Ontario Launches New Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Price Plan

The Ontario government is launching a new Ultra-Low Overnight price plan as part of its plan to provide consumers with more ways to keep costs down, save money and take control of their energy bills. Starting May 1, 2023, customers of Toronto Hydro, London Hydro, Centre Wellington Hydro, Hearst Power, Renfrew Hydro, Wasaga Distribution, and Sioux Lookout Hydro can opt-in to this new optional electricity price plan, with all utilities required to offer it to customers within six months.

This new Ultra Low Overnight rate plan being introduced is an optional plan that residential and small business customers might be interested in investigating.  It drastically increases the spread between on-peak and off-peak pricing, providing customers who have the ability to control their electricity usage with an opportunity to drastically reduce their electricity costs. Additionally, the new plan recognizes the changing nature of electricity demand in the province and has moved the peak demand period to the actual hours of peak demand in the province.

New options and technologies for taking control of your power usage are being developed all the time. Smart appliances that can be scheduled, rooftop solar, and battery storage are among the many tools available to consumers who want to act on this new price plan. Many of these solutions also provide other benefits such as improved power resiliency and overall lower energy usage and the new price plan can improve the business case for them.

As companies look to implement net zero plans this additional tool to manage costs associated with electrification is anticipated to generate a high level of interest. If you are interested in investigating this or other approaches for participating in the clean energy transition, please contact us at info@ortech.ca

Significant Changes to the NPRI for the 2022 Reporting Year

By: Ka Ming Lin

Introduction

The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) is updated from time to time. These updates have typically been applied every other year. Notice for a new update for the 2022 reporting year (reports due June 1, 2023) was recently published in the Canada Gazette. This new update covers the reporting years 2022-2024.

In previous recent years, updates have been fairly minor with the listing or de-listing of a handful of new substances. The NPRI keeps a list of changes to reporting requirements that have been made over time. However, the new update for the 2022 through to 2024 reporting years are more substantial. The NPRI publishes a guidance document with every update (the Guide). That guidance is available online here: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.506026/publication.html

It is highly recommended that facilities engage in a more in-depth review of their activities for the upcoming reporting season as the changes to NPRI may involve new or modified data gathering.

The Changes

While there are a number of smaller changes which are similar to the magnitude of previous changes to the NPRI, there are two changes which ORTECH believes have the potential to impact a significant number of facilities. The two big changes are a lowering of the stack height reporting threshold and the removal of the condition that exceedance of the Part 4 VOC (volatile organic compound) threshold are required to trigger Part 5 (speciated VOC) reporting as described further below. Readers should be mindful that there are other changes to the NPRI which may affect them as well and thus all of the changes should be reviewed.

Stack Height Threshold and other Stack Reporting Changes

Part 4 substances (the criteria air contaminants or CACs) have historically had a requirement for individual stack reporting for stacks greater than 50 metres in height above grade. Facilities which triggered these reporting requirements would have to assign the amount of substance released by each affected stack as opposed to only reporting facility-wide total air releases.

50 metres above grade represents a very tall stack and does thus not apply to many facilities. This threshold has been changed to 25 metres above grade, a change which will now include a much larger number of stacks. As a mitigating factor, the reporting thresholds for individual stack reporting have been increased (except for total VOCs which has not changed).

There is also an exemption for stacks which have an annual average exit temperature of less than 50° Celsius. However, this exemption can only be used if the exit temperature is measured. As noted in the Guide – “Estimations, values supplied by manufacturers, values used for the purposes of obtaining an operating approval or permit and default values cannot be used to compare to the temperature threshold.”

These changes can be found in Appendix D of the Guide. Table 1 provides a summary only. It is strongly recommended that facilities consult the Guide and the Notice in the Gazette when it is published.

Stack heights at facilities should be reviewed carefully to see if they now fall under these conditions. Please note that the stack height threshold is measured as “above grade”.

Another change that will affect stack reporting is that stack exit temperatures are to be reported if a stack triggers these thresholds. The Guide notes that if this average exit temperature is not being measured or is not known, “the facility can report the annual average stack exit temperature that was used for the purposes of obtaining a current approval or a permit, or can indicate that the annual average exit temperature is unknown.” For clarity, this type of temperature information (used for permitting purposes) is expected to be reported to the NPRI, but it can only be used to qualify for the exemption for stacks with annual average exit temperatures less than 50° Celsius if it is measured data.

Speciated VOCs

Part 5 of the NPRI is the reporting of speciated VOCs. Historically, speciated VOCs were not required to be reported unless a facility exceeded the annual Part 4 total VOCs threshold (10 tonnes facility-wide releases to air). This requirement has been removed and now facilities which exceed the individual speciated VOC air release thresholds will have to report under part 5 regardless of whether or not the facility wide total VOC threshold is exceeded. The individual annual speciated VOC threshold remains 1 tonne facility-wide releases to air.

Some facilities which previously did not have to report to the NPRI at all may now be captured under this change such as a facility that predominantly releases a small number of speciated VOCs. As an example, a facility that releases ethanol and very few other speciated VOCs, such as a brewery, distillery, or even a bakery, might have annual individual speciated VOC releases that exceed 1 tonne while the total facility-wide VOCs are under 10 tonnes. Such a facility may never have reported to the NPRI before, but will have to for the 2022 reporting year even if their releases are unchanged.

This change is further complicated by the changes to stack reporting. Speciated VOCs previously had to be assigned to individual stack sources if a number of criteria were met. These criteria have changed. Due to the complicated nature of Part 5 speciated VOC reporting and the various exemptions which some facilities may have access to, it is strongly recommended that each facility engages in a detailed assessment of their Part 5 reporting requirements.

Conclusion

The changes for the 2022 NPRI Reporting Year have the potential to impact a lot of different facilities and it is prudent to assess the potential impacts this would have on your facility(ies) as soon as reasonable. Some of these changes may warrant rethinking how data is currently being collected.

ORTECH has many years of experience with NPRI Reporting and a wide range of services associated with stacks and stack testing. If you are looking for an expert to help you through how these changes may impact your NPRI reporting requirements, please contact us at info@ortech.ca.

US EPA’s New AERMOD Version 22112 and its Potential Impact on Ontario’s Regulatory Dispersion Model Version

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new versions (22112) of the AERMOD dispersion model and the AERMET preprocessor on June 27, 2022. The EPA invited industry and consultants to join the 2022 Virtual EPA Regional/State/Local Dispersion Modelers' Workshop to introduce the latest updates. This blog provides information on the background, release updates, future development plan and potential impact on Ontario’s regulatory dispersion model versions.

