TTC McNicoll Bus Garage TPAP Air Quality Assessment ... · McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment December 3, 2014 Novus Environmental | 1 1.0 Introduction Novus Environmental Inc

Air Quality | Sound, Vibration & EMI/RFI | Sustainable Water | Wind & Climate

Novus Environmental Inc. | 150 Research Lane, Suite 105, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 4T2

e-mail [email protected] tel 226.706.8080 fax 226.706.8081

TTC McNicoll Bus Garage TPAP

Air Quality Assessment

Toronto, ON

Novus Reference No. 13-0054 Version No. 1 (DRAFT) December 3, 2014

NOVUS PROJECT TEAM:

Scientist: Jenny Vesely, B.Eng., EIT

Project Manager: Scott Shayko, Hon. B. Comm, B.Sc.

This page intentionally left blank

for 2-sided printing purposes

McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment

December 3, 2014

Novus Environmental | i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Contaminants of Concern .................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Emissions from Buses and Motor Vehicles ............................................................. 2

2.2 Emissions from Heating Equipment and Standby Diesel Generator ....................... 2

2.3 Fugitive Emissions ................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Applicable Guidelines .............................................................................................. 3

Guideline D-6 ................................................................................................... 3

Ambient Air Quality Criteria ........................................................................... 5

3.0 Background (Ambient Conditions) ..................................................................................... 6

3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Selection of Relevant Ambient Monitoring Stations ............................................... 7

3.3 Selection of Worst-Case Monitoring Station ........................................................... 9

3.4 Detailed Analysis of Selected Worst-Case Monitoring Stations ............................ 11

3.5 Summary of Background Conditions ..................................................................... 18

4.0 Assessment Approach ....................................................................................................... 19

4.1 General Approach ................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Location of Sensitive Receptors within the Study Area ......................................... 20

4.3 Facility Operations and Exhaust Parameters .......................................................... 21

Bus Operations ............................................................................................... 21

Comfort Heating Equipment and Standby Diesel Generator ......................... 23

Paint Booth and Shop Areas ........................................................................... 24

Liquid Storage Tanks ..................................................................................... 24

Employee Parking Lot .................................................................................... 25

4.4 Meteorological Data ............................................................................................... 26

4.5 Emission Rates ....................................................................................................... 27

Vehicle Emission Rates (Buses and Employee Parking Lot) ......................... 27

Heating Equipment and Standby Generator Emission Rates ......................... 29

Paint Booth and Shop Areas ........................................................................... 29

Liquid Storage Tanks ..................................................................................... 30

4.6 Modelling Methods ................................................................................................ 32

Air Dispersion Modelling Using AERMOD .................................................. 32

Assessment of Negligibility for Contaminants in the Paint Booth and Shop

Areas 32

5.0 Results ............................................................................................................................... 33


December 3, 2014

Novus Environmental | ii

5.1 Combined Results for All Emission Sources, Not Including the Paint Booth

and Shop Areas ................................................................................................................. 33

5.2 Results for the Paint Booth and Shop Areas .......................................................... 34

6.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 35

7.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 36

List of Tables

Table 1: Contaminants of Interest ................................................................................................. 2

Table 2: Guideline D-6 Potential Influence Areas and Recommended Minimum Setback

Distances for Industrial Land Uses ............................................................................. 4

Table 3: Applicable Contaminant Guidelines ............................................................................... 5

Table 4: Relevant MOECC and NAPS Monitoring Station Information ..................................... 8

Table 5: Comparison of Background Concentrations ................................................................. 10

Table 6: Summary of Background NO2 ...................................................................................... 12

Table 7: Summary of Background CO ....................................................................................... 13

Table 8: Summary of Background PM2.5 .................................................................................... 14

Table 9: Summary of Background PM10 .................................................................................... 15

Table 10: Summary of Background Acetaldehyde ..................................................................... 16

Table 11: Summary of Background Acrolein ............................................................................. 16

Table 12: Summary of Background Benzene ............................................................................. 17

Table 13: Summary of Background 1,3-Butadiene .................................................................... 17

Table 14: Summary of Background Formaldehyde .................................................................... 18

Table 15: Predicted Hourly Bus Movements at the McNicoll Facility ...................................... 22

Table 16: Liquid Storage Tank Specifications ............................................................................ 25

Table 17: Schedule for Employees Arriving and Leaving the Parking Lot ................................ 26

Table 18: MOVES Input Parameters .......................................................................................... 28

Table 19: MOVES Output Emission Factors for Diesel Transit Buses for 2011 ....................... 28

Table 20: Re-Suspended Particulate Matter Emission Factors ................................................... 29

Table 21: TANKS Model Emission Rates .................................................................................. 31

Table 22: Assessment of Negligibility for Liquid Storage Tanks .............................................. 32

Table 23: Worst-Case Predicted Concentrations as a Percentage of the Guideline.................... 33


December 3, 2014

Novus Environmental | iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Site .................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2: Effect of Trans-boundary Air Pollution (MOECC, 2005) ............................................ 6

Figure 3: Typical Wind Direction during a Smog Episode .......................................................... 7

Figure 4: Relevant MOECC and NAPS Monitoring Stations ...................................................... 8

Figure 5: Summary of Background Conditions .......................................................................... 19

Figure 6: Receptor Locations ...................................................................................................... 21

Figure 7: Path for Buses Entering and Leaving the Facility ....................................................... 23

Figure 8: Wind Frequency Diagram for Pearson International Airport ...................................... 27

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Heating Equipment Specifications

Appendix B: Paint Booth and Shop Area Contaminant Assessment

Appendix C: Contour Plots for each contaminant


December 3, 2014

Novus Environmental | iv

This page left blank for 2-sided

printing purposes


December 3, 2014

Novus Environmental | 1

1.0 Introduction

Novus Environmental Inc. (Novus) was retained by URS Canada Inc. (URS) to conduct an air

quality assessment for the proposed McNicoll Bus Garage located in the City of Toronto,

Ontario. The focus of the assessment was to predict impacts at the nearby air-sensitive

receptors from bus emissions as well as other stationary emission sources onsite.

1.1 Project Description

The project includes the construction of a new bus storage and maintenance facility for the

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). The proposed facility is located on McNicoll Avenue, just

east of Kennedy Road in the City of Toronto. The new facility will be used to house buses

when they are not in use, and for general maintenance and repair on the buses. The majority of

emissions will be due to idling buses prior to going into service. Emissions from natural gas-

fired heating equipment and standby generators, paint booth and shop areas and fugitive

emissions from liquid storage tanks and employee parking lot were also considered. Figure 1

shows the project site, with the proposed building shown in blue and the employee parking lot

shown in orange. Directly west of the proposed site is the Mon Sheong retirement home, and

further west exists residential dwellings. North and west of the site exists industrial lands.

Figure 1: Project Site


December 3, 2014


2.0 Contaminants of Concern

2.1 Emissions from Buses and Motor Vehicles

The contaminants of interest from motor vehicles have largely been determined by scientists

and engineers with United States and Canadian government agencies such as the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and

Climate Change (MOECC), Environment Canada (EC), Health Canada (HC), and the Ontario

Ministry of Transportation (MTO). These contaminants are primarily emitted due to fuel

combustion, brake wear, tire wear, the breakdown of dust on the roadway.

The contaminants of interest from motor vehicles are categorized as Criteria Air Contaminants

(CACs) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The contaminants emitted during fuel

combustion include all of the CACs and VOCs, and the contaminants emitted from brake wear,

tire wear, and breakdown of road dust include the particulates. A summary of these

contaminants are provided in the following table.

Table 1: Contaminants of Interest

Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Acetaldehyde

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Acrolein

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) (<2.5 microns in diameter)

Benzene

Coarse Particulate matter (PM10) (<10 microns in diameter)

1,3-Butadiene

Formaldehyde

These contaminants have been selected for this assessment due to their potential effect on

human health or the environment and based on our experience represent the contaminants that

are most likely to exceed government criteria for a facility of this nature.

2.2 Emissions from Heating Equipment and Standby Diesel Generator

The main concern associated with boiler and generator exhaust due to the combustion of

natural gas or diesel, is oxides of nitrogen (NOx), specifically nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in

relation to human health. For this assessment, NO2 was assessed as the contaminant of concern

from the natural gas-fired heating equipment.


December 3, 2014


2.3 Fugitive Emissions

Fugitive emissions onsite were considered from re-suspended particulate matter from buses

driving onsite, from the paint booth and shop space, from the storage tanks and vehicles in the

parking lot.

Contaminants of concern from the paint booth include several chemicals, including VOCs,

contained in products used for painting and touching up the buses. It should be noted that the

TTC will be using water-based paint on the buses, reducing the fugitive VOC emissions from

the facility. The main concern for emission from the shop spaces is particulate matter from

maintenance activities and products used. These areas will have fume extraction arms,

downdraft exhaust welding tables, portable fume exhaust systems and a wall-mounted dust

collector. It is assumed that this equipment will be used when needed, and all dust will be

collected through the dust collector and not exhausted through the stacks. The touch-up paint

shop will also have filter banks, using Fiberglass Paint Arrestor Pads for removal of paints,

lacquer and enamels.

The storage tanks will contain diesel fuel and various vehicle oils and fluids. The main concern

for fugitive emissions from the storage tanks is evaporation of VOCs from the various products

into the headspace of the tank, which vents to the atmosphere. The most volatile component

present in any of the tanks is benzene, contained in the diesel fuel tanks. Given benzene’s high

vapour pressure and conservatively low standard under O.Reg 419/05, benzene was assessed as

a worst-case contaminant emission scenario from the diesel tanks. Propylene glycol and

isopropyl alcohol emissions were also assessed as criteria contaminants from the coolant and

windshield fluids.

2.4 Applicable Guidelines

There are several Provincial guidelines which have been considered in this assessment.

Guideline D-6

The D-series of guidelines were developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and

Climate Change (MOECC) in 1995 as a means to assess recommended separation distances

and other control measures for land use planning proposals in an effort to prevent or minimize

‘adverse effects’ from the encroachment of incompatible land uses where a facility either exists

or is proposed. The guideline specifically addresses issues of odour, dust, noise and litter.

