These comments are submitted to: Information Officer, Industrial & Municipal, Approvals Branch, 3rd Floor, 250 Davisville Ave, Toronto, Ont M4S 1H2; (416) 314-8001 Fax: (416) 314 8452.

These comments are in regard to: EBR Registry Number: IA9E0595, Ministry Reference Number: 8209504007RE1, Type of Posting: Instrument, Status of Posting: Proposal, Ministry: Environment, Date Proposal Loaded: 1999/05/17
 
 

Abstract

These comments refer to proposed modifications of a burner and a "cyclone separator" in an existing asphalt plant at the Bowman pit near Elora. We believe the proposal should not be approved because of the following reasons:

1. Noise violation. The Environmental Noise Audit of this plant, on 14 May 99, by the firm RWDI (Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc.), when the plant was running in production with the modifications in place, has shown the plant to exceed the Provincial Guidelines for maximum noise (the plant noise was approximately 6 dBA over the limit).
2. Operating without Certificate. The operator has already carried out the proposed changes and has been using the asphalt plant with these modifications in place since May 5, 1999, without a Certificate of Approval for this operation, in violation of Provincial Law. This is documented by a sequence of photographs.
3. Ongoing noise investigation. There is an ongoing investigation of noise violations, by MOE officials, involving this asphalt plant, which has not resolved the question of existing noise violations of this plant,
4. Not properly maintained. The plant, running in production with the proposed modifications in place, is not properly maintained, in that it emits a squawk each 10 seconds (approximately),
5. Smell. The odour of asphalt from the modified asphalt plant has been repeatedly smelled at our home.

Table of Contents

• Background
• Excess Noise in Audit of Modified Asphalt Plant
• Running Modified Plant without Certificate of Approval
• Photographs: Operating Pit, Paving County Road 21
• Violation of Provincial Noise Limits
• Maintenance of Equipment
• Smell from Asphalt Plant
• Missing Acoustic Audit
• Ongoing Investigation of Noise at Pit
• Non-Response of Operator to Letters of Complaint
• EBR Requirements
• Competitive Advantage
• Conclusions

• Appendix L1: Letter to Murray Group (Unanswered)
• Appendix L2: Another Letter to Murray Group (Unanswered)
• Appendix C: Application for Amendment of Certificate of Approval by Murray Group
• Appendix R: RWDI Environmental Noise Audit

Background

The Bowman Pit is 4 km south of the village of Elora and its well known Elora Gorge. There is an asphalt plant in this gravel pit. For years in the past, the neighbours around this pit have complained about the noise emitted by this pit. As a result, there is an ongoing investigation of these noise problems by MOE (Ministry of the Environment).

On 20 Apr 99, the operator of this pit, the Murray Group, submitted a proposal to modify the "cyclone separator" and "aggregate burner" of this plant. This plant is only allowed to run if it has a Provincial Certificate of Approval. A change such as this one requires an MOE Amendment of the Certificate of Approval to be used in production.

The document you are reading is a submission of "comments", to MOE, on the application for this modification of the asphalt plant, preceding MOE's decision to allow or disallow the amendment to the Certificate of Approval.
 
 

Excess Noise in Audit of Modified Asphalt Plant

Our primary concern with the proposed modifications is that they will deprive us of the enjoyment of our property because of excess noise emissions.

To demonstrate the excess noise of this asphalt plant, we asked the well-known noise experts and Professional Engineers of RWDI to evaluate the noise emissions from this plant. RWDI measured the operation of this asphalt plant, with the proposed plant modifications already carried out, in regular plant production, on 14 May 99, from 6:40am to 8:40am. The resulting Environmental Noise Audit by RWDI is attached in full as appendix R. The RWDI report states:

"Sound exposures from pit operations (and in particular the Asphalt plant on the Bowman Pit), measured in proximity to the pits and on the Holt residence, produce sound levels in excess of the stationary noise source guideline limits outlines in MOE Publication NPC-232".

In other words, Provincial noise limits are violated by the modified asphalt plant. We believe that RWDI has demonstrated that the proposed change does not meet NPC-232, and hence will violate EPA (the Environment Protection Act). Hence, we request that the amendment application should be turned down.
 
 

Running Modified Plant without Certificate of Approval

The asphalt plant, with proposed modifications already carried out, but without MOE approval of these modifications, has been in production since 5 May 99.

In February 99, the plant was disassembled. By the beginning of May, 1999, it had been reassembled with the new Genco burner (black and shiny). Figures 1a and 1b show operation of the modified plant in production on 13 May 99. Figure 1a shows a truck, just loaded with hot asphalt, leaving the plant. Figure 1b shows a front end loader carting more gravel to feed the plant's hoppers. Figure 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d show the asphalt plant in production, on 10 June 99, repeatedly loading trucks with hot asphalt.

