Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									                                       DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                      INFORMATION SUMMARY

                      Air Quality
                   Impact Assessment

               Information Summary

         Open House Module III
      Englehart – September 11, 2001
 Kirkland Lake – September 12 & 13, 2001

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                     -1-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                                   DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                                  INFORMATION SUMMARY

1.0    BACKGROUND                                                                    3

2.0    DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AIR QUALITY                                           3

2.1    Existing Air Pollution Climatology and Meteorology                            3
  2.1.1     General Climatic Setting                                                 3
  2.1.2     Parameters Relevant to Dispersion Modelling                              3
  2.1.3     Meteorological Data Sources                                              4
  2.1.4     Dispersion Climatology for the Study Area                                4

2.2    Existing Ambient Quality                                                      4
  2.2.1     Airshed Description                                                      4
  2.2.2     Relevant Air Quality Parameters                                          5
  2.2.3     Background Air Quality                                                   5

2.3    Existing Air Emissions                                                        6
  2.3.1     Point Sources                                                            6
  2.3.2     Area and Mobile Sources                                                  6
  2.3.3     Potential Future Emission Sources                                        6

3.0    DESCRIPTION OF THE POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY EFFECTS                              6

3.1    Air emissions for normal operating conditions and upset conditions            6

3.2    Maximum ground level concentrations from expected air emissions               8

3.3    Deposition of Air Pollutants                                                  9

3.4    Maximum ground level concentrations from upset air emissions                  9

3.5    Nuisance effects from dust and odour                                         10
  3.5.1    Construction                                                             10
  3.5.2    Operation                                                                10
  3.5.3    Assessment of Odour Potential                                            10

3.6    Summary of Assessment of Effects                                             11

4.0    IMPACT MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES                                    11

4.1    Construction                                                                 11

4.2    Operation                                                                    11
  4.2.1    Fugitive Dust                                                            11
  4.2.2    Process Emissions                                                        11
  4.2.3    Monitoring                                                               12

REFERENCES                                                                          13

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                 -2-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                                 DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                                INFORMATION SUMMARY

1.0 Background
As part of the Environmental Assessment, Envirometrex Corporation has been retained to
conduct the assessment of potential impacts on the air quality within a 50-km radius of
the proposed site.

The specific objectives for this study are to:

       Describe the Existing Environment
       Describe the Potential Environmental Effects
       Describe Proposed Mitigation Measures

The Terms of Reference document, required during the Environmental Assessment
process, describes in detail what issues must be addressed. The above headings are the
same as those used in the Terms of Reference, which was approved by the Ministry of the

2.0 Description of Existing Air Quality
2.1    Existing Air Pollution Climatology and Meteorology
2.1.1 General Climatic Setting

Regional climatic data obtained from Environment Canada is based on Timmins, Earlton,
and Kirkland Lake airport observations over a 30-year period. Five types of air masses
influence the weather of the region: arctic continental, polar continental, polar maritime,
tropical continental and tropical maritime.

The 30-year temperature normals identify the average annual temperatures to be 1 to 2 C
(Environment Canada, 1993). The mean daily temperatures fall below freezing from
November through March and reach their highest levels of 15 to 18C during July and
August. The region has four distinct seasons with warm summers and cold winters.

The precipitation normals indicate annual precipitation varies from 812 to 876 mm over
the region, of which about 45% falls as frozen precipitation or snow. Precipitation days
vary from 145 days at Kirkland Lake to 182 days at Timmins. The highest monthly
precipitation occurs during the summer months and the least amount during the winter

2.1.2 Parameters Relevant to Dispersion Modelling

Meteorological conditions play an important role in the dispersion of airborne material.
The main factors, which influence the rate of transport and dispersion of dust particles
and gases, are wind speed and direction, the thermal stability of the atmosphere, and
precipitation levels.