Guideline D-6 Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses, addresses

industrial land uses similar to the proposed bus facility. From the Guideline’s synopsis,

Guideline D-6 is “intended to be applied in the land use planning process to prevent or

minimize future land use problems due to the encroachment of sensitive land uses and


December 3, 2014


industrial land uses on one another.” As the proposed project does not require a land use

planning assessment (neither an Official Plan Amendment nor a Zoning By-law Amendment is

required), Guideline D-6 does not strictly apply; regardless, it still can be used to consider what

would generally be considered acceptable.

Guideline D-6 defines an Area of Influence and a Recommended Minimum Setback distance

for three classes of industrial operation: light, medium, and heavy industrial uses. These

distances are determined by industry class and are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Guideline D-6 Potential Influence Areas and Recommended Minimum

Setback Distances for Industrial Land Uses

Industry Classification Area of Influence Recommended Setback

Distance

Class I – Light Industrial 70 m 20 m

Class II – Medium Industrial 300 m 70 m

Class III – Heavy Industrial 1000 m 300 m

Based on the size of the facility and the nature of the use, the proposed McNicoll bus facility is

consistent with a Class 2 industry, with an Area of Influence of 300 m, and a Recommended

Minimum Setback Distance of 70 m.

Guideline D-6 recommends that detailed assessments be conducted where sensitive land uses

are located within the Area of Influence of the industrial facility. There are several sensitive

receptors within the Area of Influence. The closest sensitive use is the Mon Sheong residential

development/ long term care facility. The detailed analyses presented in the subsequent

sections of the report meet this requirement of Guideline D-6.

Guideline D-6 also provides a Recommended Minimum Setback Distance of 70 m for Class 2

facilities. The distances between the Mon Sheong facility and the McNicoll facility are:

Property line to property line – 23 m

Mon Sheong Building to closest on-site bus route – 30 m

While the Mon Sheong facility lies within the Recommended Minimum Setback Distance from

the proposed McNicoll bus facility, Guideline D-6 is clear that the Minimum Setback Distance

is a recommendation only. Section 4.10 of the Guideline allows for development to occur

within the minimum setback for “redevelopment, infilling and mixed use” areas. This project

would qualify as redevelopment. In such cases, Section 4.10 of the Guideline requires that a

detailed assessment be conducted to show that the relevant air quality guidelines are met. The

detailed analyses presented in the subsequent sections of the report show that this is the case.

Thus, the minimum setback requirements of Guideline D-6 have been addressed.


December 3, 2014


Ambient Air Quality Criteria

In order to assess the impact of the project, the predicted effects at sensitive receptors were

predicted using detailed dispersion modelling, and compared to published guidelines. Relevant

agencies and organizations in Ontario and their applicable contaminant guidelines are:

MOECC Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC)

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canada Wide Standards

(CWSs)

Within the guidelines, the threshold value for each contaminant and its applicable averaging

period was used to assess the maximum predicted effect at sensitive receptors derived from

computer simulations. The applicable averaging periods for the contaminants of interest are

based on 1-, 8- and 24-hour acute (short-term) exposures. The threshold values and averaging

periods used in this assessment for the main contaminants of concern are presented in Table 3.

It should be noted that the CWS for PM2.5 is not based on the maximum threshold value.

Instead, it is based on the annual 98th percentile value, averaged over three consecutive years.

Guidelines for the chemicals contained in the various products used onsite in the paint booth

and shop areas are not presented in Table 3, but instead are presented in Appendix B.

Table 3: Applicable Contaminant Guidelines

Type Pollutant Averaging

Period

Guideline

(µg/m3) Source

Criteria Air Contaminants

(CACs)

NO2 1 hr 400 AAQC

24 hr 200 AAQC

CO 1 hr 36,200 AAQC

8 hr 15,700 AAQC

PM2.5 24 hr 27* AAQC (CWS)

PM10 24 hr 50 Interim AAQC

Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs)

Acetaldehyde 24 hr 500 AAQC

Acrolein 1 hr 4.5 Environmental

Registry 24 hr 0.4

Benzene 24 hr 2.3 Environmental

Registry

1,3-Butadiene 24 hr 10 Environmental

Registry

Formaldehyde 24 hr 65 AAQC * The CWS is based on the annual 98th percentile concentration, averaged over three consecutive years. The standard becomes 27 in year 2020.


December 3, 2014


3.0 Background (Ambient Conditions)

3.1 Overview

Background (ambient) conditions are contaminant concentrations that are exclusive of

emissions from the proposed project infrastructure. These emissions are typically the result of

trans-boundary (macro-scale), regional (meso-scale), and local (micro-scale) emission sources

and result due to both primary and secondary formation. Primary contaminants are emitted

directly by the source and secondary contaminants are formed by complex chemical reactions

in the atmosphere. Secondary pollution is generally formed over great distances in the presence

of sunlight and heat and most noticeably results in the formation of fine particulate matter

(PM2.5) and ground-level ozone (O3), also considered smog.

In Ontario, a significant amount of smog originates from emission sources in the United States

which is the major contributor during smog events, usually occurring in the summer season

(MOECC, 2005). During smog episodes, the U.S. contribution to PM2.5 can be as much as 90

percent near the southwest U.S. border and approximately 50 percent in the Greater Toronto

Area (GTA). The effect of U.S. air pollution on Ontario on a high PM2.5 day and on an average

PM2.5 spring/summer day is illustrated in the following figure.

High PM2.5 Days Average PM2.5 of Spring/Summer Season

Figure 2: Effect of Trans-boundary Air Pollution (MOECC, 2005)

Air pollution is strongly influenced by weather systems (i.e., meteorology) that typically move

out of central Canada into the mid-west of the U.S. then eastward to the Atlantic coast. This

weather system generally produces winds with a southerly component that travel over major

emission sources in the U.S. and result in the transport of pollution into Ontario. This

phenomenon is demonstrated in the following figure and is based on a computer model run

from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model.

US +

Background

US +

Background


December 3, 2014


Figure 3: Typical Wind Direction during a Smog Episode

As discussed above, understanding the composition of background air pollution and its

influences is important in determining the potential impacts of a project, considering that the

majority of the combined concentrations are typically due to existing elevated background

levels. In this assessment, background conditions were characterized utilizing existing ambient

monitoring data from MOECC and NAPS (National Air Pollution Surveillance) Network

stations and added to the modelled predictions in order to conservatively estimate the combined

concentration.

3.2 Selection of Relevant Ambient Monitoring Stations

A review of MOECC and NAPS ambient monitoring stations in Ontario was undertaken to

identify the monitoring stations that are in relevant proximity to the study area and that would

be representative of background contaminant concentrations in the study area. Four MOECC

(Toronto East, Toronto North, Toronto West and Toronto Downtown) and six NAPS (Toronto

Downtown, Etobicoke South, Etobicoke North, Newmarket, Egbert and Windsor) stations were

determined to be representative. The locations of the relevant ambient monitoring stations in

relation to the study area are shown in Figure 4 and their station information can be found in

Table 4. It should be understood that the selection of the Egbert and Windsor stations is due to

the fact that formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have only been recently measured at the Egbert

and Windsor stations and acrolein has only been recently measured at the Windsor station. It is

likely that acrolein concentrations from Windsor result in conservative background

concentrations in the study area due to the large amount of industrial activity in the Windsor

area. Note that the Egbert and Windsor stations are not shown in the figure due to their distance

from the study area.


December 3, 2014


Figure 4: Relevant MOECC and NAPS Monitoring Stations

Table 4: Relevant MOECC and NAPS Monitoring Station Information

City/Town Station

ID Location Operator Contaminants

Toronto East 33003 Kennedy Rd./Lawrence Ave MOECC NO2|PM2.5

Toronto North 34020 Hendon Ave./Yonge St. MOECC NO2|PM2.5

Toronto West 35125 125 Resources Rd. MOECC CO

Toronto Downtown 31103 467 University Ave. W. MOECC CO

Toronto Downtown 60427 223 College St NAPS Benzene | 1,3-Butadiene

Etobicoke South 60435 461 Kipling Ave NAPS Benzene | 1,3-Butadiene

Etobicoke North 60413 Elmcrest Road NAPS Benzene | 1,3-Butadiene

Newmarket 65101 Eagle St. NAPS Benzene | 1,3-Butadiene

Egbert 64401 Simcoe RR56/Murphy Rd. NAPS Formaldehyde | Acetaldehyde

Windsor 60211 College Ave./Prince Rd. NAPS Formaldehyde | Acetaldehyde

|Acrolein

Since the study area is surrounded by many monitoring stations, a comparison was performed

for the available data on a contaminant basis, to determine the worst-case representative

background concentration (see Section 3.3). Selecting the worst-case ambient data will result

in a conservative combined assessment.


December 3, 2014


3.3 Selection of Worst-Case Monitoring Station

The most recent five years of ambient monitoring data publically available from the selected

stations were statistically summarized for the desired averaging periods, 1, 8 and 24-hr. For

the CACs, data was available for the years 2009-2013 and for the VOCs, data was available for

2008-2012 at all stations except for Egbert, at which measurements were no longer recorded

after 2010. For the contaminants with hourly monitoring data (NO2, CO and PM2.5), the station

with the highest maximum value over the 5-year period for each contaminant and averaging

period was selected to represent background concentrations in the study area. Using the

maximum concentration is a very conservative assumption because it represents an absolute

worst-case background scenario, which likely only occurred for one hour or one day over the

five-year period. For this reason, it is often suggested that the 90th percentile background

concentration be selected to represent a reasonable worst-case scenario. However, in order to

build conservatism into the results, the maximum background concentration was selected.

Ambient VOC data is not monitored hourly, but is typically measured every six days. To

combine this dataset with the hourly modelled concentrations, each measured 6-day value was

applied to all hours between measurement dates, when there were 6 days between

measurements. When there was greater than six days between measurements, the 90th

percentile measured value for the year in question was applied for those days in order to

determine combined concentrations. This method is conservative in determining combined

impacts as it assumed the 10th percentile highest concentrations whenever data was not

available. Table 5 shows a comparison of the relevant stations for each contaminant of

interest, and the selection of the worst-case station.


December 3, 2014


Table 5: Comparison of Background Concentrations

Note: PM10 is not measured in Ontario; therefore, background concentrations were estimated by applying a PM2.5/PM10 ratio of

0.54 (Lall et al., 2004).

