Comments on the proposed…

Comments on the proposed Tomlinson Permanent Asphalt Plant (in Napanee) - ECA Application - No. 019-5565

The comments begin with observations about the ESDM prepared for the ECA application and the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) provided to Napanee. These are followed by comments about other environmental issues that are apparent from other reports received by the town, and then by observations about the company and its approach to the process.

The major objection to the proposed Tomlinson permanent asphalt plant is its location. Existing residences, downtown Napanee, and parts of the Napanee River all fall within the 3 km (and in some cases 1 km) radius of the proposed plant. It has also been made clear at public meetings and is obliquely referenced in the Planning Report (1) that Tomlinson intends to expand its operations at the site and seek provincial approval for a concrete batching plant in the future. I live just a little over a km away from the proposed site.

Observations regarding ESDM and AQIA

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the WHO suggests limits for particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide concentrations that are lower than either the Ontario or Canadian criteria (3). Germaine to this point, it appears there is a lack of agreement between hourly NO2 numbers presented in the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) produced for the town of Napanee (4), and those presented in the ESDM. While most numbers for Concentration % of Criteria in the AQIA roughly correspond to the % Limit POI in the ESDM, the concentration for NO2 is 23% in the AQIA, but only 7% of the Ontario limit in the ESDM. So which is it? According to the more stringent federal criteria, the predicted concentrations would constitute 80% (of the limit) and the authors even mention that cumulative hourly NO2 concentrations, along with cumulative concentrations of crystalline silica and PM10, could well approach criteria. One can reasonably infer from the AQIA, these contaminants could therefore be problematic, but only one of these contaminants (crystalline silica) is mentioned in the ESDM.

NO2 predictions are important to this proposal (as are the toxic contaminants associated with particulate matter). Attachment 4, Tomlinson ECA Application is a map of the zoning for the area and it shows an environmentally sensitive strip running through north-east corner of the Tomlinson property. This sensitive strip constitutes adjacent land to a tributary and the tributary itself (possibly intermittent and containing a natural hatchery) flowing into the Napanee River. Over the long term, increases in the deposition of nitrogen oxides could well contribute to eutrophication (or acidification of the river). Note that the Napanee Falls located approximately a km from the proposed plant site will actually entrain contaminants from the atmosphere and act as something of a natural scrubber; good for the folks in town perhaps, but not so good for the river water or the life in it. The receptor placement for the ESDM appears to follow a strict grid pattern and so presumably a few receptors were located on the falls and the environmentally sensitive strip, as opposed to the placement of receptors for the AQIA where the tributary, the falls and the river near them were overlooked altogether.

The uncertainty associated with any dispersion modeling is often 50% or more. The numbers given for AERMOD in studies where predicted data are compared to measured data would usually give an acceptability range of 0.5 to 2X, and the predicted numbers in these studies have also usually been generated using local weather data. The “goodness” of AERMOD, as in its ability to predict actual concentrations is highly dependent on the meteorological input data. Unfortunately, not only are there no local weather data for Napanee, there are no data for baseline or current ambient contaminant concentrations either. Not a single measurement was taken to verify these studies. While the Golder engineers made best estimates from supposed comparable locations (with available data), and the Ministry approved regional meteorological data set was used, the associated uncertainty with this much estimation and substitution could well be enough to render the studies somewhat irrelevant. And then there is that fact that while AERMOD is an internationally accepted regulatory model, developed and continually refined by the USEPA, and is specifically designated for Tier II assessments in Ontario, it still has its limitations.

I would suggest that there is a prominent microclimate in Napanee particularly around the river. It is arguable that the whole town rests in a valley prone to inversions, and the valley along the river presents enough of a slope for gravity flow to occur. In the heat of summer months there is a physically noticeable temperature difference between Water Street and even two blocks north along Dundas Street. Also the Napanee Falls (approximately a km away from the proposed site) generates its own wind, and when winds generally are low, the wind direction at the falls and along the river is often different from the prevailing direction (i.e the winds flow to the river or with the river). The proposed site for the plant is at the highest elevation overlooking the town and less than a kilometer away from the river in places; this would not bode well for odor (or any gaseous toxic contaminant) especially in the evenings and early mornings or on any given day when low winds blow from the north-east, east or south east.

People are acutely aware of odors settling in the town because of a farm located on the north-west elevated stretch of land along Centre Street. When the farmer spreads liquid manure, especially on low wind days, the town reeks. It will also reek on subsequent evenings and early mornings when vertical (atmospheric) mixing is nil. Unless I am mistaken, AERMOD predictions (even with the use of an AERMAP preprocessor to account for terrain) do not address either gravity flow or microclimates.

