion (g/m2) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Phase 4 CAS No.

Maximum Predicted Annual Total Depositions (g/m2) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 4.3E-01 5.7E-01 2.3E+00 1.0E+00 7.8E-01 2.5E-01 2.0E-01 6.6E-02 6.4E-02 4.8E-02

Post-Closure Maximum Predicted Annual Total Depostion (g/m2) HHRA1 HHRA2 HHRA3 HHRA5 HHRA6 HHRA7 HHRA8 HHRA9 HHRA10 HHRA11 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Note: HHRA4 is no longer present.

Page 3 of 3

June 2018