Contaminant Worst-Case Station Contaminant Worst-Case Station

NO2 (1-hr) Toronto East 1,3-Butadiene Etobicoke South

NO2 (24-hr) Toronto North Benzene Etobicoke North

CO (1-hr) Toronto West Formaldehyde Egbert

CO (8-hr) Toronto West Acrolein Windsor

PM2.5 (24-hr) Toronto East Acetaldehyde Egbert

PM2.5 (3-yr) Toronto North

PM10 Toronto East


December 3, 2014


3.4 Detailed Analysis of Selected Worst-Case Monitoring Stations

Year 2009 to 2013 hourly ambient monitoring data, the most recent 5 years publically available

for CACs from nearby monitoring stations, was statistically summarized for the desired

averaging period; 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour averaging periods were used. VOC data was

available for the years 2008-2012, except at the Egbert station where measurements were

stopped after 2010.

VOCs are typically measured in Ontario on a 6-day basis. Where data was present every 6

days, the measured concentration was applied to all hours in that period. Where there was a

greater than 6-day gap in the data, the maximum concentration for the given year was used to

supplement the dataset.

A detailed statistical analysis of the selected worst-case background monitoring station for each

of the contaminants is presented below. The statistical analysis was summarized for average,

90th percentile and maximum concentration. Each site was summarized on a yearly basis and

for the five-year period. Where measurements exceeded the guideline, frequency analysis was

performed.


December 3, 2014


Table 6: Summary of Background NO2

Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary

Statistic % of MOECC

Guideline

Maximum 39%

90th Percentile 14%

Average 7%

Conclusion:

A review of five years of ambient

monitoring data from the Toronto

East Station indicated that

background concentrations are well

below the MOECC guideline on a 1-

hour basis.


Guideline

Maximum 45%

90th Percentile 24%

Average 14%

Conclusion:



North Station indicated that



hour basis.


December 3, 2014


Table 7: Summary of Background CO



Guideline

Maximum 6%

90th Percentile 1%

Average <1%

Conclusion:



West Station indicated that



hour basis.


Guideline

Maximum 12%

90th Percentile 3%

Average 2%

Conclusion:



West Station indicated that


below the MOECC guideline on an 8-

hour basis.


December 3, 2014


Table 8: Summary of Background PM2.5


Statistic % of CWS Guideline

Maximum 133%

98th Percentile 76%

90th Percentile 47%

Average 25%

Conclusion: A review of five years of ambient monitoring data from the Toronto East Station indicated that the maximum background concentration exceeded the CWS on a 24-hour basis. However, the guideline for PM2.5 is based on the 98th percentile value averaged over three consecutive years. Therefore, the highest 3-year average of 20.5 µg/m3 was below the guideline. Frequency analysis was still conducted in order to show the number of days the background exceeded the guideline (see below).

Number of Days Measured

Number of Days > CWS Guideline

1,814 12

Conclusion: Frequency analysis determined that 24-hour concentrations exceeded the CWS on an infrequent basis. Measured concentrations exceeded the guideline 5 days over the 5-year period. This means that the background concentration exceeded the guideline less than 1% of the time over the 5-year period.


December 3, 2014


Table 9: Summary of Background PM10


Note: PM10 is not monitored in Ontario; therefore, background concentrations were estimated by applying a PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.54. Lall et al. (2004)

Statistic % of MOECC Guideline

Maximum 133%

90th Percentile 47%

Average 25%

Conclusion: A review of five years of PM10 data calculated from PM2.5 ambient monitoring data from the Toronto East Station indicated that the estimated maximum background concentration exceeded the MOECC guideline on a 24-hour basis. Therefore, frequency analysis was conducted to determine the number of days the estimated background exceeded the MOECC guideline (see below).

1150

Number of Days Measured

Number of Days > MOECC Guideline

1,814 12

Conclusion: Frequency analysis determined that 24-hour concentrations exceeded the MOECC guideline on an infrequent basis. Estimated concentrations exceeded the MOECC guideline 5 days over the 5 year period, with 4 days occurring in 2007. This means that the background concentration exceeded the MOECC guideline less than 1% of the time over the 5 year period.


December 3, 2014


Table 10: Summary of Background Acetaldehyde



Maximum <1%

90th Percentile <1%

Average <1%

Conclusion: A review of five years of ambient monitoring data from the Egbert Station indicated that the maximum background concentration was well below the MOECC guideline.

Table 11: Summary of Background Acrolein



Maximum 32%

90th Percentile 19%

Average 15%

Conclusion: A review of five years of ambient monitoring data from the Windsor Station indicated that the maximum background concentration was well below the MOECC guideline.


December 3, 2014


Table 12: Summary of Background Benzene



Maximum 99%

90th Percentile 41%

Average 27%

Conclusion: A review of five years of ambient monitoring data from the Etobicoke North Station indicated that the maximum background concentration was slightly below the MOECC guideline.

Table 13: Summary of Background 1,3-Butadiene



Maximum 4%

90th Percentile 1%

Average <1%

Conclusion: A review of five years of ambient monitoring data from the Etobicoke South Station indicated that the maximum background concentration was well below the MOECC guideline.


December 3, 2014


Table 14: Summary of Background Formaldehyde



Maximum 13%

90th Percentile 8%

Average 5%

Conclusion: A review of five years of ambient monitoring data from the Egbert Station indicated that the maximum background concentration was well below the MOECC guideline.

3.5 Summary of Background Conditions

Based on a review of the most recent ambient monitoring dataset, all contaminants were below

their respective MOECC criteria with the exception of PM10. PM10 concentrations were

calculated based on their relationship to PM2.5. It should be noted that even though the

maximum concentration of PM2.5 exceeded the CWS, the guideline for PM2.5 is based on an

average annual 98th percentile concentration, averaged over three consecutive years. Therefore,

it was determined that the maximum rolling 98th percentile average was 20.5 µg/m3, which is

less than the guideline.

A summary of the background concentrations as a percentage of their respective MOECC

guidelines or CWS is presented in the following figure. Also presented is the number of days

that the monitoring data was above the MOECC guideline or CWS.


December 3, 2014


Figure 5: Summary of Background Conditions

4.0 Assessment Approach

4.1 General Approach

In order to estimate the worst-case impacts resulting from emissions from the McNicoll Bus

Garage the following were conducted:

Emission rates were estimated based on U.S. EPA and MOECC published values;

Air dispersion modelling was conducted; and

Maximum model results were combined with maximum background concentrations to

provide conservative predictions of worst-case impacts.


December 3, 2014


4.2 Location of Sensitive Receptors within the Study Area

Land uses which are defined as sensitive receptors for evaluating potential air quality effects

are:

Health care facilities;

Senior citizens’ residences or long-term care facilities;

Child care facilities;

Educational facilities;

Places of worship; and

Residential dwellings.

The nearest existing sensitive receptor is the Mon Sheong residence/long-term care facility,

located just west of the facility, approximately 20 m from the facility’s property boundary line.

This is the closest sensitive receptor. Receptors were placed at ground level and in 3 m height

increments to measure impacts at operable windows at all levels on the retirement home. Three

churches were identified near the facility, located 80 to 400 m from the property boundary line.

The vacant land to the east of the facility, 2150 McNicoll Avenue, is zoned under Scarborough

General Zoning Bylaw 24982 as Heavy, General and Special Industrial (M, MG and MS).

Regardless of the industrial nature of this zoning, permissions allow for educational facilities,

daycares and places of worship. There are currently no publically-made plans for development,

and no building permits on the property. In the absence of specific direction on how to assess

vacant lots in the air quality guidelines; and to be consistent with the approach taken in the

noise assessment, a vacant lot surrogate receptor has been placed on the property consistent

with the requirements of MOE Publication NPC-300 noise guideline. The point of reception

has been located at the centre of a 1 Ha. building envelope, located on the lot consistent with

the setback restrictions of the zoning by-law with the typical building pattern in the area. The

receptor is located approximately 100 m from the proposed McNicoll facility property

boundary line, and was considered when predicting worst-case impacts.

Figure 6 shows the receptor locations in yellow, the proposed facility in blue and the property

boundary line in red. It should be noted that since sensitive-receptors (the senior citizen’s

residence and potential for day care or educational facility) were identified nearby the proposed

site, the relaxed standard for assessing emergency generators was not applied. Total NOx

emissions from the site, including the emergency generator, were assessed against the ambient

air quality guideline of 400 µ/m3 for a 1-hour and averaging period for NOx at the identified

sensitive receptors. Emissions from the emergency generator were not considered when

assessing impacts on a 24-hour averaging period against the 200 µg/m3 guideline, in

accordance with MOE guidelines for assessing emergency generators.


December 3, 2014


Figure 6: Receptor Locations

4.3 Facility Operations and Exhaust Parameters

Bus Operations

The main emissions from buses will occur due to idling buses inside the facility prior to going

into service. Hourly bus counts entering and leaving the existing Mount Dennis facility (which

is similar to the proposed facility) were provided by URS, as well as a maximum vehicle count

of 220 buses at the proposed McNicoll Bus Garage. The hourly vehicle distribution at the

Mount Dennis facility was applied to the maximum number of buses proposed at the McNicoll

Bus Garage to determine the number of buses that would be leaving/entering the facility during

any given hour for this assessment. The same hourly vehicle distribution was assumed for

every day of the week. As stated by the design team, a maximum idling time of 10 minutes for

any vehicle within the facility was assumed. To be conservative, it was assumed that each

vehicle moving in that hour (in or out of the facility) would idle for 10 minutes. Vehicle

movements used in the assessment are provided in Table 15.


December 3, 2014


Table 15: Predicted Hourly Bus Movements at the McNicoll Facility

Hour Buses Leaving

Facility Buses Entering

Facility Total Bus

Movements

0 0 3 3

1 0 7 7

2 0 28 28

3 0 14 14

4 17 3 20

5 87 9 96

6 98 5 103

7 18 0 18

8 1 0 1

9 1 35 36

10 2 60 62

11 0 2 2

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 36 0 36

15 34 0 34

16 2 3 5

17 0 0 0

18 0 4 4

19 0 52 52

20 0 34 34

21 0 3 3

22 0 19 19

23 0 17 17

Idling emissions from inside the storage bay will be emitted through the 20 air handling unit

exhaust fans, with an exhaust diameter of 1.5 m and an average flow rate of 7 m3/s, as specified

in the mechanical schedule for the facility provided by Stantec. It was assumed that the

emissions from buses in the storage bay would be evenly mixed and emitted through the air

handling units serving this area.