Figures 3a and 3b show the Murray Group paving Wellington County Road Number 21with hot asphalt at the end of May, 1999.

Note that during this time, the asphalt plant, with its new burner, is running without a valid Certificate of Approval (C of A). The previous C of A for the plant applied to the old burner. An amendment is required before the new burner is to be used. This required amendment is, in fact, the one being commented upon here. In brief, the asphalt plant is running illegally, without MOE approval.
 
 

Figure 1a. 13 May 99. Modified asphalt plant in Bowman Pit running in full production, trucks being loaded with hot asphalt, loaded truck at weigh station in centre-left background.
 
 
 
 

Figure 1b. 13 May 99. Front-end loader, loading gravel into asphalt plant. Note lack of dust control.
 
 

Figure 2a. 10 June 99. Modified asphalt plant running in full production in Bowman Pit. Red truck is being loaded with hot asphalt (see centre of photograph, cab of truck just to left of large horizontal tank). The new burner is just to the left and above the truck.
 
 
 
 

Figure 2b. 10 June 99. Red truck leaving with load of hot asphalt (just right of horizontal tank).
 
 

Figure 2c. 10 June 99. Blue truck being loaded with hot asphalt (centre of photograph), just beneath steam from hot asphalt.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 2d. 10 June 99. Blue truck leaving with load of hot asphalt (just to right of horizontal tank). Five to ten minutes (estimated) to load each truck.
 
 

Figure 3a. 28 May 99. Part of Murray Group Asphalt paving equipment, with crew re-paving Wellington County Road 21, 3 km south of Elora. Photograph taken at intersection of County Road 21 and Eighth Line West. The sign on the truck says "The Murray Group Ltd ... Asphalt Driveways & Parking Lots, 1-800-265-8764 ..."
 
 
 
 

Figure 3b. 28 May 99. Murray Group crew, paving equipment, paving Wellington County Road 21 at intersection with Eighth Line West. Note truck dumping hot asphalt onto road surface.
 
 

Violation of Provincial Noise Limits

The Environmental Noise Audit by RWDI (see appendix R) indicates that the asphalt plant is exceeding Provincial noise limits (NPC-232 specified). Hence, not only should the amendment for it not be approved, the plant should not be allowed to run because it exceeds Provincial noise limits.
 
 

Maintenance of Equipment

As noted in the letter from Marie Holt to the Murray Group, dated 9 June 99, the asphalt plant has been running in such a way that it emits a squawk about each 10 seconds. This noise, occurring over a month, is an indication that the equipment is not in good maintenance. It is not reasonable to broadcast this kind of noise to the neighbourhood. It is essential to keep such equipment in good repair and to note problems and correct them promptly.
 
 

Smell from Asphalt Plant

The asphalt plant, as modified, has repeatedly been emitting the odour of asphalt, noticeable at the Holt dwelling, which is about 600 m from the plant. Any approval of the modified plant should include a proper analysis of odour emission.
 
 

Missing Acoustic Audit

The asphalt plant, as it ran up to the time at which it was modified, had no acoustic audit on file with its C of A (the C of A for the unmodified plant). That C of A requires such an acoustic audit. Therefore, it appears that the asphalt plant was running illegally before (as well as after) the modification, without a valid C of A.

The unmodified asphalt plant was extremely noisy, especially during its start up sequence. As the Murray Group states, in their application for the modification amendment:

"The existing primary cyclone is suffering from wear"

It appears that the unmodified asphalt plant was making so much noise that it could not pass an acoustic audit. If so, it was running illegally, by violating Provincial noise guidelines.
 
 

Ongoing Investigation of Noise at Pit

There is an on-going MOE investigation, which began in 1997, of noise complaints about noise emanating from the Bowman pit complex. These complaints remain unresolved. It seems inappropriate to allow this amendment to the C of A, while this current situation is unresolved. If a change is to be made to the equipment at these pits, it should be quite clear that the noise is reduced, and reduced to legal limits.
 
 

Non-Response of Operator to Letters of Complaint

We have made repeated attempts to communicate with the operator of the pit (Murray Group) about noise problems from the pits. We have explained the nature of problems, and have suggested discussions with them to work out solutions. Appendices L1 and L2 contain such letters from Marie Holt to the pit operator (Murray Group). The operator has responded to none of these letters.
 
 

EBR Requirements

The application for this amendment of the C of A by the operator (Murray Group) specifies, by means of check-off boxes, that the amendment application is a Prescribed instument under EBR (Environmental Bill of Rights). It further states that this application is "exempted from public notice" because it is an "environmentally insignificant amendment". Since this plant emits noise and smell, as well as causing accompanying dust, this statement is incorrect. The ongoing investigation of noise involving this plant demonstrates that it is environmentally significant, and the RWDI demonstrates this as well. This incorrect statement gives the appearance that the operator did not want the public to be notified of this application. Such a lack of notice would be to the operator's advantage.
 