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                         -3-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                               DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                              INFORMATION SUMMARY
Wind speed determines the rate of transport and dispersion of any emissions released into
the atmosphere. Wind direction determines the direction of transport of these emissions.
The thermal stability of the atmosphere determines its vertical motion and thus the ability
of the atmosphere to disperse emissions. Precipitation moistens the soil, thereby reducing
the potential for the generation of dust emissions and removes emissions from the

2.1.3 Meteorological Data Sources

The meteorological conditions, at the proposed site were estimated using historical data
from the Timmins Airport meteorological station, the nearest meteorological station to
the proposed site with sufficient data for the air dispersion modelling. Kirkland Lake
airport has only sporadic wind observations each day and Earlton Airport has only 12
hourly wind measurements a day. Dispersion modelling requires continuous hourly wind

Thus, data from Timmins Airport, located approximately 100 kilometres to the northwest
of the proposed site were used for dispersion modelling. The five-year period 1987-1991
was used primarily because the data quality is superior prior to about 1993.

2.1.4 Dispersion Climatology for the Study Area

The most frequent wind directions at Timmins Airport are from the south (about 10%),
south-southwest (about 9%), and northwest (about 8 %). The mean wind speed is 13
km/hr (3.6 m/sec). A comparison of wind directions was made between Timmins and
Earlton data from the 1970s when Earlton had a continuous observation schedule of 24
hours. The Earlton wind has a very pronounced bi-directional distribution pattern with
NW and SE winds happening frequently. This pattern is not observed at Timmins either
in the 1970s data or the 1987-1991 data. Examination of the topography of the Earlton
area indicates that the location is in a shallow valley oriented NW-SE. The proposed
Kirkland Lake site is not located in a valley and neither is the Timmins weather station
located at the airport. Consequently Timmins wind data were chosen over Earlton even
though the latter location is closer to Kirkland Lake.

2.2    Existing Ambient Quality
2.2.1 Airshed Description

The immediate airshed encompassing Kirkland Lake extends out to about 4 to 5km.
Within this airshed, local sources can have major influences on ambient air monitors on a
short-term basis. This occurs when the monitor is downwind of the local source. Within
the immediate airshed, the sources that have been identified are provided. The prevailing
winds are southwesterly and northwesterly.

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                      -4-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                                DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                               INFORMATION SUMMARY
2.2.2 Relevant Air Quality Parameters

The air quality parameters used to describe the ambient background existing in Kirkland
Lake are the short list of compounds identified in the list for the risk assessment of health
and ecological effects.

2.2.3 Background Air Quality

As part of the environmental assessment, a two-week air monitoring screening program
was run in October 2000, in Kirkland Lake, since there were no existing data for
Kirkland Lake (Envirometrex, October 2001). The main objective of the screening
program was to identify any unusual levels in air pollutant concentrations in the area. In
addition, a review of air quality data was undertaken to supplement the monitoring
program. The combined purpose of the monitoring program and review was to develop
an estimate of baseline ambient air quality for the Kirkland Lake area. The monitored
target substance groups include:

      Dioxins and furans,
      Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
      Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
      Metals,
      Particulate Matter,
      Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (SO2 and NO2), and
      Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Mercury and pesticides, also target substances, were not monitored during the fall
program. Pesticides were not monitored since the growing season was past and the
inherent difficulties in mercury monitoring precluded it from a screening program.
Information on both pesticide and mercury levels were obtained from existing
government monitoring programs.

Four sampling locations were chosen in the local airshed. The Bennett site is located off
Archer Drive on the proposed site property. The Archer site is located adjacent to the
intersection of Archer Drive and highway 66, and is approximately 0.8 kilometres WNW
from the proposed Bennett site. The Coholic site is located 100 metres east of the south
end of Industrial Drive and is approximately 1.8 kilometres ENE from the Bennett site.
The Linton site is located on private residential property, adjoining Highway 112,
approximately five kilometres south of the proposed site.

Monitored levels were compared with concentrations in other locations and background
levels estimated for the Kirkland Lake area. The results of the monitoring program are
compared with Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) and estimated background

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                        -5-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                               DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                              INFORMATION SUMMARY

2.3    Existing Air Emissions
2.3.1 Point Sources

Information was obtained from Northland Power Inc. on airborne emissions released
from their Kirkland Lake Generating Station. The facility produces power with
wood/bark and natural gas fuels. The emissions are released to the atmosphere from a
100-ft stack.

