Joint Review Panel - iaac-aeic.gc.ca

Joint Review Panel Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites

Remediation Project www.stpco-review.ca

P.O. Box 431, 582 George Street, Sydney, NS B1P 6G9 phone 902-577-5357 fax 902-564-3378

February 16, 2006 Mr. Frank Potter A/CEO, Sydney Tar Ponds Agency PO Box 1028, Stn. A Sydney, NS B1P 6J7 Dear Mr. Potter, RE: Public Comment on the EIS (PC-44) Please find attached a public comment on the Environmental Impact Statement. The Joint Panel feels it is appropriate for the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency to provide a response. You are asked to respond directly to the Panel in this matter. Please be advised that the comment has been placed on the Public Registry, as will your response. Regards,

Lesley Griffiths Joint Panel Chair

The Adequacy of the Remediation of Sydney Tar Ponds and

Coke Ovens Sites Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

An Environment Canada Perspective

February 15, 2006

The Adequacy of the Remediation of STP and Coke Ovens Sites EIS: An Environment Canada Perspective – February 15, 2006

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 6 3.0 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Description of the Environment ..................................................................... 6 3.2 Biophysical Effects Assessment ................................................................... 6 3.3 Air Dispersion Modeling of Proposed Incinerator .................................... 8 3.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment .................................................................... 8 3.5 Compliance Monitoring and Follow-up Programs .................................... 9

4.0 WATER .................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Wastewater......................................................................................................... 10

4.2.1 Mitigation..................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Marine Contamination..................................................................................... 14

4.4.1 Compliance and Effects Monitoring .................................................... 16 5.0 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (S/S)......................................................... 16

5.1 Malfunctions ...................................................................................................... 17 6.0 LANDFARMING ..................................................................................................... 17 7.0 CAPPING................................................................................................................. 18

7.1 Malfunctions ...................................................................................................... 19 7.2 Compliance and Effects Monitoring............................................................ 19

8.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (ERA) .................................................... 20 9.0 COMPLIANCE AND EFFECTS MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP FRAMEWORK................................................................................................................ 21 10.0 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS .............................................................. 22

10.1 Incineration ...................................................................................................... 23


3

APPENDIX A: Additional Comments ...................................................................... 25

Air Issues ................................................................................................................... 25 Incineration ................................................................................................................ 28 Surface Water............................................................................................................ 29 Groundwater.............................................................................................................. 30 Wetlands..................................................................................................................... 30 Project Modifications .............................................................................................. 30 Physiography/Geology ........................................................................................... 30 Sediments .................................................................................................................. 30 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 31 Ecological Risk Assessment ................................................................................ 31 Contaminant Modelling of Sydney Harbour ..................................................... 34 Environmental Compliance Monitoring ............................................................. 34 Regulatory Compliance .......................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX B: Environment Canada Mandate ...................................................... 37

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 ................................................ 38 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 Regulations ........................ 40 Guidelines and Standards ..................................................................................... 41


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sydney Tar Ponds Agency has submitted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that generally addresses, to varying degrees of completeness, the factors set out in the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project (the Guidelines). In general, the reviewers indicated that more information is required in the report regarding the description of remediation processes and technologies, the design of temporary and permanent structures as well as pollution control equipment and measures. It is understood that the proponent must use some discretion in providing the appropriate level of detail and analysis as the detailed design is not complete; however, the EIS and supporting technical documents should be sufficiently thorough to allow the evaluation of the Project's potential environmental effects. It has also been noted that insufficient data have been presented regarding alternative means of carrying out the Project. The alternative means of the Project were not fully assessed within the EIS report, which makes it difficult to determine and evaluate potential environmental impacts from those alternative means. The Environmental Impact Statement contains several inconsistencies which produce confusion and uncertainty with regard to the accuracy of the environmental impact predictions (i.e. incinerator feed rates of 6.0 tonnes/hr, 10 tonnes/hr and 15 tonnes/hr; the resulting state of the North Pond following capping - salt marsh, marine or terrestrial environment). There are also some minor errors such as missing Figures, incorrect units in Tables, missing parameters in Tables, mislabelled Tables, miscalculations and missing references. While these are minor issues, they affect the quality of the report and should be corrected where possible. Environment Canada previously provided the panel with an Information Request (IR) during the public review period. EC sent the IR, dated January 24, 2006, to the Joint Review Panel requesting information regarding air modeling data as well as identifying some discrepancies and possible miscalculations. In terms of Environment Canada’s mandate, several specific issues require further attention to facilitate a better understanding of the Project and potential effects on environmental quality. It is possible that much of this information exists in previous studies or as a result of analysis associated with the development of cost estimates. To the extent practicable, information which addresses the identified deficiencies should be provided in advance of the public hearings.