 

Competitive Advantage

A gravel pit operator can make more money if they do not need to worry about noise emissions or about Certificates of Approval. With these worries removed, they can operate at their own pace, use equipment when and how they want, and thereby gain a competitive advantage over law-abiding operators. Such violations lead to a spiral of violations encouraging other operators to make similar violations to stay competitive. These violations are effectively paid for by the neighbours, who lose the enjoyment of their property due to excess noise. The way to stop this spiral of violations seems to be to take external action. In this case, in which there is operation of a non-certified plant running well beyond Provincial noise limits, a severe action against the operator seems appropriate.
 
 

Conclusions

The purpose of these Comments is to request:

1. Denial of this amendment request,
2. No further operation of this asphalt plant without proper certification,
3. Suspension, fines or other appropriate penalties for running this asphalt plant beyond the Provincial noise limits and without a valid Certificate of Approval,
4. Relief to the neighbours from excessive noise from this pit.

Appendix L1: Letter to Murray Group (Unanswered)
 
 
 
 

Murray Group Limited

Box 40, Moorefield, Ontario N0G 2K0
 
 

Dear Mr. Seibel:

This letter is to register a complaint about noise from the Bowman, Darrington and Bosomworth pits. According to our measurements, these pits have been operating in violation of Provincial guideline NPC-232 for months. I enclose a copy of a letter to Mr. Gary Tomlinson of MOE recording violations in the period December 1998 through April 1999. These violations are continuing. For example, today the noise exceeds these Guidelines.

This is our third summer of experiencing excessive noise from these pits.

Could you please modify your operations so that these Guidelines are met. I'm hoping that you can

reply to my letter, suggesting a plan to meet the guidelines. I'm hoping that you can carry out this plan within the next two weeks.

Appendix L2: Another Letter to Murray Group (Unanswered)
 
 

Murray Group Limited

Box 40, Moorefield, Ontario N0G 2K0
 
 

Dear Mr. Seibel:

This letter is to register a complaint about noise from the asphalt plant operating in the Bowman pit. The plant emits a "screech" approximately each 10 seconds, which can be heard throughout the neighbourhood. It seems that the plant probably is not in good repair. I'm hoping you can repair it to eliminate this noise. I have been hearing this noise since May 5, 1999 and I hear it this morning.

Appendix C: Application for Amendment of Certificate of Approval by Operator
 
 

Ministry Reference Number: 8209594007RE1

Type of Posting: Instrument

Status of Posting: Proposal

Ministry: Environment

Date Proposal Loaded: 1999/05/17

Comment Period: 30 day(s)

Written submissions may be made between May 17, 1999 and June 16, 1999.
 
 
 
 
 
 

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR AN INSTRUMENT:

Instrument Type:

EPA s. 9 - Approval for discharge into the natural environment other than water (i.e. Air)
 
 

Proponent:

The Murray Group Limited Box 40, Moorefield, Ontario, N0G 2K0
 
 

Location of Activity:

Township of Pilkington
 
 

County/District/Region:County of Wellington
 
 

Other Activity Location Identifiers:

Part Lot 9, Concession A
 
 

Description:

This application is for an amendment to an existing certificate of approval (air) for the

installation of a new primary collector and a natural gas fired aggregate burner on an

existing asphalt plant.
 
 

Comments should be directed to the following Contact Person:

Information Officer, Industrial & Municipal

Approvals Branch

3rd Floor, 250 Davisville Ave.

Toronto, Ontario, M4S 1H2

PHONE: (416) 314-8079 FAX: (416) 314-8452
 
 

Some Government offices may have copies of this proposal for viewing.

These are listed below:
 
 

Env. Assessment & Approvals Branch

250 Davisville Avenue

3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M4S 1H2

PHONE: (416) 314-8001 FAX: (416) 314-8452
 
 

Guelph District

1 Stone Road West

4th floor, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 4Y2

PHONE: (519) 826-4255 FAX: (519) 826-4286
 
 

All comments will be considered as part of the decision-making by the Ministry if they:

(a) are submitted in writing;

(b) reference the EBR Registry number; and

(c) are received by the Contact person within the specified comment period
 
 

** No acknowledgement or individual response will be provided to those who comment.

All comments & submissions received will become part of the public record. **
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Appendix R: RWDI Environmental Noise Audit

June 10, 1999
 
 

Dr. Rick Holt

R.R.#1

6565 8th Line West

Elora, Ontario

N0B 1S0
 
 

Re: Environmental Noise Audit VIA FAX, MAIL & E-MAIL

Existing Bowman & Bosomworth Pits (519) 885-1208

RWDI Reference Number: 99-430 holt@uwaterloo.ca
 
 

Dear Dr. Holt:

RWDI has completed an environmental noise audit of the existing pits, (Bowman, Bosomworth and Darrington pits) at your request. Our findings are documented herein.