No information, to this date, has been obtained for Trans-Cycle Industries in Kirkland
Lake or Grant Waferboard located south of Kirkland Lake in Englehart, which is in the
50-km modelling domain. A request has been made to the Ministry of Environment for
information on these two sources The Grant Waferboard processes include wood
combustion and drying of wood chips to produce oriented strand board. Outside of the
modeling domain and not considered in this assessment are a variety of large emission
point sources in the Timmins area and Rouyn-Noranda and a pulp and paper mill in
Iroquois Falls. The nearest incinerator to Kirkland Lake appears to be a hospital unit in
New Liskeard.

2.3.2 Area and Mobile Sources

Area and mobile sources contribute a number of hazardous compounds that are in
common with the emissions of the proposed facility. These compounds include dioxins
and furans, benzo (a) pyrene, benzene, and all sizes of particulate matter (TSP, PM10,
PM2.5), among others. In some cases, the emissions of toxic contaminants from these
sources can be fairly large such as the burning of household garbage in barrels. This
practice contributes a substantial amount of dioxins and furans because of the poor
combustion conditions. In general, the screening monitoring program results, from the
fall of 2000 did not indicate any large levels of compounds from area sources except for
some high contributions of PM2.5 from wood smoke when a monitor was close to a wood
burning residential furnace and TSP from truck traffic on Archer Drive.

2.3.3 Potential Future Emission Sources

On April 4, 2001, Trans-Cycle Industries applied for an amendment to their existing
Certificate of Approval to include a continuous thermal desorption technology. The
continuous thermal desorption unit (CTDU) system decontaminates chlorinated and non-
chlorinated organic contaminated soils, sludge and debris.

3.0 Description of the Potential Air Quality Effects
3.1    Air emissions for normal operating conditions and upset
The resultant emissions from the thermal oxidation of contaminated soils and emissions
controls were estimated based on the following:

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                      -6-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                                 DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                                INFORMATION SUMMARY

      Expected levels of contaminants in the feedstock;
      Destruction and removal efficiencies for these substances;
      Emission guidelines (where applicable);
      Air pollution control device collection efficiencies;
      Data from the source tests at Bennett Environmental’s facility Récupère Sol Inc.

The facility is designed to meet emission guidelines and standards both federally
(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 1992; Canada Wide Standards, 2000)
and provincially (Ontario A7 guidelines for new municipal incinerators MOEE, 1995),
which are summarized below in Table 1. Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC)
will also be met.

                    Table 1. Specified Emission Concentration Limits
                                     Emission Concentration       Emission
                                         Limit (mg/Rm3)           Guideline
         Particulate matter                     17                   A7
         Carbon monoxide                            57                     CCME
         Nitrogen oxides                           207                      A-7
         Sulphur dioxide                            56                      A7
         Hydrogen chloride                          27                      A7
         Cadmium                                  0.014                     A7
         Lead                                     0.142                     A7
         Mercury                                   0.05                    CWS
         Dioxins & Furans
                                              0.08 ng/Rm3                  CWS

The CCME Guidelines for hazardous waste incineration also provide criteria for
destruction and removal efficiencies (DRE). The minimum DRE for specified
chlorinated hazardous constituents such as PCBs and dioxins and furans is 99.9999% and
the minimum DRE for non-chlorinated constituents is 99.99%.

Comparison of potential hydrogen chloride emissions generated by the chlorine content
of the feed with the Ontario A7 guidelines indicated that the efficiency of the dry
scrubber was near capacity. Because of the nearness to the emission limit, the addition of
a wet scrubber is being recommended for enhanced removal of HCl has been included
into the design of the treatment facility. This scrubber would be used for processing
feedstocks with higher levels of chlorine.