The use of single compound (Naphthalene) with AERMOD to predict odour concentrations is also hardly adequate. Legrangian or Eularian models are known to give more accurate results (5); the human nose does not work on ten minute averages after all. It is also almost amusing that Naphthalene is the sole compound used for odour in the ESDM (and the AQIA). I realize this has precedent - many assessments use this compound (as being representative) but I would point out that its use would likely make any modeling look good (conservative) because of all the PAH’s it is the most volatile (lowest molecular weight), and is consequently the most difficult to sample and measure. Results tend to be biased low (personal experience) and this is certainly very convenient indeed if you’re wanting to assure people that the model is overestimating rather than underestimating actual concentrations. More compounds surely need to be considered in an odour study, given the cocktail of compounds produced from bitumen, many of which may behave differently under different atmospheric conditions (humidity, pressure, radiation level) (6).

It seems particularly important for Napanee that environmental compliance in this regard is rigorous and that odour is not given short shrift and deemed simply a nuisance. Many of Napanee’s downtown businesses are dependent on out of town shoppers and tourist traffic. The town has become known in recent years for its niche retailers, café’s, riverside restaurant, and general charm. If odor from the asphalt plant is noticeable and the town earns a reputation for wafts of “essence of bitumen,” those tourists and shoppers will stay away, as will young families, retirees, commercial businesses and light industry looking to locate in pleasant surroundings. Also odour, especially that associated with bitumen is more than just a nuisance (7). Recent studies show industrial odours can affect mental health, and have generally deleterious health effects (8).

The Golder engineers and ministry representatives have stated that the regional meteorological data sets are conservative. I wonder having looked at wind data records and wind rose charts from the same time period (as the eastern “Crops” data set), but from different airports within in the eastern region (Trenton-Belleville, Peterborough, Ottawa, Kingston), that if in order to make the data set conservative for particulate matter, low wind data were removed. It would appear to be the case that proportionally there is much less low speed (0.5- 2.1 m/s) wind data in the regional data set. While this may facilitate conservative estimates for particulate matter, I believe it would be the opposite for purely gaseous compounds not associated with particles. Depending on pressure, humidity, sunlight and atmospheric mixing, the maximum POI concentrations for many light molecular toxins could be missed (e.g. sulphur dioxide, naphthalene).

Given the relative proximity of the proposed plant to town, the paucity of local input data, the model uncertainty, the limitations of AERMOD, and the inadequate odour assessment, it would seem reasonable if this project is to continue through the ECA process, that at the very least, a Tier III air quality assessment and emissions report would be required.

Other observations and concerns about the proposed asphalt plant and other studies presented to the town:

The ecological environmental assessment (9) focuses on land plants and wildlife and confines the study to a very limited area around the proposed site. It does not include riparian impacts, consider the fish populations, or the benthic environment of the river. This seems a rather glaring oversight again given a tributary of the river runs adjacent to the quarry and right through the Tomlinson property and is only about 600 meters from the proposed plant. This environmentally sensitive zone is closer to the proposed plant than most residences.

The storm-water study (10) does not seem to take into account the nature of the limestone in the area, that it is subject to cracking and so is extremely porous. Any recalcitrant surface contaminants (e.g. arsenic, BaP) whether from stockpiles (Tomlinson plans to recycle asphalt) atmospheric deposition, accidental spills, etc. would flow through the rock layers and into either the river or groundwater. Surface grading and holding ponds could have little to no effect in controlling the ultimate movement of contaminants. A very liberal use of liners or clay barriers might make some difference but there is no mention of taking this approach in the report. The crucial fact is that the proposed plant would be situated on the highest land point overlooking the river at an elevation of approximately 30 meters, the full depth of which is made up of these limestone layers. Gravity will inevitably prevail.

It also seems the company itself (not just the asphalt plant) represents considerable environmental risk to the town and it goes to Tomlinson’s corporate culture. Tomlinson is not proposing any innovation here such as warm asphalt production that would at least consume less energy (than the hot-mix process). Nor is it planning anything in the way of advanced abatement technology or eco-friendly asphalt plant design. In fact company representatives at the public meetings and Golder’s response to a series of written questions and comments, would indicate the company has no intention of even employing the abatement technology mentioned in the Ontario industry standard (2) because “it is not applicable” (See pdf attachment to comments: Golder Responses to AQIA Inquiries). So presumably the company will do only whatever is explicitly dictated by the ministry.