SUMMARY

An environmental noise audit of the existing Bowman, Bosomworth and Darrington pits was conducted on May 14, 1999, in accordance with Ministry of the Environment (MOE) procedures as outlined in MOE publication NPC 233. At the time of our audit only the Bowman and Bosomworth Pits were in operation. Sound exposures from pit operations (and in particular the Asphalt plant on the Bowman Pit), measured in proximity to the pits and on the Holt Residence, produce sound levels in excess of the stationary noise source guideline limits outlined in MOE Publication NPC-232. The observed crusher operation at the Bosomworth Pit marginally complies with these guidleline limits. However, given smaller setback distances, if similar crusher equipment is used at either the Shoemaker or Bowman pits, we would anticipate that the guideline limits would also be exceeded in the absence of mitigation (i.e. acoustical screening from portable noise barriers, stockpiles, working face etc).
 
 

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AUDIT

Noise Measurements

Measurements of equipment noise and ambient sound exposures were conducted by RWDI personnel during a site visit on May 14, 1999. The following weather conditions were observed during the times of measurement.

Table 1: Weather Conditions During Measurements, May 14, 1999
 
 
 

Day	Hour Beginning (EDT)	Wind Speed at 10 m Height (km/h)	Wind Speed at 1.5 m Height (km/h)	Wind Direction	Temp. (C)	Rel. Humidity (%)
May 14, 1999	6:00	7	5	ENE	6.7	67
	7:00	19	14	ENE	8.4	61
	8:00	22	16	E	10.8	54
	9:00	19	14	E	12.9	46
	10:00	19	14	E	15.3	45
	11:00	19	14	E	16.4	43

 

Notes for Table 1:

• Met Data presented above was obtained from Environment Canada at the Waterloo Wellington Regional Airport, and are considered representative of local conditions. Measured wind speeds are at 10 m height. Wind speeds at 1.5 m height are calculated from 10 m height observations based on typical level ground wind velocity profile.
• Observed local conditions indicated no rain during the measurement period.

All noise measurements were conducted using either:

All measurements were conducted in compliance with Ministry Of Environment (MOE) NPC-103 measurement guidelines.

Measurement Results

Measurements were conducted at the following locations and under the pit operating conditions outlined below. Figure 1 illustrates the measurement, receptor (Holt Residence) and source locations and associated setback distances. At the time of our audit only the Bowman and Bosomworth Pits were in operation. Table 2 outlines the pieces of equipment which were operating at the time of the audit, along with measured sound levels/exposures at the Holt Residence at a building location affording partial screening to both the crusher and asphalt plant.

Table 2: Measured Pit Operations at Holt Residence (Screened Location)
 
 
 

Time	Equipment	Pit	Operating Condition	Sound Level/ Exposure (dBA)
				Leq	L90
0640-0700	Asphalt Plant	Bowman Pit	OFF	43	39
	Crusher	Bosomworth Pit	OFF
0700-0800	Asphalt Plant	Bowman Pit	ON - High Sound Level Operation	51	46
	Crusher	Bosomworth Pit	ON
0800-0840	Asphalt Plant	Bowman Pit	ON - Low Sound Level Operation	45	43
	Crusher	Bosomworth Pit	ON

Notes to Table 2:

1. Larson Davis 820 Environmental Noise Logger located behind the Holt residence barn to provide partial screening to both crusher and asphalt plant.

Table 3: Measured and Modelled Source Specific Sound Levels - Holt Residence
 
 
 

Equipment	Reference ANear Field@SPL (dBA)		Sound Levels at Holt Residence			Meets NPC- 232 45 dBA Limit?
	SPL (dBA)	Distance (m)	SPL (dBA)		Distance (m) to Residence
			Measured	Modelled
Asphalt Plant	66.7	98	53	51	600	No
Crusher	53.8	452	45	47	1030	Yes

Notes to Table 3:

Yours very truly,
 
 

  (Original signed by:)

Darron Chin-Quee, M.B.A., P.Eng.

Acoustical Specialist/ Project Manager
 
 

>ROWAN WILLIAMS DAVIES & IRWIN Inc.

Consulting Engineers

650 Woodlawn Road West

Guelph, Ontario

Canada N1K 1B6

Tel: (519) 823-1311

Fax: (519) 823-1316

Email: info@rwdi.com

Website: http://www.rwdi.com
 
 

DCQ/jet