Emission rates were determined for air pollutants whose emission rates would increase
during upset conditions. These include the acid gases, particulate matter, and metals. All
organic matter will still undergo destruction in the afterburner and emission rates will not

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                        -7-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                              DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                             INFORMATION SUMMARY

3.2    Maximum ground level concentrations from expected air
Ground level concentrations are estimated for various averaging times. The shortest term
average is ½-hr and the longest duration is an annual level. In all cases, the estimated
levels are compared with Ontario ambient air standards and criteria.

The results of dispersion modeling with AERMOD (American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model) for periods of ½-hr are
compared with point of impingement (POI) standards. Each source (process, vent, and
fugitive) was modeled individually and the maximum ground level concentration (GLC)
was obtained by summing the individual maximum ground level concentrations. This
provides a very conservative estimate of the facility maximum GLC since the individual
source maximums occur at different locations and under different atmospheric
conditions. The location of the maximum concentration from the fugitive sources is
located in the northwest corner of the property, the maximum level from the process is
about 200 metres to the south and 100 metres west of the property, and the vent stack
maximum level near the southwest corner of the property.

During the modeling work, it became apparent that the fugitive dust sources were
providing estimates that exceeded the TSP point of impingement standard. The two main
sources of the exceedances were dust generated by trucks on the facility roads and the
second was with the open storage piles of treated soil and loading of trucks. The
predicted maximum ½-hr average concentration of TSP was 274 g/m3 compared with
the standard of 100 g/m3 using dispersion modelling, it was found that the TSP levels
could be reduced substantially by extending the soil shelter building over the entire
facility. In this case, the maximum concentration was reduced to 83 g/m3, which meets
the standard of 100 g/m3. All emitted substances are in compliance with Ontario
standards. The following table provides a few examples of the estimated concentrations
compared with their standards.

Table 2. Example Comparison of Estimated Concentrations from the Facility with POI

         Pollutant                 Estimated ½-hr             POI Standard (g/m3)
                                Concentration (g/m3)
Total Suspended Particulate              83                             100
Hydrogen Chloride                         4.1                           100
Mercury                                  0.035                            5
PCBs                                     0.016                          0.45
Dioxins and Furans (fg/m3,                 12                          15000

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                   -8-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                               DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                              INFORMATION SUMMARY
Twenty-four hour average maximum concentrations were estimated for the substances
targeted for health risk assessments. All estimated concentrations are below their
respective Ontario ambient air quality criteria (AAQC). A comparison of estimated
concentrations with 24-hr ambient air quality criteria is provided in Table 3 for the same
substances as in Table 2.

Table 3. Example Comparison of Estimated Concentrations from the Facility with 24-hr
Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC)

      Pollutant         Maximum Estimated            24-hr AAQC             Estimated
                        24-hr Concentration            (g/m3)               Existing
                              (g/m3)                                      Background
                                                                          Levels (g/m3)
Total Suspended
                                  13                      120                    25
Particulate Matter
Hydrogen Chloride                 1.9                      20                  N.A.
Mercury                          0.016                      2                  0.001
PCBs                             0.003                    0.15                0.0001
Dioxins and Furans
                                  64                     5000                  17-27
(fg/m3, TEQ)

The annual pollutant concentrations are compared with Ontario annual Ambient Air
Quality Criteria (AAQC). Relatively few of the air pollutants have annual AAQC
established but for those that do, estimated concentrations including background are
significantly below the criteria levels. In all cases, the maximum annual concentrations
are lower than the existing background and in most cases represent a very small fraction
of the existing air pollutant concentrations. No estimated maximums exceed more than
25% of the background. For dioxins and furans, the estimated maximum concentration,
of 1.3 fg/m3, represents at most 7.5% of the background. In the vicinity of Englehart, the
estimated level of 0.01 fg/m3 (TEQ) represents at most 0.06% of the background level i.e.
indistinguishable from background.

3.3    Deposition of Air Pollutants
The dispersion model ISCST3 (Industrial Source Complex Short Term Version 3) was
used to estimate deposition of air pollutants to the surface. Deposition results from
pollutants settling from the atmosphere and being removed by precipitation. Estimated
deposition amounts from the facility’s emissions are evaluated in terms of health and
ecological effects by Cantox Environmental Inc. and ESG Inc.