Vehicles may also idle in the maintenance bay while being worked on, and are connected up to

a bus fume exhaust hose system which exhaust on the rooftop. In the assessment it was

assumed that one bus would be idling at all times through each of the six bus fume exhaust

hose systems. This is conservative as it is not likely that buses will be idling while being

worked on at all times. These fans exhaust 4 m above the rooftop, were modelled with a

diameter of 0.4 m, which is conservative as it yields a low exit velocity and reduces dispersion

of the exhaust. An average flow rate of 1.5 m3/s was provided in the mechanical schedule.


December 3, 2014


Buses were modelled leaving and entering the facility from the north entrance on Redlea

Avenue. Buses entering drive south along the west side of the building, and around to enter on

the east side of the building. Buses leaving exit at the east side of the facility, drive north

around the facility and exit onto Redlea Avenue. The path for buses entering and leaving the

facility is shown in Figure 7. Buses were modelled entering and leaving as per the schedule

shown in Table 15.

Figure 7: Path for Buses Entering and Leaving the Facility

Comfort Heating Equipment and Standby Diesel Generator

The total heat input for natural-gas-fired air handling units and unit heaters for comfort heating

is 55,465,000 kJ/hr. The heating input for each individual air handling unit and unit heater

assessed is provided in Appendix A. Some air handling units are equipped with heat recovery

units, for which a reduction in total heating input was applied. The reduction in heating

capacity due to heat recovery units is also detailed in Appendix A. Air handling units were

modelled with a flue diameter of 0.25 m and the unit heaters with a flue diameter of 0.1 m.

Flow rates for each unit were calculated from the stoichiometric balance for the combustion of

natural gas, and are also listed in Appendix A.


December 3, 2014


The facility will also have a diesel-fired 800 kW standby generator, located at grade at the

northeast corner of the property. The generator was modelled conservatively with an exit

diameter of 0.4 m and flow rate of 2.5 m3/s.

Paint Booth and Shop Areas

Several products will be used in the paint booth and shop areas as part of maintenance

operations and work on the buses. A full list of the products with chemical composition is

provided in Appendix B. Most of the products will be applied with High Volume Low

Pressure (HVLP) spray gun, however, some products will be applied by hand. The spray gun

used to apply products will have a maximum flow rate of 0.42 L/min. These products will be

used in either the paint booth, millwrights shop, paint prep area, CIS control area or body shop,

each of which has a dedicated exhaust stack. The paint booth stack is 8 m above rooftop, and

has a flow rate of 19.8 m3/s, as per the provided mechanical schedule. A large stack diameter of

1 m was modelled with a low exit velocity, to provide conservative predictions. The other

stacks from the shop areas were modelled with an average diameter of 0.2 m and flow rate of

0.2 m3/s, which is listed in the mechanical schedule. Modelling of both the paint booth and

shop area stacks showed that lower dispersion levels (high offsite concentrations) occurred for

emissions from the smaller shop area stacks. It was therefore conservatively assumed that all

contaminants could be emitted from these stacks, to predict worst-case impacts.

Typical usage of the paint gun for any product will be no more than for 15-30 minutes at a

time, 4-5 times per shift during each of the 3 shifts, which equates to 7.5 hours per day. This is

a conservative maximum usage, in reality many products will be used less than 7.5 hours in a

day, and some products only a few times a week. For contaminants with a 24-hour averaging

period, the mass flow rate was determined for use of the spray gun 7.5 hours in a day, for a

normalized flow rate of 0.13 L/min throughout the day. For contaminants with a 1-hour

averaging period, it was assumed the gun could be used for the entire hour, at the full flow rate

of 0.42 L/min. These flow rates were used to determine mass contaminant emission rates in

Section 4.6.3.

Liquid Storage Tanks

There are 12 liquid storage tanks onsite, containing diesel fuel and various vehicle oils and

fluids. The tanks are located on the east side of the facility. Details for each of the tanks is

provided in Table 16. Emissions from the vapour head space in the tanks were modelled

seeping slowly out of the provided 0.05 m vent with an exit velocity of 0.001 m/s.


December 3, 2014


Table 16: Liquid Storage Tank Specifications

Tank ID Product Height (m) Diameter (m) Filling

Frequency

T-1 Diesel 2.67 2.44 Once/day



T-4 Engine Oil 2.67 2.67 Once /3 months

T-5 Engine Oil 2.67 2.67 Once /3 months

T-6 Transmission Fluid 2.67 2.67 Once /6 months

T-7 Transmission Fluid 2.67 2.67 Once /6 months

T-8 Engine Coolant 1.42 1.42 Once /week

T-9 Windshield Fluid 1.98 1.98 Once/week

T-10 Gear Oil 1.42 1.42 Once/3 months

T-11 Waste Oil 2.67 2.67 As Required

T-12 Waste Glycol 1.42 1.42 As Required

Employee Parking Lot

Emissions from vehicles in the employee parking lot were also considered in the assessment.

The shift schedule for bus operators and employees working on maintenance operations was

provided by the TTC, and is shown in Table 17. It was assumed that every employee would

drive to and from work. Vehicles were modelled driving at a slow speed (20 km/hr) in the

parking lot, as per the schedule in Table 17.


December 3, 2014


Table 17: Schedule for Employees Arriving and Leaving the Parking Lot

Hour Vehicles Arriving Vehicles Leaving Total

0:00 20 20

1:00 0

2:00 100 100

3:00 50 50

4:00 50 50

5:00 50 50

6:00 75 75

7:00 50 20 70

8:00 0

9:00 11 11

10:00 0

11:00 0

12:00 0

13:00 0

14:00 100 100

15:00 20 75 95

16:00 50 50

17:00 50 50

18:00 61 61

19:00 50 50

20:00 0

21:00 0

22:00 0

23:00 20 20

4.4 Meteorological Data

2006-2010 hourly meteorological data was obtained from Toronto Pearson International

Airport. The full year of 2011 meteorological data is not available from the U.S. National

Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), therefore 2006-2010 was the most up to date and

complete meteorological data available. Upper air data was obtained from the Buffalo Niagara

International Airport, as per MOECC guidance. The combined data was processed to reflect

conditions at the study area using Lakes Environmental’ s AERMET software program which

prepares meteorological data for use with the AERMOD model. A wind frequency diagram

(wind rose) is shown in Figure 8. As can be seen in this figure, predominant winds are from

the southwesterly through northerly directions.


December 3, 2014


Figure 8: Wind Frequency Diagram for Pearson International Airport

4.5 Emission Rates

Vehicle Emission Rates (Buses and Employee Parking Lot)

MOVES is a computer program that provides estimates of current and future emission rates

from motor vehicles based on a variety of factors such as local meteorology and vehicle fleet

composition. MOVES 2014, updated in October 2014, is the U.S. EPA’s latest tool for

estimating vehicle emissions due to the combustion of fuel, and brake and tire wear. The model

is based on “an analysis of millions of emission test results and considerable advances in the

Agency's understanding of vehicle emissions and… accounts for changes in emissions due to

proposed standards and regulations”. For this project, MOVES was used to estimate emissions

from diesel buses and passenger vehicles in the employee parking lot. Emission rates were

estimated for a base year of 2011, as the fleet at the bus garage may be composed of buses as

old as 2011. This is conservative as MOVES predicts vehicle emission rates to decrease in the

future due to improved technologies and stricter regulations. Table 18 specifies the major

inputs into MOVES.


December 3, 2014


Table 18: MOVES Input Parameters

Parameter Input

Scale Custom County Domain

Meteorology Temperature and Relative Humidity were obtained from meteorological data from the Toronto Airport.

Years 2011

Geographical Bounds Custom County Domain

Fuels Diesel Fuel, Natural Gas

Source Use Types Transit Bus, Passenger Car, Passenger Truck, Motorcycle

Road Type Urban Unrestricted Access

Pollutants and Processes NO2 / CO / PM2.5 / PM10 / Acetaldehyde / Acrolein / Benzene / 1,3-Butadiene / Formaldehyde

Vehicle Age Distribution MOVES defaults based on years selected.

Upon processing of the MOVES outputs, the highest monthly value was selected, which

represents a worst-case emission rate. The emission rates used in the assessment for idling and

moving buses are shown in Table 19.

Table 19: MOVES Output Emission Factors for Diesel Transit Buses for 2011

Contaminant Diesel Buses Passenger Vehicles

Idle (g/v-hr) 20 km/hr (g/VMT) Idle (g/v-hr) 20 km/hr (g/VMT)

NO2 11.9 1.7 0.5 0.09

CO 35.0 7.5 32.7 7.5

PM2.5 Total 7.13 1.1 0.14 0.05

PM10 Total 7.75 1.5 0.16 0.16

Acetaldehyde 0.56 0.066 0.015 0.0017

Acrolein 0.10 0.012 0.002 0.0002

Benzene 0.12 0.014 0.14 0.016

1,3-Butadiene 0.05 0.005 0.014 0.0014

Formaldehyde 1.23 0.15 0.04 0.005

In addition to tailpipe emissions, re-suspension of particulate matter from buses driving on site

as well as from vehicles driving in the parking lot was considered. These emissions are

estimated using empirically derived values presented by the U.S. EPA in their AP-42 report.

The emissions factors for re-suspended PM were estimated by using the following equation

from U.S. EPA’s Document AP-42 report, Chapter 13.2.1.3 and are summarized in Table 20.

A silt loading factor of 0.015 was used for the buses driving on-site, as per MOECC guidance,

since the facility has limited access and the buses will be moving very slowly onsite, and are

therefore not likely to re-suspend a large amount of particulate matter. A silt loading factor of

0.2 was used for vehicles in the parking lot, which is the recommended silt loading factor for

roadways with unrestricted access and an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of 500-

5000.