Background

In 2005, the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) was promulgated as the EPA’s preferred near-field dispersion model for regulatory applications, replacing the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model. There were a variety of regulatory formulation and related implementation updates to the AERMOD Modeling System in 2017. AERMOD was designed to accept more robust meteorological data, including multi-level profiles of wind, temperature, and turbulence to simulate the atmospheric boundary layer more accurately.

In accordance with the Ontario Regulation 419/05: Air Pollution – Local Air Quality (“the Regulation”) and Ontario Guideline A-11, facilities may only choose between SCREEN3 and AERMOD to assess compliance with the air standards in Schedule 3. Use of SCREEN3 is considered to represent a conservative Tier 1 screening type of modelling assessment while the use of AERMOD represents a more comprehensive approach and is categorized as either a Tier 2 or Tier 3 type of assessment. As noted in the Regulation, the regulatory version of AERMOD model may be amended from time to time. This means that there is a specific version of each of these models that is considered to be an “approved dispersion model.” Currently, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) adopts the 2019 AERMOD version 19191 and AERMET version 19191. MECP’s next window to provide pre-notification of updates to the Ontario regulatory AERMOD version is October 1, 2022.

AERMOD Version 22112 Updates

AERMOD Version 22112 updates include code maintenance, general bug fixes for tall stacks, buoyline sources, and the urban dispersion option. The new “experimental” ALPHA options include NO2 conversion methods, low wind handling, “sidewash” point source (developed by Cornell University),and platform downwash for offshore sources. Other model updates in a BETA peer review phase include R-line for refined transportation projects and the non-regulatory Generic Reaction Set Method (GRSM) for NO2 conversion, which are potentially ready for consideration as regulatory options. AERMET version 21112 is re-configured to eliminate stage 2 (merge stage), which simplify the process to generate the AERMOD ready met data.

Future Development Plan

Model formulation updates to the AERMOD Modeling System last occurred in 2017 when EPA finalized updates to the Guideline on Air Quality Models. EPA is planning to propose an update to the Guideline in 2023. The formulation updates are developed and implemented through model development, model evaluation and model review & application. The current improvement priorities for the regulatory release include:

• Overwater Modeling–Refine / evaluate the platform downwash algorithm and add shoreline fumigation capability to AERMOD

• NO2 Conversion –Testing of GRSM and TTRM/TTRM2 as the more advanced conversion options

• Mobile Source Modeling / RLINE–Push from BETA to regulatory, improve treatment of terrain, and edge effects within the barrier algorithm

• Low Wind –Evaluate current low wind options against field dataset

• Urban meteorology –Improve inputs and processing for the URBAN option

Potential Impact on Ontario Regulatory Version

ORTECH is of the opinion that the changes in the version 22112 are minor and therefore the likelihood for Ontario MECP to adopt this version is low. This combined with US EPA’s proposed 2023 updates, including formula updates, would potentially represent a major upgrade to the AERMOD model. If the 2023 improvement priorities for regulatory updates are completed, MECP may consider adopting the 2023 updated versions. Under current MECP policy a six-month pre-notification period will be provided, prior to officially adopting a new regulatory version of AERMOD.

ORTECH has been conducting air quality assessments for over 40 years and continues to monitor developments in dispersion modelling and how these may impact our industrial and other clients. Please contact Leo Sun at lsun@ortech.ca for more information.

What Every Industrial Facility Needs to Know – Proposal to Expand Environmental Penalties

The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) currently has a proposed posting that will expand administrative penalties for environmental contraventions.  The  period for submitting comments ends March 13, 2022.

The Environmental Penalties regulation (O. Reg. 223/07) is not a new regulation by any means.  The regulation was first established in 2007 to assign financial penalties for contraventions related to the Ontario Water Resource Act.   This regulation was amended in 2018 to include contraventions under the Sulphur Dioxide Discharge Regulation (O. Reg. 530/18). 

At a high level the proposed amendments to the Environmental Penalties Regulation essentially include “everything and anything”.   Including contraventions under Section 14 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act which addresses contaminant discharges to the natural environment if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect.  Facilities should also be aware that the proposed list of financial penalties extends to reporting and record keeping requirements.  (O. Reg. 1/17 Section 35 - –“.... retain each report, supplement and plan...  ...for at least 20 years after the date the document was signed.”)

Another aspect to keep in mind is that a due diligence defense (we did everything to prevent an adverse effect), although may reduce the overall fine does not protect facilities from being subject to a financial penalty.   Industries also need to understand that the MECP may issue a penalty not only to the corporation but also to an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation, if that individual authorized, assented to, acquiesced or participated in the commission of the contravention.

To be fair MECP is clear to point out that assessing Environmental Penalties is not mandatory and conceptually other compliance pathways would take precedent such as education, outreach, notice of violation (warning), and submission of a compliance plan.  The track record on how MECP has implemented Environmental Penalties to existing facilities as insight into how these may be applied in the future would indicate that, aside from exceeding discharge limits, not adhering to the terms and conditions specified in an Environmental Compliance Approval (e.g.: equipment calibration) may also lead to the assessment of a financial penalty. 

The details and specific regulations impacted are extensive.  ORTECH Consulting has participated in the MECP’s webinars regarding this proposal and is available to assist facilities in developing strategies which align with the intent of this regulation.  A table from the recent MECP webinar on Environmental Penalties is provide below as an example.

Community Net Metering

By Ka-Ming Lin

A new net zero project being developed in London, Ontario just took a major step forward.  The Government of Ontario has posted the following decision on the Environmental Registry.  This is an enabling regulation for the West 5 development which will be a demonstration of a smart community microgrid.  The decision will allow the project to engage in Community Net Metering (“CNM”) where renewable energy generation will be used to supply the community, and any excess can be returned to the grid.  Click here for some background on net metering previously provided by ORTECH in 2020.

CNM addresses one of the big drawbacks of net metering.  In Ontario, net metered facilities are restricted to a single customer meter.  Any facility that wishes to generate power to offset their loads can only offset their own loads.  Separately metered campuses with multiple tenants and uses had a barrier in participating.  This new regulation addresses this concern for West 5 and provides a framework for other future projects to follow.