The lack of any proactive stance on potential environmental concerns is disturbing; during meetings with the town, the company representatives repeatedly stated they left all the environmental requirements up to the experts and the MECP. In my view the company’s environmental record is not reassuring: years of mismanagement and contamination associated with a landfill site in Osgoode, Ontario, along with unaccounted for royalties from the site, all prompted the Ottawa auditor general to recommend the city cut ties with the company (11). In a letter to the Kingston Whig Standard (June 27 2021) regarding the proposed Napanee asphalt plant, Rob Pierce, Senior Vice President, Planning and Development at Tomlinson claimed to be committed to communicating with local citizens, but essentially dismissed public concerns, especially those of the grassroots community group opposed to the plant, essentially accusing them of fear mongering and propagating misinformation, when in fact his own letter does a pretty good job of minimizing and misrepresenting fairly well established health and environmental issues, not to mention economic issues such as loss in property value that are associated with the operation of nearby hot-mix asphalt plants. People who live close to the quarry already complain that dust and noise (from increased activity at the quarry and increased traffic since Tomlinson took ownership) often prohibits them from sitting in their back yards – and this would already violate Section 45 of Ontario Regulation 419/05 governing local air quality. In meetings with the town, and often faced with a room full of frustrated Napanee townsfolk, some of whom came well armed with factual information, Rob Pierce repeatedly stated, “There are no technical problems,” implying that objections to the proposed plant just came from the misguided and misinformed. In modern parlance, I believe this would be viewed as either a case of cognitive dissonance or corporate gaslighting or perhaps both. A local grassroots group filed a Leave Application with the Ontario Land Tribunal to stop Tomlinson’s operation of a temporary asphalt plan but it was not successful. Tomlinson in turn filed a motion to recoup its pricey legal expenses from the grassroots group (that had applied as concerned citizens without legal council). It would appear this move by Tomlinson was meant to deter any other groups that might consider obstructing the company’s activities in the future. Fortunately, Tomlinson’s motion also was not successful. And last but not least, the company clearly has a blatant disregard for Council’s unanimous decision that the town would not be a willing host for an asphalt plant at the proposed location. By launching its own appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal (to overrule the Council decision) and going ahead with this ECA, it seems clear that Tomlinson aggressively pursues its own interests without regard to local impacts, or regard for the people who actually live in Napanee.

Surely all government coffers (municipal and provincial) are better served by locating hot-mix asphalt plants closer to major highways and away from populated and environmentally sensitive areas. It only makes sense to minimize the costs to health, environment and the legal system. Also, the establishment of an asphalt plant overlooking the town comes with a heavy opportunity cost. As was mentioned it could deter new residents and other businesses from locating in the area and put a damper on existing retail establishments and tourism. It’s doubtful government revenues from the proposed Tomlinson asphalt plant, along with its promise of only three or four new jobs for the area, could compare to revenues generated by more new residents coming to the town, more housing developments, new businesses, and a thriving retail and tourist sector.

References

1) MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC). 2020. Planning Justification Report, R.W. Tomlinson Ltd.,Proposed Asphalt Plant.
2) Government of Ontario. 2020. Asphalt-mix-industry-standard. https://www.ontario.ca/document/technical-standards-manage-air-pollutio…
3) World Health Organization. 2021. Ambient (outdoor) air quality. Fact sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-…
4) Golder Associates. 2021. Air Quality Impact Assessment (Revision 1), R.W. Tomlinson Ltd. Proposed Asphalt Plant, Town of Greater Napanee.
5) C. Conti, C., Guarino, M., Bacenetti, J. 2020. Measurement techniques and models to assess odor annoyance: A review. Environ. Int. 134, 105261.
6) F. Autelitano and F.Giuliani. 2018. Analytical assessment of asphalt odor patterns in hot mix asphalt production. J. Cleaner Production, 172, p.1212-1223
7) E. Davoli, Bianchi, G., Bonura, A., Invernizzi, M., Sironi, S. 2021. Odor emissions factors for bitumen-related production sites. Appl. Sci. 11, 3700. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083700
8) V. Guadalupe-Fernandez, De Sario,M., Vecchi,S., Bauleo,L., Michelozzi,P., Davoli,M., Ancona,C. 2021. Industrial odour pollution and humanhealth: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Environmental Health 20: 108. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12940-021-00774-…
9) R. Snetsinger, Hennige,K., Kristensen,D. 2019, 2020 (amendment). Environmental Impact Assessment, Ecological Services
10) D.Fox and Burger, M. 2020. Proposed Asphalt Plant -Stormwater Management Design Brief. Groundwork Engineering Limited
11) CTV Ottawa News. 2018, June 24. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/auditor-general-suggests-city-cut-ties-with-t…
12) Kingston Whig Standard, 2021, June 27. https://www.thewhig.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-council-has-misse…