December 3, 2014


𝐸 = 𝑘(𝑠𝐿)0.91 ∗ (𝑊)1.02

Where: E = the particulate emission factor

k = the particulate size multiplier

sL = silt loading

W = average vehicle weight (Assumed 3 Tons based on Toyota fleet data and

U.S. EPA vehicle weight and distribution)

Table 20: Re-Suspended Particulate Matter Emission Factors

Vehicle Type AADT K

(PM2.5/PM10)

sL

(g/m2)

W

(Tons)

E (g/VMT)

PM2.5 PM10

Buses <500 0.25/1.0 0.015 3 0.503 2.015

Cars (Parking Lot) 500-5,000 0.25/1.0 0.2 3 0.185 0.741

Heating Equipment and Standby Generator Emission Rates

All of the heating equipment will be equipped with low-NOx burners. For NO2 emissions from

the boilers, it was conservatively assumed that 100% of NOx would convert to NO2. Emission

rates for each piece of heating equipment were calculated based on the individual heating input,

and emission rates for small boilers provided in the U.S. EPA AP-42 Ch. 1.4 Combustion

Natural Gas Combustion for low-NOx burners.

The 800 kW emergency generator was assumed to be a low-NOx generator with a maximum

emission rate of 2 g/bhp-hr. We understand that the design team will select a unit with this

emission rate, or lower.

Paint Booth and Shop Areas

The majority of the products being used at the facility will be applied using a HVLP spray gun.

Of the products being used by hand, all but one are solid at room temperature. For these

contaminants, it was therefore assumed that there would be no emissions. The one contaminant

applied by hand that is not solid at room temperature (styrene) was assessed as sprayed, which

is conservative, because a much higher volume would be used when sprayed as opposed to

applied by hand.

For products applied with the spray gun, an average applied transfer efficiency rate of liquid

being sprayed was determined from the U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification

Program. In this program, several HVLP spray guns were tested for transfer of sprayed liquids

onto a product. Of all the studies performed, the average transfer efficiency rate was 58%. It

was therefore assumed that 42% of the product would not be applied to the buses, and would

therefore be emitted out the stack.


December 3, 2014


Total emission rates were determined by summing the weight percentage of each contaminant

in every product, and then multiplying the weight percentage by the flow rate of the spray gun

(volume of product being used) and by the density of the contaminant, to determine a mass

flow emission rate. The total emissions were then multiplied by 0.42 to represent the percent of

product emitted through the stack. The emission rates for each contaminant and sample

calculations are shown in Appendix B. It was assumed that only one product would be used at

a time. Note that a density of 1 g/cm3 was assumed for contaminants for which a density was

not available. These are all contaminants for which there is no recommended guideline.

It was noted that the weight percentage of Naphtha (petroleum) was 100% in the grease

remover product, which resulted in a high emission rate. The conservative usage rate for this

product was therefore further refined to reflect usage at the facility. TTC noted that one 6.36

US Gallon drum would last for one year, and would be used daily. This equates to a usage rate

of 0.000046L/min, for daily application. This usage amount was used to further refine the

emission rate for the Naphtha (petroleum) contaminant only. The maximum predicted usage

volumes using the HVLP spray gun were used to determine emission rates for all other

contaminants.

Liquid Storage Tanks

Total vapour emissions from each of the tanks was determined using the U.S. EPA TANKS

model, which is based on AP-42 Ch. 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks. Chemical properties of

the tank products, fill rates and local meteorological data were all considered in the TANKS

calculations. Both standing losses (emissions due to evaporation of product in the tank) and

working losses (evaporation during filling) were considered to determine total emissions. It

was assumed that working losses occurred throughout the entire day. This is conservative since

working losses would typically only occur for a few overnight hours. The maximum predicted

monthly emission rate was assumed to occur for the entire year, to be conservative. Table 21

shows the maximum total emissions for each tank.


December 3, 2014


Table 21: TANKS Model Emission Rates

Tank ID Product Maximum Monthly Vapour Loss

(g/s)

T-1 Diesel 8.79E-03

T-2 Diesel 8.79E-03

T-3 Diesel 8.79E-03

T-4 Engine Oil 1.14E-04

T-5 Engine Oil 1.14E-04

T-6 Trans. Fluid 7.59E-05

T-7 Trans. Fluid 7.59E-05

T-8 Engine Coolant 5.62E-04

T-9 Windshield Fluid 1.26E-01

T-10 Gear Oil 3.39E-08

T-11 Waste Oil 1.14E-04

T-12 Waste Glycol 2.81E-04

As discussed in Section 2.3, benzene is the most volatile contaminant present in the tanks, and

was assessed as a worst-case emitted contaminant for the tanks. Benzene vapour percentage in

diesel headspace was determined from the U.S. EPA SPECIATE database, which is the

“EPA’s repository of volatile organic gas and particulate matter (PM) speciation profiles of air

pollution sources”. Of the available measurements of diesel headspace in the SPECIATE

database, a maximum benzene content of 0.9% was identified for Super America Diesel, and

used for this assessment to be conservative. This benzene vapour content was applied to the

TANKS output of total vapour loss to determine the benzene emissions from each tank.

It was assumed that the vapour headspace in the tanks containing coolant and windshield fluids

would be comprised of 100% propylene glycol and isopropyl alcohol, the identified criteria

contaminants from these products, to be conservative. Total vapour emissions predicted from

the TANKS model were small, and were assessed using the screening-out assessment of

contaminants that are emitted in negligible amounts, in accordance with MOECC Guideline A-

10 Procedure for Preparing an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report. Total

facility-wide emissions for each of the contaminants were considered in the assessment of

negligibility Benzene is emitted from the buses and vehicles in addition to the tanks, while

propylene glycol and isopropyl alcohol are emitted only from the tanks.

Propylene glycol and isopropyl alcohol were found to be negligible and were not assessed

further. Total benzene emissions did not meet the negligibility criteria, and were modelled in

detail to predict impacts. Results of the assessment of negligibility for the liquid storage tanks

are shown in Table 22. Further details regarding the assessment of negligibility calculations

discussed in Section 4.7.2 and sample calculations are provided in Appendix B, for the paint

booth assessment of negligibility.


December 3, 2014


Table 22: Assessment of Negligibility for Liquid Storage Tanks

Compound O.Reg

419 Limit O.Reg

Guideline Averaging

Time (hours) Emission Rate (g/s)

Emission Threshold (g/s)

Negligible?

Benzene 2.3 24 0.00076 0.00013 NO Propylene Glycol 120 24 0.0006 0.0069 YES Isopropyl Alcohol 7300 24 0.1261 0.4195 YES

4.6 Modelling Methods

Air Dispersion Modelling Using AERMOD

The U.S. EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model, based on the Gaussian plume equation, was used

to predict air quality impacts from emissions at the McNicoll Bus Garage. The model inputs

include local building information, topography, sensitive receptor locations, meteorology,

emission rates and stack parameters. AERMOD uses this information to calculate hourly, 8-

hour or 24-hour averages for the contaminants of interest at the identified sensitive receptor

locations. Combined impacts were assessed for all emissions from the buses, employee

vehicles, heating equipment and liquid storage tanks. Impacts from the contaminants from the

paint booth and shop areas were assessed separately, as contaminants did not overlap with the

remaining activities.

Assessment of Negligibility for Contaminants in the Paint Booth

and Shop Areas

Many of the contaminants are small fractions of the products being used, and will therefore be

emitted in small amounts. As such, a screening-out assessment of contaminants that are emitted

in negligible amounts was conducted in accordance with MOECC Guideline A-10 Procedure

for Preparing an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report. Emission rates for

each contaminant were assessed against the emission threshold, using the urban dispersion

factor at 20 m, the smallest separation distance provided in Guideline A-10. If the emission rate

was less than the emission threshold, the contaminant was determined negligible and not

assessed further. Contaminants that were not found to be negligible were modelled in

AERMOD and assessed against their applicable guidelines for the applicable averaging

periods. Contaminants that do not have a guideline were modelled in AERMOD and results

have been presented. Sample calculations for the assessment of negligibility are shown in

Appendix B.


December 3, 2014


5.0 Results

5.1 Combined Results for All Emission Sources, Not Including the Paint Booth

and Shop Areas

The maximum impacts were predicted to occur at the nearby senior’s residence, at ground

level, for all contaminants with the exception of benzene. The maximum benzene impacts were

predicted to occur at the vacant lot to the east of the facility, at which current zoning would

allow for a day care or educational facility. Note that NO2 impacts are due to emissions from

buses, heating equipment, generators and vehicles in the parking lot. The benzene impacts are

due to emissions from buses, vehicles in the parking lot and fugitive emissions from the tanks.

The remaining pollutants are emitted only from buses and vehicles in the parking lot. The

maximum facility induced concentrations were added to the maximum, 90th and average 5-year

background concentrations to show worst-case and reasonable worst-case impacts. Note that

this methodology results in conservative worst-case concentrations as the maximum facility

induced concentration likely does not occur at the same time as the maximum background

concentration. The worst-case concentrations are shown in Table 23. Contour plots showing

the concentrations surrounding the facility are shown in Appendix C. Note that since this

assessment was completed as part of an environmental assessment, impacts were only

presented at the identified sensitive receptors. For the Environmental Compliance Approval,

impacts at property boundary line will need to be assessed. Impacts at the property line from

the facility alone are shown in the contour plots in Appendix C, and are predicted to meet the

guidelines for all contaminants and averaging periods.

Table 23: Worst-Case Predicted Concentrations as a Percentage of the Guideline

Contaminant Averaging

Period

Maximum Concentration Due to Facility

Alone (µg/m3)

Maximum Concentration Due to Facility Alone (as % of Standard)

Combined Concentration as % of Standard

(Ambient + Project)

Additional # of Guideline Exceedances

due to Project Over

5 Years Maximum

90th Percentile

Average

NO2 1-hour 158 40% 79% 53% 47%

24-hour 32 16% 61% 40% 30%

CO 1-hour 79 0.2% 6% 1% 1%

8-hour 22 0.1% 12% 3% 2% PM2.5

1 24-hour 1.6 6% 139% 53% 30% 3 PM10 24-hour 2 4% 137% 51% 29% 1

Acetaldehyde 24-hour 0.11 0.02% 1% <1% <1% Acrolein 24-hour 0.02 5% 38% 25% 20% Benzene 24-hour 0.19 8% 107% 50% 35% 6

1,3-Butadiene 24-hour 0.01 0.1% 3% 1% 1% Formaldehyde 24-hour 0.25 0.4% 13% 8% 5%

1 – CWS guideline for PM2.5 is based on an average annual 98th percentile concentration, averaged over 3 consecutive years. The maximum combined 3-year rolling average of the annual 98th percentile concentration was 22.14, which is 82% of the guideline.