Notable in the new regulation are requirements on how the various facilities are connected, whether it is loads, generation or storage equipment.  Additionally, any project wishing to participate in CNM at this time will need to be individually added to the regulation.  The current regulation requires a contract for the net metering arrangement with the local utility with a maximum term of 10 years and a maximum project size of 10 MW.

How can ORTECH help?

In order to help you determine if net metering is right for you, ORTECH will utilize our organization’s breadth of experience. We combine different areas of expertise, from project development to operation and maintenance. We provide effective solutions for the evaluation, design, installation, operation, and maintenance of turnkey renewable energy facilities including solar PV facilities. Our approach includes the expertise of ORTECH’s parent company, Kontrol Technologies  Corp. and it’s other operating subsidiaries with extensive solar project development, energy retrofit, distributed power generation, energy analysis and GHG and carbon reduction experience. ORTECH alone has worked on over a thousand renewable energy facilities in Ontario, including feasibility studies and financial analysis, technical reviews, audits, and construction management.

Ontario’s Proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline – What you Need to Know.

By: Ibrahim Syed

What is the Land Use Compatibility Guideline?

The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) is proposing a single Land Use Compatibility Guideline (LUCG) to replace multiple existing D-series guidelines for the assessment of compatibility between industrial operations and sensitive land uses. The proposed LUCG would apply when an approval under the Planning Act is needed in the following situations:

1.       a new or expanding sensitive land use is proposed near an existing or planned Major Facility; or

2.       a new or expanding Major Facility is proposed near an existing or planned sensitive land use.

The primary purpose of the LUCG is to support the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS).

The proposed LUCG shifts the compatibility assessment approach from the three industrial class system (Class I, II and III) in the D-series guidelines to a five industrial class system (Class 1 to 5). Each of the five classes is assigned characteristic zones of potential impact called Area of Influence (AOI) and Minimum Separation Distance (MSD).  These parameters are based on an analysis of the MECP complaint data (specific to noise, dust and odour) from a ten-year period. Figure A below shows the MECP guidance for determining AOI and MSD.

Figure A:         Area of Influence and Minimum Separation Distance

(Photo Reference – Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - DRAFT - Land Use Compatibility Guideline (pg 19) - https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2785)

When the LUCG requirements are triggered, the first step requires a proponent to determine whether a proposed sensitive land is within a Major Facility’s AOI/MSD, or whether the AOI/MSD of a proposed Major Facility captures existing sensitive land uses. If the answer is yes, then a compatibility study is required, otherwise not. The proposed LUCG recommends against the development of sensitive land uses within the MSD of a Major Facility.

Table 1 provide facility specific AOIs, MSDs and Class numbers. Proponents of industrial facilities or proponents of sensitive land uses can refer to Table 1 of the proposed LUCG to confirm if the industrial facility belongs to a specific type of Major Facility. If the Major Facility is not identified in Table 1 of proposed LUCG, then guidance provided in Table 2 and Table 3 of the proposed LUCG can be used to classify the Major Facility based on factors such as potential for fugitive emissions, hours of operations, noise and odour complaint history, etc. Table 2 and Table 3 provide generic AOIs, MSDSs and Class numbers.

Minimum and maximum AOI recommended in the D-series guidelines are 70 meters (Class I) and 1000 meters (Class III) respectively. In contrast, the proposed LUCG recommends generic minimum and maximum AOI of 500 meters (Class 1) and 2000 meters (Class 5), respectively.  It was noted that the generic AOIs and MSDs are higher than facility specific AOIs and MSDs. For example, generic Class 1 AOI is 500 meters whereas facility specific Class 1 (for a ready-mix concrete plant) AOI is 250 meters. Direct comparison between AOIs and MSDs of D-series guideline classes and of proposed LUCG classes is difficult, so specific examples are provided in Table A below.

Table A:          Comparison of AOIs and MSDs in D-Series Guidelines and Proposed LUCG

* Typical Class associated with the industrial operation. Class category not specifically assigned by D-series guidelines.

** Class category assigned by proposed LUCG.

What to do if Development is Proposed within an AOI or MSD?

As per the proposed LUCG, the first step is to carry out a compatibility study. If a compatibility study shows that no adverse effects to sensitive land uses or impacts to major facilities is expected at the proposed separation distance (or a revised separation distance based on the study) without mitigation, then no further action would be required (unless the proposal is for a new sensitive land use located within the MSD). If a compatibility study shows that adverse effects to sensitive land uses or impacts to major facilities are expected at a proposed separation distance, then identification of mitigation measures is required. The implementation of identified mitigation measures is recommended as part of the planning approval process. If a proposed new sensitive land use is located within the AOI of a major facility and mitigation measures are identified or if a proposed new sensitive land use is located in the MSD of a major facility, a demonstration of need would be required, which is an assessment that determines whether there is an identified need for the proposed use in the proposed location and evaluates alternative locations for the proposed use if avoidance is not possible. Demonstration of need is only required for proponents of sensitive land uses.

How ORTECH can help?

ORTECH can assess compatibility of your new or expanding industrial facility or proposed sensitive land use development with existing industrial land uses in the area, by identifying appropriate AOI and MSD based on the proposed LUCG. From there ORTECH can prepare compatibility study reports in support of rezoning applications or site plan approval applications. As per the LUCG, planning authorities may consider using an alternate AOI if it can be justified through the results of a technical and scientific process similar to that of a compatibility study. ORTECH can complete technical assessments to identify alternate AOI suitable for your industrial facility or sensitive land use development. ORTECH can also identify suitable mitigation strategies, if required and develop technology benchmarking reports, odour/dust best management plans, etc. to minimize adverse impacts. Figure B shows the decision tree for land use compatibility assessment. The comment period for the proposed LUCG closes July 3, 2021 and ORTECH is tracking the important developments associated with proposed LUCG by attending MECP’s webinars and information sessions and submitting our own comments.

(Photo Reference – Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - DRAFT - Land Use Compatibility Guideline (pg 36) - https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2785)

Proposal - Guideline to address odour mixtures in Ontario

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) is proposing an updated approach to addressing odour issues. This proposed guidance is presented in the draft document “Guideline to Address Odour Mixtures in Ontario” (Odour Guideline). In addition, the MECP has proposed a methodology for completing odour assessments for odour mixtures in a draft Technical Bulletin. The comment period for the proposed documents is May 4, 2021 - July 3, 2021 (60 days). Comments may be submitted here. MECP is proposing that the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application requirements outlined in the proposal be phased in 6 months from the decision date.