3.4    Maximum ground level concentrations from upset air
The bypass stack will vent emissions from the process to the atmosphere in cases where
there is a power interruption. The bypass stack was modeled to yield an estimated
maximum. However, the process gasses will be released through the bypass stack for

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                      -9-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                                DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                               INFORMATION SUMMARY
only a period of 1 minute. In order to compare the estimated ground level concentration
from the short emission release with the POI standard requires that the 1-minute
concentration be averaged over ½-hr. A conversion relationship was used to relate the 1-
hr model estimates, the ½-hr POI standard, and the release of 1-minute duration. (Should
be incremental, opening of emergency vent and stack)

All concentrations of organic matter will meet their respective point of impingement
standards since the afterburner still functions in an upset and the downwind concentration
of any substance emitted for one minute is less than the corresponding concentration
from normal operations of the process stack (i.e. the unit maximum ground concentration
per unit rate of emission is 2 g/m3 for the bypass stack compared with 8.5 g/m3 for the
process stack).

3.5    Nuisance effects from dust and odour
3.5.1 Construction

Construction dust sources include building of facility structures and roads. Emissions
result from individual construction operations such as scraping, grading, loading, digging,
compacting, vehicle travel, and other operations. Surface watering, windscreens,
carryout reduction, and enclosures can control dust emissions. Pollutants involved with
construction are primarily coarse particles or dust, which may be represented by total
suspended particulate matter (TSP), which includes the coarse particle fraction (between
10 and 44 microns in diameter) normally generated by construction activities. At this
stage there is little information available about the actual time, length and specific
construction methods that will be used.

3.5.2 Operation

Dust nuisance results from the deposition or restriction of visibility by large dust
particles. The estimated concentrations and deposition of dust particles (total suspended
particulate matter) meet all standards, which indicate that there will be no dust nuisance
from the facility. The ambient monitoring of road dust from Archer Drive, which is a
gravel road, indicated that truck traffic is causing a dust nuisance adjacent to the road.
The levels of dust from this road will increase with the operation of the treatment facility
and the development of other facilities in the industrial park.

3.5.3 Assessment of Odour Potential

Most of the compounds emitted have no or high odour detection levels. The Ontario
government has established 10-minute average air quality criteria for odorous substances.
The only substance with an odour Ambient Air Quality Criterion (AAQC) that matches a
substance in the potential emission profile of the facility is naphthalene (found in
mothballs). The 10-minute AAQC for naphthalene is 50 mg/m3 compared with the
estimated 10-min average concentration of 5.7 mg/m3 which indicates that no odour will
be perceived.

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                       -10-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                                DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                               INFORMATION SUMMARY

3.6     Summary of Assessment of Effects
The primary means of assessing effects is to compare predicted ground level
concentrations with ambient air standards. Cantox Environmental Inc (2001) and ESG
International Ltd. (2001) assessed the effects of deposition on human health and
ecological systems.

As indicated, there is little or no information on which to base any estimate of
construction impacts. An ambient monitoring program for dust can be carried out to
verify compliance with particulate standards and criteria. Construction is a short-term
activity and most dust issues occur during excavation that is for even a shorter period of
time. Any dust impacts are expected in the immediate vicinity of the construction area.

The predicted ½-hr, 24-hr, and annual average concentrations have been compared with
Ontario and federal standards and criteria. In no case do the estimated concentrations
exceed their respective standard. In the original concept of the facility, the treated soils
area was outdoors and this led to estimates of total suspended particulate matter above the
Ontario standard. During the course of the assessment the design was changed to enclose
the treated soils area, which brought the particulate matter levels into compliance with the
Ontario standard

4.0 Impact Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
4.1     Construction
Dust monitoring during the construction phase would limit the extent of any impacts.

4.2     Operation
4.2.1 Fugitive Dust

The treated soil area has been enclosed to prevent fugitive emissions. During dry periods
and windy conditions the potential existed for substantial losses of soil particles off the
property. To maintain dust levels from truck traffic at acceptable levels, it is
recommended that Archer Drive be paved. This will prevent the track-in of mud from the
road during wet periods, which would then be emitted to the atmosphere as dust particles
from the facility roads during dry periods. In addition, the paved areas of the facility need
to be cleaned continuously and thoroughly to prevent any un-necessary dust generated by
truck traffic.