December 3, 2014


Overall, the maximum concentrations due to the facility alone are 8% or less of the applicable

standard, except for NO2 concentrations, for which the worst-case concentration is 40% of the

NO2 1-hour guideline. Combined with the maximum measured background concentration, two

pollutants are above the guideline: PM10 and benzene. Note that though maximum

concentration of PM2.5 exceeded the CWS, the guideline for PM2.5 is based on an average

annual 98th percentile concentration, averaged over three consecutive years. Combining the

maximum facility induced concentration with the background 98th percentile concentration of

PM2.5 for each of the five years modelled, the maximum rolling 98th percentile average was

22.14 µg/m3, which is below the guideline. Background PM10 concentrations already exceed

the guideline 12 times in five years. Combining the maximum facility induced concentration

with background concentrations, one additional exceedance of the guideline is predicted to

occur for a total of 13 times, which is less than 1% of the time. The maximum background

benzene concentration is 99% of the standard. Combining the maximum facility induced

concentrations with background concentrations causes a slight exceedance of the standard. As

mentioned earlier, ambient measured benzene concentrations are monitored infrequently,

typically every 6 days. To complete the dataset, the measured concentration was applied for all

days between measurements when there were 6 days or less between measurements. The

maximum benzene concentration, which was 99% of the standard, was based on one measured

value and then applied to 6 days of the five-year dataset. Therefore, combined concentrations

add slightly to the background for a combined concentration of 107% of the guideline,

conservatively predicted to occur for 6 days due to the methods described. It is important to

note that these exceedances are primarily due to background concentrations and the

contribution from the facility is small.

All other contaminants met the guidelines with no exceedances. It should be noted that this

approach, combining the maximum values to the maximum ambient measurements is

extremely conservative. It is not likely that the maximum facility concentration will occur at

the same time as the maximum ambient concentration. Furthermore, it is likely that the

combined maximum concentration will only occur for one hour of one day, and it is not

representative of what can be expected on a typical day.

5.2 Results for the Paint Booth and Shop Areas

From the paint booth and shop areas, 29 of the 66 contaminants were found to have negligible

emissions. The remaining contaminants were modelled in AERMOD. Results of the AERMOD

modelling showed that all contaminants met their respective guidelines at the nearest sensitive

receptor. Results of the modelling in comparison the guidelines are shown in Appendix B.

Note that some contaminants do not have a recommended guideline, however, the predicted

worst-case concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptor have been presented to show their

impacts.


December 3, 2014


6.0 Conclusions

The potential effects of the proposed facility on local air quality have been assessed. The

following conclusions and recommendations are a result of this assessment.

The maximum combined concentrations were all below their respective MOECC guidelines or

CWS, with the exception of PM10 and benzene.

Frequency analysis determined that the project exceeded the PM10 and benzene guidelines one

and six additional days, respectively, over the 5-year period. This equates to <1% of the time.

It is recommended that low-NOx burners be installed on all heating equipment, in accordance

with this assessment.

It is recommended that the design team select a generator unit with a maximum NOx emission

rate of 2 g/bhp-hr.

Upon final selection of equipment and exhaust fans for the facility, an Environmental

Compliance Assessment will need to be completed and submitted to the MOECC.


December 3, 2014


7.0 References

CCME, 2000. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canada-Wide Standards of

Particulate Matter and Ozone. Endorsed by CCME Council of Ministers, Quebec City.

[Online]http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf

Environment Canada. 2000. Priority Substances List Assessment Report: Respirable Particulate

Matter Less Than or Equal to 10 Microns. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Environment Canada, Health Canada. [Online]

http://www.ec.gc.ca/Substances/ese/eng/psap/final/PM-10.cfm.

Health Canada. 1999. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Matter Part 1:

Science Assessment Document. Health Canada. A report by the CEPA/FPAC Working Group

on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines.

Lall, R., Kendall, M., Ito, K., Thurston, G., 2004. Estimation of historical annual PM2.5 exposures for

health effects assessment. Atmospheric Environment 38(2004) 5217-5226.

Ontario Publication 6570e, 2008. Ontario's Ambient Air Quality Criteria. Standards Development

Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2005. Transboundary Air Pollution in Ontario. Queens Printer

for Ontario.

Randerson, D., 1984. Atmospheric Science and Power Production . United States Department of

Energy.

Seinfeld, J.H. and Pandis, S.P.,2006. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics From Air Pollution to

Climate Change. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. AERSURFACE User’s Guide. USEPA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Document AP 42, Volume I, Fifth Edition,

Chapter 13.2.1. USEPA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. MOVES 2010 Highway Vehicles: Population

and Activity Data. USEPA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 1:

External Combustion Sources, Chapter 1.4: Natural Gas Combustion. USEPA


Liquid Storage Tanks. USEPA

http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf

http://www.ec.gc.ca/Substances/ese/eng/psap/final/PM-10.cfm


December 3, 2014



Liquid Storage Tanks. USEPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Environmental Technology Verification

Program – Pollution Prevention Coatings and Coating Equipment. USEPA

[http://www.epa.gov/etv/vt-ppc.html#htepsg]

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. SPECIATE DATABASE: Diesel Headspace

Vapor – Super America Diesel. USEPA

WHO. 2005. WHO air quality guidelines global update 2005. Report on a Working Group meeting,

Boon, Germany, October 18-20, 2005.

Appendix A – Heating Equipment

Specifications

This page intentionally left blank for 2-sided printing purposes


Appendix A


Table A1 – Heating Equipment Parameters

Source Heating Input (kW)

Heat Recovery (kW)

Modelled Heat Input (kW)

Stack Height Above Grade (m)

Diameter (m)

Exit V (m/s)

Flow m3/s

NOx Emission Rate (g/s)

generator 800

800 2 0.4 20 2.5 0.6

boiler 1 95

95 15 0.15 2.4 0.04 0.004

boiler 2 95

95 15 0.15 2.4 0.04 0.004

AHU-1 410.27 140 270.27 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-2 410.27 140 270.27 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-3 410.27 140 270.27 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-4 474.46 165 309.46 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-5 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-6 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-7 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-8 410.27 165 245.27 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-9 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-10 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-11 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-12 410.27 165 245.27 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-13 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-14 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-15 346.22 140 206.22 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-16 410.27 165 245.27 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-17 512.96 262 250.96 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-18 461.58 262 199.58 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-19 461.58 262 199.58 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-20 512.96 262 250.96 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-21 512.9 233 279.9 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-22 512.9 233 279.9 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006


Appendix A



Heat Recovery (kW)



Diameter (m)

Exit V (m/s)

Flow m3/s


AHU-23 1025.8 410 615.8 13.5 0.25 5.7 0.28 0.012

AHU-24 1318.9

1318.9 13.5 0.25 14.3 0.7 0.031

AHU-25 531.3 181 350.3 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-26 806 252 554 13.5 0.25 5.7 0.28 0.012

AHU-27 622.8 207 415.8 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-28 586.1 194 392.1 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-29 659.4 226 433.4 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-30 622.8 226 396.8 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-31 630.1 220 410.1 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-32 300.4 105 195.4 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-33 113.6 79 34.6 13.5 0.25 1.4 0.07 0.003

AHU-34 131.9 95.7 36.2 13.5 0.25 1.4 0.07 0.003

AHU-35 40.3

40.3 13.5 0.25 1.4 0.07 0.003

AHU-36 168.5

168.5 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-37 168.5

168.5 13.5 0.25 2.9 0.14 0.006

AHU-38 128.3

128.3 13.5 0.25 1.4 0.07 0.003

AHU-39 128.3

128.3 13.5 0.25 1.4 0.07 0.003

UH-1 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-2 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-3 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-4 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-5 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-6 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-7 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-8 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-9 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-10 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-11 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012


Appendix A



Heat Recovery (kW)



Diameter (m)

Exit V (m/s)

Flow m3/s


UH-12 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-13 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-14 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-15 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-16 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-17 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-18 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-19 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-20 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-21 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-22 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-23 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-24 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-25 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-26 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-27 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-28 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-29 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-30 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-31 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-32 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-33 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-34 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-35 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-36 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-37 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-38 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-39 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006


Appendix A



Heat Recovery (kW)



Diameter (m)

Exit V (m/s)

Flow m3/s


UH-40 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-41 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-42 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-43 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-44 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-45 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-46 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-47 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-48 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-49 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-50 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-51 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-52 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-53 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-54 41.02

41.02 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-55 71.82

71.82 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-56 71.82

71.82 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-57 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-58 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-59 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-60 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-61 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-62 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-63 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-64 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-65 61.53

61.53 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-66 71.82

71.82 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-67 71.82

71.82 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012


Appendix A

Novus Environmental | v


Heat Recovery (kW)



Diameter (m)

Exit V (m/s)

Flow m3/s


UH-68 65.9

65.9 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-69 65.9

65.9 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-70 65.9

65.9 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-71 73.3

73.3 11.5 0.1 5.4 0.04 0.0019

UH-72 73.3

73.3 11.5 0.1 5.4 0.04 0.0019

UH-73 73.3

73.3 11.5 0.1 5.4 0.04 0.0019

UH-74 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-75 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-76 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-77 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-78 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-79 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-80 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-81 44

44 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-84 65.9

65.9 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-85 65.9

65.9 11.5 0.1 3.6 0.03 0.0012

UH-86 17.6

17.6 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-87 17.6

17.6 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006

UH-88 17.6

17.6 11.5 0.1 1.8 0.01 0.0006


Appendix B – Paint Booth and Shop

Area Assessment



Appendix B


1.0 Products to be Used at the McNicoll Facility

Table B1 lists of the products which will be used at the McNicoll facility and the contaminants which they contain.

Contaminants and the weight percentage of each product was determined from the MSDS sheets for each product, provided

by TTC. The application rate and usage frequency were also provided by TTC.