The Odour Guideline builds on the approach that is currently used in the Air Emissions Environmental Activity Sector Registration (AE EASR) Regulation to address assessment of odour in ECA and Renewable Energy Approval (REA) applications and provide guidance on assessing odour in Land Use Compatibility studies. The Odour Guideline does not change the requirements for contaminants with odour-based standards (or other benchmarks) under the local air quality regulation (O. Reg. 419/05). Key proposed updates to the approach to addressing odour issues are summarized below.

Activity / Process Tiers

Currently, activities that are governed by the AE EASR Regulation are categorized into two tiers based on their potential to emit odour. MECP has proposed three tiers for activities and processes that are not governed by the AE EASR Regulation. Tier 3 is for activities and processes that have a significant risk of causing an adverse effect due to odours. There are no odour setback distances for Tier 3 activities and processes. In general, all facilities with Tier 3 activities and processes will be required to develop and implement a Best Management Practices Plan (BMPP) to ensure odours are minimized.

When submitting an ECA application, facilities with Tier 3 activities or processes should arrange a pre-consultation meeting with the MECP. It is recommended that this meeting be at least 3-6 months before the application is submitted.

Odour Technology Benchmarking Report (OTBR)

MECP has proposed a new tool for addressing odours, an Odour Technology Benchmarking Report (OTBR). An OTBR is similar to the Odour Control Report (OCR) required by the AE EASR Regulation. However, in addition to the OCR requirements, an OTBR also assesses and ranks all technically feasible options based on the predicted off-property odour reductions or resulting odour concentrations at odour receptors. An OTBR may be required as part of an ECA application, an REA application, or a Land Use Compatibility study.

Technical Bulletins Outlining Minimum Expectations

MECP will be developing additional guidance in the form of technical bulletins on minimum expectations for certain odorous activities and processes to encourage facilities to implement best practices and controls to reduce odour emissions. Once a technical bulletin is developed, a facility will no longer be required to submit an OTBR with their ECA application, provided they meet the minimum expectations outlined in the technical bulletin. Where available, minimum expectations should also be considered in Land Use Compatibility studies.

Odour Screening Form for ECAs

When completing an ECA application, MECP has proposed that an Odour Screening Form (OSF) should be used to determine whether any facility activities or processes have potential to cause odour impacts. Facilities with activities and processes that have the potential to cause odour impacts are ‘screened in’ by the OSF and additional odour work may be expected to be included in the ECA application, such as a BMPP or an OTBR.

How can ORTECH help?

Practicing an "Educate-Plan-Comply" progression to ensure our clients comprehend the regulatory process, our aim is for you to fully know the implications for your company.  We have worked on countless applications and have fine-tuned our approach, concentrating on a client-centric focus. 

ORTECH can assist you in determining the implications of the proposed odour guidelines on your current or future projects – from ECA applications to land use planning requirements through to the development of Best Management Plans, Odour control Reports and Technology Benchmarking Reports.   

ORTECH congratulates Scott Manser as our new Compliance and Permitting Principal.

ORTECH Consulting Inc. (ORTECH) is pleased to announce that Scott Manser, P.Eng. has been promoted from Senior Project Manager to Principal, Compliance and Permitting.  He has worked for ORTECH for over 20 years performing industrial and environmental consulting projects with diverse experience, including the compilation of site-wide greenhouse gas and other air emission inventories for a variety of industrial operations such as metal casting, automotive and petrochemical sector clients - development of regional air emission inventories for the transportation sector - the preparation of Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) applications - the preparation of Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Renewable Energy Approvals (REAs) for wind, water and solar power facilities, to name a few.  Scott’s continued professional experience is a valuable resource to our broad range of clients and will continue to support our team of scientist and engineers whilst continually improving our process of providing the highest quality environmental consulting that our clients and other stakeholders can have confidence in.        

ORTECH, an operating subsidiary of Kontrol Energy (“KNR”), is one of Canada’s leading atmospheric science firms providing technology based consulting services and expertise in environmental science and engineering to government, industrial and financial organizations.

Releases of Air or Noise Emissions: Do you need a permit?

By: Scott Manser 

If your Ontario business is emitting compounds into the air, or has sources of noise associated with its operations, you will most likely need to register through the provincial Environmental Sector Activity Sector (EASR) system.  The EASR system is the default path, with exclusions for specified industry codes and process operations.  Facilities covered either in whole or in part by these exclusions are required to obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval (“ECA”). 

Although numerous exemptions from the requirement to register or obtain an ECA exist, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) has made it clear that exempt sources still require an assessment against the provincial air quality criteria.  Often, we find that permitting and assessment requirements are not well understood, and the value that is driven from it may not be clear. At ORTECH we make every effort to help the process move along rapidly, and strive to help you understand our methods.

Regardless of the regulatory system in place it is important that all contaminants (including noise) emitted into the environment by your facility are assessed.  It is also imperative for facilities to understand that planned modifications trigger a re-assessment of emissions and an amendment to either the EASR or ECA.  These planned modifications may include (but are not limited to) the addition of equipment, changes in process rates, or a reformulation of existing materials. 

For facilities subject to the EASR system, modifications can be assessed and registered within a relatively short time frame (a few weeks).  For facilities requiring an amendment to an ECA approval, MECP is currently providing a one-year service standard.  For this reason subject facilities may also apply for an ECA with Limited Operational Flexibility which permits most modifications from occurring without having to receive an amendment to the ECA.  In a fast-paced market condition, this allows facilities to adapt quickly, meet new customer requirements, or expand product lines.

How ORTECH can help

Practicing an "Educate-Plan-Comply" progression to ensure our clients comprehend the ECA process, our aim is for you to fully know the implications for your company.  We have worked on countless applications and have fine-tuned our approach, concentrating on a client-centric focus. 

ORTECH can assist you in determining the regulatory requirements of your air and noise emissions: EASR, ECA or exempt.  As part of our service offerings ORTECH can:

• Discuss the pros and cons of an ECA with Limited Operational Flexibility;

• Work with the client to assemble documentation and information required to support the assessment results;

• Complete a site visit;

• Review your current Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) Report, if available, and update to include any changes;

• Complete dispersion modelling and compare results to MECP air quality limits;

• Complete primary or secondary noise screening and coordinate an Acoustic Assessment Report (AAR), if required;

• For EASR documents, provide the required Professional Engineer seal and signatures;

• Assemble the ECA application, including all supporting documents and forms;

• Regularly follow up with the MECP to check the status of the application;

• Assist in answering technical questions the MECP review engineer may have; and

• Review the draft ECA to ensure the Terms and Conditions are appropriate and accurate.

