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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | iv
This page left blank for 2-sided
printing purposes
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 2
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 3
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 4
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 5
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 6
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 7
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 8
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 9
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 10
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 11
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 12
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.
Statistic % of MOECC
Guideline
Maximum 45%
90th Percentile 24%
Average 14%
Conclusion:
A review of five years of ambient
monitoring data from the Toronto
North Station indicated that
background concentrations are well
below the MOECC guideline on a 24-
hour basis.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 13
Table 7: Summary of Background CO
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
Statistic % of MOECC
Guideline
Maximum 6%
90th Percentile 1%
Average <1%
Conclusion:
A review of five years of ambient
monitoring data from the Toronto
West Station indicated that
background concentrations are well
below the MOECC guideline on a 1-
hour basis.
Statistic % of MOECC
Guideline
Maximum 12%
90th Percentile 3%
Average 2%
Conclusion:
A review of five years of ambient
monitoring data from the Toronto
West Station indicated that
background concentrations are well
below the MOECC guideline on an 8-
hour basis.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 14
Table 8: Summary of Background PM2.5
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 15
Table 9: Summary of Background PM10
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 16
Table 10: Summary of Background Acetaldehyde
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
Statistic % of MOECC Guideline
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
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
Statistic % of MOECC Guideline
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 17
Table 12: Summary of Background Benzene
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
Statistic % of MOECC Guideline
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
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
Statistic % of MOECC Guideline
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 18
Table 14: Summary of Background Formaldehyde
Statistical Analysis Five-Year Summary
Statistic % of MOECC Guideline
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 19
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 20
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 21
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 22
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 23
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 24
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 25
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-2 Diesel 2.67 2.44 Once/day
T-3 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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 26
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 27
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 28
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 29
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 30
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 31
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 32
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 33
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 34
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 35
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 36
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
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 7:
Liquid Storage Tanks. USEPA
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
December 3, 2014
Novus Environmental | 37
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 7:
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix A
Novus Environmental | i
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix A
Novus Environmental | ii
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)
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix A
Novus Environmental | iii
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)
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix A
Novus Environmental | iv
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)
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix A
Novus Environmental | v
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)
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
This page intentionally left blank for 2-sided printing purposes
Appendix B – Paint Booth and Shop
Area Assessment
This page intentionally left blank for 2-sided printing purposes
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | i
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | ii
Chemical Product Contaminant % by
Weight Max
% Application
Method Usage Frequency
(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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | iii
Chemical Product Contaminant % by
Weight Max
% Application
Method Usage Frequency
(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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | iv
Chemical Product Contaminant % by
Weight Max
% Application
Method Usage Frequency
(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 -
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | v
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.
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | vii
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?
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
n-Butyl Acetate 123-86-4 0.88
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
Dimethyl Ether 115-10-6 0.6684
2100
24 45 0.2737 0.1207 NO
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | viii
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?
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
Glycerol Esters of Rosin Acids 56-81-5 1.25
70 24 10 0.1138 0.0040 NO
Acetone 67-64-1 0.791 11880
24 161 1.1589 0.6828 NO
Isobutane (Propellant) 75-28-5 2.064
618 24 30 0.5635 0.0355 NO
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 0.805 1000
24 9 0.0659 0.0575 NO
Methyl Acetate 79-20-9 0.932
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | ix
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?
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
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
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)
AERMOD Result
(µg/m3)
Meets Guideline?
Styrene 100-42-5 0.909 400
24 35 0.2895 89.17 PASS
n-Butyl Acetate 123-86-4 0.88
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
Dimethyl Ether 115-10-6 0.6684
2100
0.5 45 0.8843 330.70 PASS
Glycerol Esters of Rosin Acids 56-81-5 1.25
210 0.5 10 0.3675 137.43 PASS
Isobutane (Propellant) 75-28-5 2.064
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
Methyl Acetate 79-20-9 0.932
7200 0.5 35 0.9590 358.65 PASS
Toluene 108-88-3 0.865
2000
24 26.5 0.2086 7.30 PASS
Dimethyl Ether 115-10-6 0.6684
2100
24 45 0.2737 9.58 PASS
Quaternary 12125-02- 1.5256
120
24 2 0.0278 0.97 PASS
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | xi
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)
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
Glycerol Esters of Rosin Acids 56-81-5 1.25
70 24 10 0.1138 3.98 PASS
Acetone 67-64-1 0.791 11880
24 161 1.1589 40.56 PASS
Isobutane (Propellant) 75-28-5 2.064
618 24 30 0.5635 19.72 PASS
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 0.805 1000
24 9 0.0659 2.31 PASS
Methyl Acetate 79-20-9 0.932
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
1 0.0100 0.35 No Guideline
2-Propanol 67-63-0 0.785
6 0.0429 1.50 No Guideline
Phenolic Rosin
1.5
7 0.0956 3.34 No Guideline
2,2'-Methylenebis (6-Tert-Butyl-P-
1
1 0.0091 0.32 No Guideline
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B
Novus Environmental | xii
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)
AERMOD Result
(µg/m3)
Meets Guideline?
Cresol)
Rosin
1
1 0.0091 0.32 No Guideline
Cellulose Nitrate
1.5
5 0.0683 2.39 No Guideline
Tris (methylphenyl) Phosphate
1.23
1.5 0.0168 0.59 No Guideline
Lt. Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
Solvent
1
18 0.1638 5.73 No Guideline
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
This page intentionally left blank for 2-sided printing purposes
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | i
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
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | ii
Figure C2: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour NO2 Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | iii
Figure C3: Contour Plot of Maximum 1-Hour CO Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | iv
Figure C4: Contour Plot of Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | v
Figure C5: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | vi
Figure C6: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | vii
Figure C7: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Acetaldehyde Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | viii
Figure C8: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Acrolein Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | ix
Figure C9: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Benzene Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | x
Figure C10: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour 1,3-Butadiene Concentration
McNicoll Garage Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C
Novus Environmental | xi
Figure C11: Contour Plot of Maximum 24-Hour Acetaldehyde Concentration