Table B1 – Products Used at the McNicoll Facility

Chemical Product Contaminant % by

Weight Max

% Application

Method Usage Frequency

(if known)

Hi-Strength Spray Aerosol Adhesive

Dimethyl Ether 35-45 45 Sprayed Daily

Methyl Acetate 25-35 35 Sprayed Daily

Non-volatile Components 10-20 20 Sprayed Daily

Cyclohexane 7-13 13 Sprayed Daily

1,1-Difluoroethane 1-5 5 Sprayed Daily

Pentane 1-5 5 Sprayed Daily

Fastbond ™ Contact Adhesive 2000-NF, Blue

Water 30-60 60 Sprayed -

Polychloroprene 30-50 50 Sprayed -

Glycerol Esters of Rosin Acids 5-10 10 Sprayed -

Phenolic Rosin 3-7 7 Sprayed -

Toluene 1-3 3 Sprayed -

Methyl Alcohol 1-2.5 2.5 Sprayed -

Zinc Oxide 1-2 2 Sprayed -

2,2'-Methylenebis (6-Tert-Butyl-P-Cresol) 0.1-1.0 1 Sprayed -

Rosin 0.1-1.0 1 Sprayed -

Wax and Grease Remover

Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy 60-100 100 Sprayed Daily

Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliph. 5-10 10 Sprayed Daily

Heptane 5-10 10 Sprayed Daily


Appendix B



Weight Max

% Application


(if known)

Methylcyclohexane 5-10 10 Sprayed Daily

Toluene 0.5-1.5 1.5 Sprayed Daily

Silanated Modified Polyether Flooring Sealant N/A N/A 0.00 Hand Daily

Light Weight Bodyfiller

Talc 30-35 35 Hand Twice/week

Polyester Resin 30-35 35 Hand Twice/week

Styrene 15-20 20 Hand Twice/week

Magnesite 5-10 10 Hand Twice/week

Calcium Carbonate 5-10 10 Hand Twice/week

Inert Filler 1-5 5 Hand Twice/week

Titanium Dioxide 0-1 1 Hand Twice/week

Fiberglass Reinforced Filler

Talc 40-45 45 Hand Twice/week

Polyester Resin 20-25 25 Hand Twice/week

Styrene 10-15 15 Hand Twice/week

Magnesite 10-15 15 Hand Twice/week

Dolomite 1-5 5 Hand Twice/week

Inert Filler 1-5 5 Hand Twice/week

Kleen Slip Silicone Lubricant

Hexane 30-60 60 Sprayed Daily

Petroleum Distillates 1-5 5 Sprayed Daily

Propane (Propellant) 7-13 13 Sprayed Daily

Isobutane (Propellant) 10-30 30 Sprayed Daily

Lens and Mirror Cleaner

Water >99 99.00 Sprayed -

Sodium lauryl sulfate <1 1.00 Sprayed -

Titanium Dioxide Pigment <1 1.00 Sprayed -

Omni-Pak MasterBlend™ EZ Touch DV Cans

Propane 25 25.00 Sprayed Three

times/week

Acetone 65 65.00 Sprayed Three

times/week

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 9 9.00 Sprayed Three


Appendix B



Weight Max

% Application


(if known)

times/week

Ethyl 3-Ethoxypropionate 1 1.00 Sprayed Three

times/week

Omni-Pak for Enamel

Propane 22 22.00 Sprayed -

Butane 21 21.00 Sprayed -

Ethylbenzene 2 2.00 Sprayed -

Xylene 9 9.00 Sprayed -

Acetone 48 48.00 Sprayed -

Self Etching Primer Black

Petroleum gases, liquefied, sweetened 13-30 30 Sprayed Daily

Acetone 13-30 30 Sprayed Daily

Ethyl Acetate 7-10 10 Sprayed Daily

Isobutyl Acetate 7-10 10 Sprayed Daily

Toluene 5-7 7 Sprayed Daily

Butanone 5-7 7 Sprayed Daily

Cellulose Nitrate 1.5-5 5 Sprayed Daily

Quartz 1.5-5 5 Sprayed Daily

n-Butyl Acetate 1.5-5 5 Sprayed Daily

Propan-2-ol 1-1.5 1.5 Sprayed Daily

Xylene 1-1.5 1.5 Sprayed Daily

Tris (methylphenyl) Phosphate 1-1.5 1.5 Sprayed Daily

Urethane Based Adhesive/Sealant (Sikaflex-252)

Xylene 1-5 5 Hand Daily

Polyol and Isocyanate Prepolymer 30-60 60 Hand Daily

Amorphous Silica 5-10 10 Hand Daily

Methylene Bis Phenyl Isocyanate 0.1-1.0 1 Hand Daily

Urethane Based Adhesive/Sealant (Sikaflex-221)

Calcium Oxide 1-5 5 Hand Daily

Xylene 3-7 7 Hand Daily

Polyol and Isocyanate Prepolymer 15-40 40 Hand Daily

Solopol Hand Cleanser N/A N/A 0.00 Hand Daily


Appendix B



Weight Max

% Application


(if known)

Lacquer Thinner

Lt. Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Solvent 18 18.00 Sprayed Daily

V. M. & P. Naphtha 16 16.00 Sprayed Daily

Toluene 15 15.00 Sprayed Daily

Ethylbenzene 0.9 0.90 Sprayed Daily

Xylene 5 5.00 Sprayed Daily

Methanol 4 4.00 Sprayed Daily

2-Propanol 6 6.00 Sprayed Daily

2-Methyl-1-propanol 5 5.00 Sprayed Daily

2-Butoxyethanol 4 4.00 Sprayed Daily

Acetone 18 18.00 Sprayed Daily

Methyl n-Amyl Ketone 3 3.00 Sprayed Daily

Isobutyl Acetate 6 6.00 Sprayed Daily

WD-40 Aerosol

Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 45-50 50 Sprayed Daily

Petroleum Base Oil 30-35 35 Sprayed Daily

Non-Hazardous Ingredients <10 10.00 Sprayed Daily

Carbon Dioxide 2-3 3 Sprayed -


Appendix B


2.0 Assessment of Negligibility

The assessment of negligibility was conducted in accordance with MOECC Guideline A-10 Procedure for Preparing an

Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report. Emission rates for each contaminant were assessed against the emission

threshold, using the urban dispersion factor at 20 m, the smallest separation distance provided in Guideline A-10. If the

emission rate was less than the emission threshold, the contaminant was determined negligible and not assessed further.

Sample calculations for determine the emission rate and emission threshold are shown below for butane. Table B-2 shows the

results of the assessment of negligibility for each product. It was assumed one product would be used at a time. Note that for

contaminants with a 1-hour standard, a nozzle flow rate for the spray gun of 0.42 L/min was modelled, as this is the maximum

amount of product that could be used in an hour. A flow rate of 0.13 L/min was modelled for contaminates with a 24-hour

standard, as this is the average amount of product that could be used in one day. One pollutant, naphtha (petroleum) had a

high weight percentage (100%), therefore a conservatively high emission rate was predicted. An actual product usage of 6.36

gallons per year was provided by TTC, which equates to 0.000046 L/min, for daily usage. This usage rate was used only for

the assessment of naphtha (petroleum).

Sample Calculation – Butane

Emission Threshold (g/s) = 0.5 𝑋 𝑀𝑂𝐸 𝑃𝑂𝐼 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 (µ𝑔/𝑚3)

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (µ𝑔/𝑚3𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑔/𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

Emission Threshold Butane (g/s) = 0.5 𝑋 22800

8700 = 1.3103 g/s

Emission Rate (g/s) = 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑦 𝐺𝑢𝑛 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛)

60 𝑠/𝑚𝑖𝑛 X density (g/cm3) X

1000 𝑐𝑚3

𝐿 X ∑ Wt % X Transfer Efficiency Rate

Emission Rate Butane (g/s) = 0.13 (𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛)

60 𝑠/𝑚𝑖𝑛 X 0.00249 (g/cm3)

1000 𝑐𝑚3

𝐿 X 0.21 X 0.42 = 0.00048 g/s

Emission Rate for Butane (0.00048 g/s) < Emission Threshold for Butane (1.31 g/s), therefore Butane emissions are

considered negligible.


Appendix B

Novus Environmental | vi

Table B-2: Assessment of Negligibility

Compound CAS # Density (g/cm3)

O.Reg 419

Limit

O.Reg Guideline

JSL Limit

Averaging Time

(hours)

Sum of Percent Weights

Emission Rate (g/s)

Emission Threshold

(g/s) Negligible?

Butane 106-97-8 0.00249

22800 0.5 21 0.0015 1.3103 YES

Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 0.77

19320 0.5 10 0.2264 1.1103 YES

Pentane 109-66-0 0.6262

12600 0.5 5 0.0921 0.7241 YES

Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 0.00184

63000 0.5 3 0.0002 3.6207 YES

Ethyl Acetate 141-78-6 0.902 19000

0.5 10 0.2652 1.0920 YES

Propane (Propellant) 74-98-6

0.001879

21600 0.5 13 0.0007 1.2414 YES

Propane 74-98-6 0.00187

9

21600 0.5 25 0.0014 1.2414 YES

Propane 74-98-6 0.00187

9

21600 0.5 22 0.0012 1.2414 YES

n-Butyl Acetate 123-86-4 0.88

15000

1 5 0.1294 0.8621 YES

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.867 1000

24 2.9 0.0229 0.0575 YES

Butane 106-97-8 0.00249

7600 24 21 0.0005 0.4368 YES

Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 0.77

6440 24 10 0.0701 0.3701 YES

Pentane 109-66-0 0.6262

4200 24 5 0.0285 0.2414 YES

Methyl n-Amyl Ketone 110-43-0 0.82

4600

24 3 0.0224 0.2644 YES

Hexane 110-54-3 0.6603 7500

24 60 0.3605 0.4310 YES

Cyclohexane 110-82-7 0.779 6100

24 13 0.0922 0.3506 YES

2-Butoxyethanol 111-76-2 0.902

2400

24 4 0.0328 0.1379 YES

Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 0.00184

21000 24 3 0.0001 1.2069 YES

Heptane 142-82-5 0.684

11000

24 10 0.0622 0.6322 YES

Methyl Alcohol 67-56-1 0.791

4000

24 2.5 0.0180 0.2299 YES

Methanol 67-56-1 0.791

4000

24 4 0.0288 0.2299 YES

Propan-2-ol 67-63-0 0.785 7300

24 1.5 0.0107 0.4195 YES


Appendix B

Novus Environmental | vii


O.Reg 419

Limit

O.Reg Guideline

JSL Limit

Averaging Time

(hours)


Emission Rate (g/s)

Emission Threshold

(g/s) Negligible?