ORTECH can assist you with maintaining compliance with the new permit by providing the following services, if applicable:

• Assist in preparing an operating manual;

• Complete source testing and/or odour testing;

• Prepare and maintain a modification log;

• Review facility operations and assess modifications which may require an update to the ESDM Report; and

• Prepare the Annual Written Summary Forms and supporting documentation for ECAs with Limited Operational Flexibility.

Ontario’s Emissions Performance Standards Program Comment Deadline is Approaching

January 15th, 2021 deadline for submitting comments regarding proposed changes to Ontario’s Emissions Performance Standards program approaching.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) is proposing amendments to the Ontario Performance Standards (EPS) program to transition away from the current federal Output-Based Pricing system (OBPS) for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.  Interested parties have until January 15, 2021 to submit comment to the MECP regarding these proposed changes.  Details of the proposal and submission of comments can be accessed via the following link:  https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2813

A brief summary of the proposal and changes include:

• Ontario is proceeding upon the basis that compliance obligations under the EPS system will commence January 1, 2021. (No changes to reporting or obligations related to emissions released during calendar year 2020)

• Provisions to allow for partial year coverage of emissions instead of the full calendar year to align with the date of exemption from the federal fuel charge.

• Allow additional sectors to voluntarily opt-in to the EPS program. Facilities currently covered by the OBPS would be allowed to participate in the EPS program.

• Clarification of reporting methods for the steel sector using blast furnace gas or coke oven gas in electricity generation or cogeneration and fertilizer sector (for CO2captured and used in urea)

• Streamlining of emissions reporting in the steel sector (e.g. consolidate reporting for various furnaces)

• Assignment of a biomass adjustment factor of two percent of biomass CO2 emission to the emission performance standard for the pulp and paper sector

• The ability for a covered facility that uses the energy use standard to apply for a facility-based emissions intensity standard

In adopting the EPS system over the current federal OBPS the province anticipates that compliance costs for facilities associated with these proposed amendments will be lower. 

How can ORTECH help?

Our team includes professional engineers and climate science experts who can assist regulated facilities determine their compliance obligations under various carbon pricing systems including the current OBPS or federal fuel charge systems and the proposed EPS pricing system.  For facilities considering the voluntary opt-in provisions of the regulation ORTECH can provide assistance to ensure proper emission estimation techniques, documentation and reporting metrics are established.

By: Scott Manser

Kontrol BioCloud: A Safe Space Technology™ for COVID-19

ORTECH Consulting is proud to announce our parent company Kontrol Energy Corp’s Kontrol BioCloud: A Safe Space Technology™ for COVID-19. BioCloud is a real-time analyzer designed to detect airborne pathogens that operates as a safe space technology by promoting air circulation, monitoring air quality, and sampling continuously for pathogens like viruses, bacteria and fungi. Please follow the link below to learn more.

Kontrol BioCloud: A Safe Space Technology™

ORTECH welcomes Jeff Getty as our new Ambient and Water Quality Manager.

ORTECH Consulting Inc. (ORTECH) is pleased to announce that Jeff Getty, BES has joined our Sarnia team as Ambient Air and Water Quality Manager.  He has lived and worked in the Sarnia area for over 20 years with diverse experience including environmental regulatory compliance and permitting, management of environmental planning, protection and remediation projects and well as safety and environmental emergency response experience and training to name a few.  These skills and experience will be a valuable resource to our broad range of industrial clients and will support ORTECH in continually improving our process of providing the highest quality environmental data that our clients and other stakeholders can have confidence in.        

ORTECH, an operating subsidiary of Kontrol Energy (“KNR”), is one of Canada’s leading atmospheric science firms providing technology based consulting services and expertise in environmental science and engineering to government, industrial and financial organizations. ORTECH’s Sarnia office has been providing independent third-party ambient air and water quality monitoring and consulting services to local industry for over 60 years.

Climate Lens Infrastructure Funding

Photo by Donald Tong from Pexels

By: Ciara DeJong

To access the Government of Canada’s infrastructure funding for large infrastructure projects in Canada, a Climate Lens Assessments (CLA) is required.  ORTECH has over 40 years of experience in determining air emissions such as greenhouse gases (GHG) from a multitude of sources.

What is a Climate Lens Assessments (CLA) ?

The Climate Lens Assessment (CLA) is a framework developed by Infrastructure Canada to help achieve Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target of 30% reduction below 2005 levels. The intention of the CLA is to guide infrastructure projects towards managing sources of GHG emissions, and develop projects that are resilient to a changing climate.  The CLA aims to help decision-makers understand the risks of a changing climate, and then identify opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from the design, construction and operation phases of large infrastructure projects.

Federal programs requiring a CLA are:

·        Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP),

·        the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF)

·        Smart Cities Challenge

 How are Climate Lens Assessments Completed?

The CLA is comprised of two elements.  Part one is a GHG mitigation assessment where a project’s GHG emissions or reductions are evaluated against a base case scenario.  Part two is a climate resilience assessment using a risk management framework.  For this part of the CLA possible risks from a changing climate are identified, assessed, managed and adapted.  The depth of the assessment depends on the magnitude of the potential risks and can range from high level to comprehensive.

What does a Climate Lens Assessment Cost?

As per the Government of Canada guidelines for approved projects the costs associated with Climate Lens assessments will be retroactively eligible for reimbursement.

How Can ORTECH Help?

Our team includes professional engineers, risk evaluators, and climate science experts as well as HVAC and energy efficiency specialists. ORTECH’s experience leads to the right answer, right away with our tailor made approach to your project. ORTECH can provide a comprehensive approach to your Climate Lens Assessment.

Solar Net Metering

Many people in Ontario are weighing the pros and cons of adding solar panels to their buildings.  A question that often comes up when solar projects are discussed is, what happens to the energy that you generate but do not use? This is where net metering enters the conversation.  Net metering can seem complex at first, so ORTECH has developed the following explanation to help clarify.

What is Solar Net Metering?

Net metering allows an electricity user to install a solar photovoltaic (“PV” - generally in the form of solar panels) facility onsite to generate electricity for themselves with any excess going to the grid for a credit on future electricity bills. Net metering has been an option in Ontario since 2015 and is governed by Ontario Regulation (O. Reg. 541/05: Net Metering).