4.2.2   Process Emissions

An additional wet scrubber is recommended to the air pollution control system for the
process. The wet scrubber will provide for enhancement removal of hydrogen chloride
when higher levels of chlorine in the feed are being treated at the facility.
Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                       -11-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                               DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                              INFORMATION SUMMARY

4.2.3 Monitoring

Monitoring of the operation of the facility will include both emissions and ambient air.
Instruments are designed either for the measurement of stack emissions or outside air.
Equipment used for measuring stack emissions must be able to handle warmer
temperatures and high moisture levels while outdoor air equipment must be more
sensitive to lower levels of pollutants.

Emissions Monitoring

Emissions monitoring comprises manual stack tests and continuous emission monitoring.
Manual stack tests are conducted by inserting a probe into a stack, extracting a sample,
and analyzing the sample in a laboratory. Continuous emission monitoring is recognized
as a better way of measuring stack emissions when there are instruments available for the
specific contaminant. Both manual stack tests and continuous emission monitoring are
used to track the operation of the facility and verify compliance with air standards.

The continuous emissions monitors in the process stack will consist of sulphur dioxide,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, total
hydrocarbons, oxygen, and temperature. Temperatures will also be monitored in the
primary and secondary combustion chambers. The monitored parameters also serve as
surrogate indicators to assure all targeted air pollutant emissions are meeting standards
For example, maintaining low levels of carbon monoxide ensures high combustion
efficiency. Low total hydrocarbons ensures low Products of Incomplete Combustion
(PICs) emissions including dioxins and furans.

Before regular operations begin, a trial burn would be conducted. During this trial burn, a
comprehensive source-testing program would be carried out for all of the targeted
substances. With acceptable results indicating compliance with the standards, the
treatment facility would begin regular operations. During the operational period of the
facility, the source-testing program would be conducted on an annual basis.

Ambient Air Monitoring

 Ambient air (air quality) monitoring would be conducted in two phases. In the first or
pre-operational phase, a permanent air monitoring location would be selected in Kirkland
Lake or Chaput Hughes. This monitoring program would be carried out for 1 week in
each season. The monitoring program would consist of the same air pollutants included in
the air monitoring screening program with the addition of pesticides.

Upon operation of the facility, the monitoring would be conducted on a regular basis (i.e.
annual or seasonal) and the frequency would be determined with discussions with the
Ministry of Environment and the Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Envirometrex is also
recommending the use of a continuous PM2.5 monitor as since many of the air pollutants

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                     -12-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001
                                                 DRAFT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
                                                                INFORMATION SUMMARY
such as dioxins and furan, PCBs, and metals have a strong association with fine
particulate matter.

CCME, 2000. Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions. Endorsed by Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment June 5-6, 2000, Quebec City.

CCME, 2000. Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans. Endorsed by Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment June 5-6, 2000, Quebec City.

CCME, 1992. National Guidelines for Hazardous Waste Incineration Facilities. Design and
Operating Criteria. March 1992

Cantox Environmental Inc., 2001. Human Health Risk Assessment for Bennett Environmental Inc.
Proposed Thermal Treatment Facility, Kirkland Lake, Ontario. Prepared for Bennett
Environmental Inc.

Envirometrex Corporation, 2001. Ambient Air Monitoring at Kirkland Lake. Prepared for Bennett
Environmental Inc.

ESG, 2001. Ecological Risk Assessment for Bennett Environment Inc. Propose Thermal
Treatment Facility, Kirkland, Ontario. Prepared for Bennett Environmental Inc.

MOEE, 1995. Guideline A-7: Combustion and Air Pollution Requirements for New Municipal
Waste Incinerators. PIBS 1746e, December 1995.

Open House Module III    Englehart – Sept 11, 2001                                        -13-
                    Kirkland Lake – Sept 12 & 13, 2001

To top