Isopropyl Alcohol 67-63-0 0.785 7300

24 5 0.1261 0.4195 YES

1,1-Difluoroethane 75-37-6 0.6446

10804 24 5 0.0293 0.6209 YES

2-Methyl-1-propanol 78-83-1 0.803 4600

24 5 0.0365 0.2644 YES

Butanone 78-93-3 0.805 1000

24 7 0.0513 0.0575 YES

Petroleum Distillates

2600

24 5 0.0000 0.1494 YES

Propane (Propellant) 74-98-6

0.001879

7200 24 13 0.0002 0.4138 YES

Propylene Glycol 57-55-6

120

24

0.0006 0.0069 YES

Naphtha (petroleum),

hydrotreated heavy

91-20-3 0.979 22.5 24 100 0.0003 0.0013 YES

Styrene 100-42-5 0.909 400

24 35 0.2895 0.0230 NO


1000

0.17 5 0.0647 0.0575 NO

Isobutyl Acetate 110-19-0 0.867

1220

0.5 16 0.4078 0.0701 NO

Dimethyl Ether 115-10-6 0.6684

2100

0.5 45 0.8843 0.1207 NO

Sodium Xylenesulfonate 1300-72-7 1.17

24 0.5 10 0.3440 0.0014 NO

Glycerol Esters of Rosin Acids 56-81-5 1.25

210 0.5 10 0.3675 0.0121 NO

Isobutane (Propellant) 75-28-5 2.064

1854 0.5 30 1.8204 0.1066 NO

Acetone 75-37-6 0.6446

32412 0.5 161 3.0511 1.8628 NO

Ethyl 3-Ethoxypropionate 763-69-9 0.95

147

0.5 1 0.0279 0.0084 NO

Methyl Acetate 79-20-9 0.932

7200 0.5 35 0.9590 0.4138 NO

Toluene 108-88-3 0.865

2000

24 26.5 0.2086 0.1149 NO


2100

24 45 0.2737 0.1207 NO


Appendix B

Novus Environmental | viii


O.Reg 419

Limit

O.Reg Guideline

JSL Limit

Averaging Time

(hours)


Emission Rate (g/s)

Emission Threshold

(g/s) Negligible?

Xylene 1330-20-7 0.86 730

24 27.5 0.2152 0.0420 NO

Titanium Dioxide Pigment

13463-67-7 4.26

34

24 1 0.0388 0.0020 NO

Quartz 14808-60-

7 2.634

5

24 5 0.1198 0.0003 NO


70 24 10 0.1138 0.0040 NO

Acetone 67-64-1 0.791 11880

24 161 1.1589 0.6828 NO


618 24 30 0.5635 0.0355 NO

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 0.805 1000

24 9 0.0659 0.0575 NO


2400 24 35 0.2968 0.1379 NO

Polychloroprene 9010-98-4 1.23

500 24 50 0.5597 0.0287 NO

Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light

aliph. 91-20-3 0.979

22.5

24 10 0.0891 0.0013 NO

Petroleum gases, liquefied,

sweetened 91-20-3 0.979

22.5

24 30 0.2673 0.0013 NO

V. M. & P. Naphtha 91-20-3 0.979

22.5

24 16 0.1425 0.0013 NO

Zinc Oxide 1314-13-2 5.6

2 0.0000 0.0000 NO

Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.1

1 0.0000 0.0000 NO

2-Propanol 67-63-0 0.785

6 0.0000 0.0000 NO

Phenolic Rosin

1.5

7 0.0000 0.0000 NO

2,2'-Methylenebis (6-Tert-Butyl-P-

Cresol)

1

1 0.0000 0.0000 NO

Rosin

1

1 0.0000 0.0000 NO


Appendix B

Novus Environmental | ix


O.Reg 419

Limit

O.Reg Guideline

JSL Limit

Averaging Time

(hours)


Emission Rate (g/s)

Emission Threshold

(g/s) Negligible?

Cellulose Nitrate

1.5

5 0.0000 0.0000 NO

Tris (methylphenyl) Phosphate

1.23

1.5 0.0000 0.0000 NO

Lt. Aliphatic Hydrocarbon

Solvent

1

18 0.0000 0.0000 NO

Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates

1

50 0.0000 0.0000 NO

Petroleum Base Oil

1

35 0.0000 0.0000 NO


Appendix B

Novus Environmental | x

3.0 AERMOD Modelling Results

Contaminants that were not found to be negligible were modelled in AERMOD. Both the paint stack and body shop stacks

were modelled to determine which stack would provide worst case results. The paint booth stack is 8 m above rooftop, and

has a flow rate of 19.8 m3/s, as per the provided mechanical schedule. A large stack diameter of 1 m was modelled with a low

exit velocity, to provide conservative predictions. The other stacks from the shop areas were modelled with an average

diameter of 0.2 m and flow rate of 0.2 m3/s. The modelling showed lower dispersion levels for the shop area stacks (resulting

in higher concentrations), therefore it was assumed that all contaminants could be emitted from the shop area stacks, in order

to predict worst case results. Table B-3 shows the AERMOD results for each contaminant, and whether or not the guideline

was met. The guideline was met for all contaminants.

Table B-3 AERMOD Results


O.Reg 419

Limit

O.Reg Guideline

JSL Limit

Averaging Time

(hours)


Emission Rate (g/s)

AERMOD Result

(µg/m3)

Meets Guideline?

Styrene 100-42-5 0.909 400

24 35 0.2895 89.17 PASS


1000

0.17 5 0.0647 24.19 PASS

Isobutyl Acetate 110-19-0 0.867

1220

0.5 16 0.4078 152.52 PASS


2100

0.5 45 0.8843 330.70 PASS


210 0.5 10 0.3675 137.43 PASS


1854 0.5 30 1.8204 680.80 PASS

Acetone 75-37-6 0.6446

32412 0.5 161 3.0511 1141.04 PASS

Ethyl 3-Ethoxypropionate 763-69-9 0.95

147

0.5 1 0.0279 10.45 PASS


7200 0.5 35 0.9590 358.65 PASS

Toluene 108-88-3 0.865

2000

24 26.5 0.2086 7.30 PASS


2100

24 45 0.2737 9.58 PASS

Quaternary 12125-02- 1.5256

120

24 2 0.0278 0.97 PASS


Appendix B

Novus Environmental | xi


O.Reg 419

Limit

O.Reg Guideline

JSL Limit

Averaging Time

(hours)


Emission Rate (g/s)

AERMOD Result

(µg/m3)

Meets Guideline?

ammonium chloride

9

Xylene 1330-20-7 0.86 730

24 27.5 0.2152 7.53 PASS

Titanium Dioxide Pigment

13463-67-7 4.26

34

24 1 0.0388 1.36 PASS

Quartz 14808-60-

7 2.634

5

24 5 0.1198 4.19 PASS


70 24 10 0.1138 3.98 PASS

Acetone 67-64-1 0.791 11880

24 161 1.1589 40.56 PASS


618 24 30 0.5635 19.72 PASS

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 0.805 1000

24 9 0.0659 2.31 PASS


2400 24 35 0.2968 10.39 PASS

Polychloroprene 9010-98-4 1.23

500 24 50 0.5597 19.59 PASS

Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light

aliph. 91-20-3 0.979

22.5

24 10 0.0891 3.12 PASS

Petroleum gases, liquefied,

sweetened 91-20-3 0.979

22.5

24 30 0.2673 9.35 PASS

V. M. & P. Naphtha 91-20-3 0.979

22.5

24 16 0.1425 4.99 PASS

Zinc Oxide 1314-13-2 5.6

2 0.1019 3.57 No Guideline

Sodium lauryl sulfate 151-21-3 1.1


2-Propanol 67-63-0 0.785


Phenolic Rosin

1.5


2,2'-Methylenebis (6-Tert-Butyl-P-

1



Appendix B

Novus Environmental | xii


O.Reg 419

Limit

O.Reg Guideline

JSL Limit

Averaging Time

(hours)


Emission Rate (g/s)

AERMOD Result

(µg/m3)

Meets Guideline?

Cresol)

Rosin

1


Cellulose Nitrate

1.5


Tris (methylphenyl) Phosphate

1.23

1.5 0.0168 0.59 No Guideline

Lt. Aliphatic Hydrocarbon

Solvent

1


Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates

1

50 0.5324 18.63 No Guideline

Petroleum Base Oil

1

35 0.3185 11.15 No Guideline

Appendix C – Contour Plots for Each

Contaminant



Appendix C


Provided below are the contour plots from AERMOD for each of the pollutants and averaging periods assessed. Sensitive receptors

are shown as yellow dots. Receptors just west of the facility alogn McNicoll Avenue represent the Mon Sheong residence/long-term

care facility, and the other three individual receptors represent the identified churches.

Figure C1: Contour Plot of Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentration


Appendix C


Figure C2: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour NO2 Concentration


Appendix C


Figure C3: Contour Plot of Maximum 1-Hour CO Concentration


Appendix C


Figure C4: Contour Plot of Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentration


Appendix C


Figure C5: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentration


Appendix C

Novus Environmental | vi

Figure C6: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentration


Appendix C

Novus Environmental | vii

Figure C7: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Acetaldehyde Concentration


Appendix C

Novus Environmental | viii

Figure C8: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Acrolein Concentration


Appendix C

Novus Environmental | ix

Figure C9: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Benzene Concentration


Appendix C

Novus Environmental | x

Figure C10: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour 1,3-Butadiene Concentration


Appendix C

Novus Environmental | xi

Figure C11: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Acetaldehyde Concentration

Documents

TTC McNicoll Bus Garage TPAP Air Quality Assessment ... · McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment December 3, 2014 Novus Environmental | 1 1.0 Introduction Novus Environmental Inc