Key Considerations

With the price of electricity going up, and the cost of installing a solar PV facility trending downwards, net metering with solar PV has become a project worth considering.

Some key business drivers that you should contemplate when evaluating whether net metering with solar PV makes sense are:

• What is the risk of further electricity price increases;

• What is the time sensitivity for incentives; cost savings; and

• What will be the impact on your company’s reputation? Will you see a benefit from generating “green” electricity?

Why Solar Net Metering?

There are two main reasons why solar net metering makes sense now: 

First, the Ontario government has mandated that electrical providers, often called Local Distribution Companies (“LDCs”), allow their customers to offset their electricity use by generating renewable energy. This is where net metering fits into the provincial electricity distribution picture. 

Second, solar prices have come down and electricity costs have gone up. Net metering makes sure that every kW of electricity generated is either consumed by your facility or “sold” (given a credit) outside of your facility. The point where net metering makes sense for your facility may already have arrived.  Even without a government incentive there is a business case to be made for solar net metering. 

How can ORTECH help?

In order to help you determine if net metering is right for you, ORTECH will utilize our organization’s breadth of experience. We combine different areas of expertise, from project development to operation and maintenance. We provide effective solutions for the evaluation, design, installation, operation, and maintenance of turnkey solar PV facilities. Our approach includes the expertise of ORTECH’s parent company, Kontrol Energy Corp., which has extensive solar project development experience, and ORTECH’s sister company Efficiency Engineering, which has solar PV facility design and construction expertise. ORTECH has worked on over 1150 solar PV facilities in Ontario, including feasibility studies and financial analysis, technical reviews, audits, and construction management.

Let us help you bring solar net metering to your facility.

 By: Nick Collard

What causes Cannabis odour? And what can be done to mitigate it?

During certain stages of the growth cycle, Cannabis plants can produce a powerful and very distinct smell that is often unwelcome in nearby communities.  With legalization, odour from Cannabis production and greenhouse facilities is increasingly becoming a nuisance issue in Canadian municipalities. 

Cannabis odour comes from organic compounds produced in the plant, called Terpenes.  The plants produce multiple types of Terpenes, such as Pinene {C10H16} and Limonene {C10H16}, which can be an annoyance when they are detectable.  While in nature these Terpenes generally function as deterrents for predators, and may be emitted from certain types of trees, shrubs and even other crops, in a municipal setting they can become an irritation to the general public.

A wide range of industrial activities are prone to “nuisance” odours which may impact the neighbouring community, or pose an on-site problem. The Cannabis industry however is especially prone to becoming a target for odour complaints, due to it’s high profile in the news and with some community groups.  When these odour complaints arise, there are two common approaches to assessing the issue: sample collection to determine odour emissions at the source, and community odour surveys. 

For odour emitting from an identifiable source (i.e., a stack or vent), it may be appropriate to collect samples in order to quantify the odour.  Collecting samples and analyzing them using equipment such as an olfactometer (an instrument used to quantify the concentration of odour), a trained professional can evaluate the odour issue and assess the problem.  Further odour evaluations can be supported by laboratory analysis using methods such as gas chromatography for determining the concentration and speciation of specific odour causing compounds, such as terpenes.

For odour issues where source sampling may not be feasible, community odour surveys provide another option to assess the impact of odours from a Cannabis facility.  A community odour survey is generally conducted by trained professionals, but plant staff or other stake holders such as community groups can also be trained to conduct the survey, if desired.  During a community odour survey, when and where odour is detected, an estimate of the concentration and character of the odour, the wind speed and wind direction at the time of the observation, as well as observations related to any other possible nearby sources of odour are documented.    

Combining odour emission testing with a well-designed community odour survey with representative meteorological data and atmospheric dispersion modelling are useful tools when assessing odours in order to minimize complaints and evaluate further mitigation, if necessary. 

How can ORTECH help?

All of the professional services mentioned above are performed by ORTECH.  We can prepare a cradle to grave solution for your facility to help mitigate cannabis related odours, proactively sample sources of Cannabis odours before they become a problem or develop community odour surveys and analysis. 

MSAPR Part 1 – Performing Stack Tests to Reclassify Boilers and Heaters

By: Tina Sanderson

The Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations (MSAPR) was registered by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) in June 2016 with the objective to achieve consistent Canada-wide performance standards for certain industrial facilities and equipment for the emissions of oxides of nitrogen.   Boilers and heaters at regulated facilities are targeted under Part 1 of MSAPR.  MSAPR establishes a process for registering, classifying, testing and reporting of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions and provides NOx emission intensity limits (g NOX/GJ). For more information on MSAPR Part 1, click here.

Prior to June 17, 2017 all regulated facilities were required to classify their boilers and/or heaters as either:

•             Class 80:  NOX Emission Intensity ≥ 80 g NOX/GJ

•             Class 70:  NOX Emission Intensity ≥ 70 g NOX/GJ and < 80 g NOX/GJ

•             Class 40:  NOX Emission Intensity < 70 g NOX/GJ

By default all boilers and heaters were classified as “Class 80” unless the facility had stack test or CEM test data for the unit, historical stack test data for the unit, or data for an identical piece of equipment with which the unit could be identified with.

For unmodified pre-existing boilers and heaters, the facility may either keep the NOX emission intensity elected in June 17, 2017 or opt to conduct optional Stack Tests or CEMS Tests before December 31, 2022 and, depending on the results, reclassify the boilers and heaters as either “Class 70” or “Class 40”.

There are some advantages to conducting optional Stack Tests on your boilers and/or heaters before December 31, 2022 such as:

·        providing baseline emissions which can be used to determine NOX reduction options and/or facilitate capital improvement discussions if the results confirm the equipment is “Class 80”;

·        giving the facility an additional 10 years to meet the NOX emission intensity limit of  26 g NOX/GJ if the results demonstrate that the equipment is “Class 70” and it is reclassified; or

·       eliminating the requirement to meet the NOX emission intensity limit of 26 g NOX/GJ and the requirement to perform subsequent Stack Tests or CEM Tests if the results demonstrate that the equipment is “Class 40” and it is reclassified.

MSAPR Part 1 prescribes the testing and operating requirements to be followed for the Stack Tests which are summarized below.

Acceptable Sampling Methodologies

·        Triplicate 30 minute consecutive test runs for oxygen and nitrogen oxides following the procedures detailed in US EPA Method 3A and US EPA Method 7E, respectively, or ASTM D6522-11.

·        Volumetric flowrate and moisture tests following the procedures detailed in US EPA Methods 1-4 or ECCC Methods A-D.

·        Fuel sample analysis for higher heater value (HHV) following the procedures detailed in ASTM D1826-94, ASTM D3588-98, ASTM D48941-89 or GPA Standard 2172-09. Note the regulation provides a default value for natural gas that can be used to calculate intensity which may eliminate the need to conduct the fuel sample analysis if natural gas is the only fuel combusted.

Operating Conditions during Testing

·        The boiler or heater must be operating with at least 50% of the input energy in its combustion chamber resulting from the introduction of gaseous fossil fuel.

·        The boiler or heater must be operating at ≥60% of its rated capacity.

·        The boiler or heater must be operating at a steady state.

·        If the boiler or heater is equipped to pre-heat air, pre-heated air must be operating during testing.

·        Testing must be conducted using the same type of gaseous fossil fuel the boiler or heater normally operates on.

Site Requirements

·        A minimum of two sampling ports must be installed on the exhaust of the boiler or heater ideally a minimum of eight stack diameters downstream and at least two stack diameters upstream of flow disturbances.  If this is not possible, the ports must be installed, at a minimum, at least two stack diameters downstream and half a stack diameter upstream of flow disturbances.

·        Safe access to the sampling ports must be provided either through the installation of a permanent platform, installation of scaffolding or the use of a man-lift.

·        Parking for the third party testing vehicle must be provided as close as possible to the sampling location.

·        Power must be provided for the sampling equipment.  An electrician may be required to hardwire the electrical connection.

·        A site liaison must be available during testing to ensure the boiler or heater is operating at the required conditions (detailed above) and to communicate with the testing company.

·        The flowrate of the fuel combusted during the test program must be provided to the testing company to facilitate NOX emission intensity calculations.  Note if the equipment operates on a fuel other than natural gas, a sampling port will need to be provided to collect the fuel sample for HHV analysis. 

How can ORTECH help?

ORTECH provides comprehensive consulting and emission testing services to our clients to ensure that they are meeting the requirements of MSAPR, including:

·        Evaluating applicability, options, timelines and mitigation measures, if needed, to ensure compliance;

·        Assessing equipment to determine if performance tests are required;

·        Providing advice on the installation of sampling ports to facilitate performance testing;

·        Conducting performance testing following the sampling procedures detailed in MSAPR; and

·        Calculating NOx emission intensity based on performance test data.

MSAPR Part 1 – Boilers and Heaters

By: Tina Sanderson

The Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations (MSAPR) was registered by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) in June 2016 with the objective to achieve consistent Canada-wide performance standards for certain industrial facilities and equipment.   Part 1 of MSAPR applies to pre-existing, transitional or modern boilers or heaters with a rated capacity of at least 10.5 GJ/h, in a regulated facility, that combusts gaseous fossil fuel.  Part 1 of MSAPR does not apply to all boilers and heaters, specific types of boilers and heaters are exempt from the regulation.

MSAPR establishes a process for registering, monitoring, testing and reporting of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions and provides NOX emission intensity limits (g NOX/GJ).  These limits are phased in over time for pre-existing boilers and heaters based on the determined classification and the timing of trigger events or major modifications.

Prior to June 17, 2017 all regulated facilities were required to classify their boilers and/or heaters as either:

•             Class 80:  NOX Emission Intensity ≥ 80 g NOX/GJ

•             Class 70:  NOX Emission Intensity ≥ 70 g NOX/GJ and < 80 g NOX/GJ

•             Class 40:  NOX Emission Intensity < 70 g NOX/GJ

By default all boilers and heaters are classified as “Class 80”.  In order for a facility to classify a boiler or heater as “Class 70” or “Class 40” they had to have performed a stack test or continuous emission monitoring (CEM) test on the unit, have historical stack test data for the unit or have stack test data for an identical piece of equipment with which the unit could be identified with.

The determination of classification using a Stack Test or CEM Test must have been completed by June 17, 2017 and reported to the Minister September by 17, 2017.

For unmodified pre-existing boilers and heaters, the facility may either keep the NOX emission intensity elected in June 17, 2017 or opt to conduct optional Stack Tests or CEM Tests before December 31, 2022 and, depending on the results, reclassify the boilers and heaters as either “Class 70” (≥ 70 g NOX/GJ and < 80 g NOX/GJ) or “Class 40” (< 70 g NOX/GJ).

The requirements for the three classes are summarized below:   

* unless there is a triggering event or major modification

List of Regulated Facilities

The following are regulated facilities under MSAPR Part 1:

a.      oil and gas facilities;

b.      oil sands facilities;

c.      chemicals facilities;

d.      nitrogen-based fertilizer facilities;

e.      pulp and paper facilities;

f.       base metals facilities;

g.      potash facilities;

h.      alumina facilities and aluminum facilities;

i.       power plants;

j.       iron, steel and ilmenite facilities;

k.      iron ore pelletizing facilities; and

l.       cement manufacturing facilities.

Excluded Boilers and Heaters

MSAPR Part 1 does not apply in respect of the following types of boilers or heaters:

a.       a heater that is used to dry, bake or calcinate materials, including a kiln as defined in section 101 and an anode-baking furnace;

b.      a heater that is used in any process to chemically transform ore or intermediate products into bulk metallic products;

c.      a coke oven battery;

d.      a heater or boiler that is designed to combust coke oven gas;

e.      a blast furnace stove;

f.       a heater or boiler that is designed to combust blast furnace gas;

g.      an ethylene cracker;

h.      a steam methane reformer;

i.       a reheat furnace;

j.       a boiler or heater that is used only for activities that are subsequent to the hot rolling of steel into basic shapes at an iron, steel and ilmenite facility;

k.      a chemical recovery boiler;

l.       a biomass boiler;

m.    a heat-recovery steam generator;

n.      a boiler that combusts exhaust gases that arise from the partial combustion of coke in a vessel integrated with a fluid coking unit; and

o.     a boiler or heater that is used only in the start-up of a facility or process and operated for fewer than 500 hours in each previous year of its operation.

What’s In Your Biogas?

SVOC and trace metal sampling

By: Rob Whitten

People have known about the practical uses of biogas for centuries. With recent advances in anaerobic digester technology, it is becoming increasingly viable as a renewable energy source. As a result, biogas that was traditionally flared to the atmosphere is now being used in applications such as power generation, transportation, heating, and injection into the natural gas grid. Many biogas producers such as landfills, waste water treatment plants, agricultural operations, and numerous other industries, are already taking advantage of this useful by-product.  Many more will follow suit.

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as just plugging a biogas line into a generator and producing electricity. Raw gas requires upgrading and purification to reach viable methane concentrations. Conditioning and cleaning is also required to remove contaminants which can cause damage to equipment and transmission systems, and can pose health and/or environmental concerns.  Certain questions become very important:

• What is in your biogas?

• What is the methane level?

• What are the contaminant concentrations?

• What is the heating value?

• What compounds need to be removed or increased to make the gas viable?

Knowing the answers to these questions can greatly increase the efficiency and over-all success of a biogas operation.  Biogas analysis can accurately and efficiently answer all of these questions.

The Benefits of Biogas Analysis

If the biogas is being sold to a third party like an energy company for injection into the gas grid, chances are that detailed analysis will be a requirement to ensure it meets the company’s specifications. However there are still benefits to biogas analysis, even if the gas is only being used on site.

First and foremost is the viability of the gas. Most biogas is unviable for use as a fuel when first generated as a result of the low methane and high carbon dioxide content. Knowing the initial concentrations of methane and other hydrocarbons gives producers an idea of what type of equipment is required to get their biogas to viable levels. Additionally this type of analysis provides the heating value of the gas which is beneficial for equipment sizing and billing purposes.  The value of biogas increases with heating value.

Contaminant concentrations can also impact the usability of a biogas. Some contaminants such as moisture, particulate, sulfur compounds and siloxanes can negatively impact equipment and transmission systems. Other contaminants such as mercury, ammonia, sulfur compounds and some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) can have a negative impact on the environment and pose health concerns for the end user. Knowing contaminant concentrations allows producers to procure the appropriate conditioning equipment to ensure their product is ready for use.

Some Common Contaminants and their Potential Impacts

            Contaminants:                                   Potential Impacts:

      Sulphur compounds                       Health concerns, equipment damage/degradation

      Ammonia                                         Health concerns, environmental concerns (NOx)

      Siloxanes                                          Equipment damage/degradation

      VOC’s                                                Health concerns

      Halocarbons                                     Health concerns

      SVOC’s                                              Health concerns

     Polyaromatic hydrocarbons Health concerns

(PAH’s)

     Aldehydes and ketones                    Health concerns

     Trace metals                                      Health concerns, environmental concerns

     Mercury                                          Health concerns, environmental concerns

     Moisture                                         Equipment damage/degradation

    Particulate                                      Equipment damage/degradation

Speciated hydrocarbons and VOC sampling and dewpoint (moisture) monitoring

How can ORTECH help?

ORTECH provides comprehensive services to our clients to help them determine what is in their biogas.

• Analysis of biogas samples in accordance with ASTM and GPA standards.

• On-site biogas sample collection following approved GPA, EPA, Environment Canada, and ASTM methodology and rigorous health and safety procedure.

• Experienced sampling and analytical team with the ability to mobilize internationally (Note: option to provide training and equipment to allow client to collect samples themselves and ship to ORTECH).

• Development of biogas sampling plans and strategies.

• Detailed reporting for clients and other stakeholders including government and regulatory agencies.

The Benefits of Including a Community Odour Survey in Your Odour Management Plan

By: Rob Whitten

One of the major difficulties faced when dealing with odours is attempting to quantify the impact an odour is having on the surrounding areas. Far too often, a facility may be unaware of an off-site odour issue until they begin receiving odour complaints, and when a complaint is received they are unsure of how to verify it. This can make it difficult to track the source of an odour, or identify the events that led up to it.

Community odour surveys can be conducted quickly and may be more cost-effective than other odour monitoring options. Including a community odour survey as part of your odour management plan can act as an early warning system, perhaps allowing you to identify and control the odour source before it impacts the surrounding area. Additionally, a survey can be conducted at a location where an odour complaint was received as a way to not only verify the complaint but also show that you are taking action.

A Community Odour Survey Primer

A community odour survey involves a trained individual or individuals being deployed along the fence-line or in the actual community surrounding a facility. The survey involves collecting odour data qualitatively (with your nose), semi-quantitatively (with a portable field olfactometer) or quantitatively (with a monitoring device that targets specific odorous compounds such as hydrogen sulphide) at pre-determined locations. The surveyor also records general environmental conditions such as wind direction and other observations such as other potentially odorous facilities in the area.

Many companies use existing staff that are already walking the facility regularly such as security guards to be trained as surveyors. Survey locations can be included as part of a routine patrol route. This is a time and cost-efficient approach to ensuring that there is a regular collection of odour data in the surrounding community.

Items to consider when developing your survey

·         Location: Will the survey be within the facility's property boundaries or in the community? Will it be at set locations, locations determined by wind direction, or locations where an odour is detected?

·         Frequency: Will the survey be conducted on a regular schedule or will it be weather dependent? Will it only be conducted during certain process conditions, or when a complaint is received or an odour detected?

·         Data: Will the data be qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative? Are the odours being generated by the facility detectable by a portable monitor?

·         Additional measurements: Is there a benefit to meteorological measurements during the survey such as wind speed, wind direction, humidity, and rainfall? Are there process measurements that can be recorded at regular intervals or continuously that can be correlated to odour generation?

·         Who will conduct the survey: Are there already personnel at the facility that can be trained to conduct the survey and if so which department will be responsible? Would you be better off to bring in an independent external expert trained in the conduct of community odour surveys which often is viewed more positively by an impacted community?

A survey may be as simple or complex as you wish and can be tailored to suit the needs of your facility. But, what all surveys have in common is a record of data collected by trained personnel that can be used for reporting, at stakeholder and community meetings, and as a tool for identification of odour sources and potential odour issues.

How can ORTECH help?

ORTECH provides comprehensive services to our clients to help them develop or enhance their community odour surveys.

·         Screening of personnel to ensure an acceptable olfactometric response based on the methodology in the European Standard Method EN:13725.

·         Training of personnel on how to perform a survey, and on specific survey equipment such as portable olfactometers.

·         Ground-up development of a community odour survey or enhancing an existing survey to ensure your needs are being met.

·         Preparation of an odour management plan and incorporating a survey into an existing plan.

·         Conduct community odour survey and odour source testing to identify compounds that may be quantitatively identified during the survey using portable monitors.