5

1.0 INTRODUCTION Environment Canada (EC) has reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the supporting technical studies for the proposed Remediation of Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Project. At this time, EC is participating in the panel review as a Responsible Authority in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Establishment of a Joint Review Process for the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project. This responsibility stems from the potential need for disposal at sea permits and authorizations identified in the Federal Mobile PCB Treatment and Destruction Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. While all submitted assessment documentation has been reviewed, the EC review focussed on issues for which the department has authority (EC Mandate - Appendix B). These issues generally relate to the management of air emissions, wastewater, hazardous wastes, and ecological risk in terms of the potential effects on environmental quality and wildlife. A listing of Regulations pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999) is found in Appendix B. Regional and Headquarters staff with pertinent expertise provided input which has been consolidated to form a comprehensive departmental perspective on the adequacy of the EIS. Adequacy of the EIS has been evaluated in accordance with the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project (the Guidelines) released by the Panel on August 30, 2005. Environment Canada’s comments are grouped by subject area with reference made to the Guidelines in parenthesis after each recommendation, wherever possible. The significant deficiencies and information requests are present in the main portion of the document, whereas other comments, inconsistencies and issues requiring clarification are outlined in Appendix A. Section numbers refer to Volume 1 unless otherwise specified.


6

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Section 7 of the EIS Guidelines clearly indicates that the Proponent shall provide specific and sufficient detail to clarify the nature of the Project and identify its potential effects. However, detail appears to be missing on a number of key Project elements, making it difficult to assess potential effects from these activities. (More detailed information regarding specific project elements is present throughout this response.) In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide more detailed information on the range of remedial options, technologies, and structures that are being considered for this Project. Many of our requests are captured by specific comments in the following sections. It is recognized that the Project design is not yet finalized. However enough information about the potential technologies should be provided to assess the proposals for the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects. (7 )

3.0 AIR QUALITY 3.1 Description of the Environment Section 9.7 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to characterize air quality based on national, provincial, or other relevant air quality standards and objectives. In order to do this, the actual data must be presented on the same basis as the standards and guidelines. In Section 5.4 of the EIS, the proponent presents many of the air quality objectives as 1 hour, or 24 hour standards (Table 5.4-4), yet monitoring results (Section 5.4.3.2) are all presented as annual averages, making comparisons by the reader of the document difficult. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent: • provide monitoring results with averaging times that match the

standards and objectives that they are being compared to (9.7).

3.2 Biophysical Effects Assessment Section 10.4 of the EIS guidelines requires the proponent to quantify the fate, transport and effects on air quality during construction and operations. This requires an accurate set of estimated emissions. There appear to be discrepancies with respect to the emission rates and related information to develop emission rates for the incinerator throughout the document. For example, the documents present feed rates of 10 tonnes/hour (volume 1- P. 2-43), 15 tonnes/hour (volume 2- P. 8), 6 tonnes/hour (volume 4- table 2.2);


7

different emission rates for some pollutants (volume 2- pp. 9,10,11 and table 4.1 and Volume 4- table 2.2); and different assumptions for allowable dioxin and furan releases (.5 ng/m3 – Vol. 2, P. 9, 0.08 ng/m3 – Vol. 4, P. 2-3). The calculation of the individual dioxin and furan distributions in Volume 4, Table 2.2 uses incorrect information from the US EPA reference that it is based on. The fraction appears to be based on straight mass calculations rather than TEQ mass. (This information was previously brought to the panel’s attention in EC’s Information Request dated Jan 24, 2006.) It is unclear how the stack gas flow rate of 17.4 m3/s in table 2.2 (volume 4) was determined. While the document proposes a number of possible incineration options (Vol. 2, Section 3), only one, the rotary kiln (Vol. 2, P. 8) has been considered quantitatively, and even this work has been done without the addition of air pollution control equipment (Vol. 2, P. 9). This is fundamental information that is a basis for a great deal of further analysis in the document. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• clarify and reference the expected feed rates, gas flow rate and corresponding emission rates which are used in the modelling and note any uncertainties (10.4).

• demonstrate that the emission rates used for the modelling cover the

range which might be expected from any of the potential technologies. (10.4).

The Guidelines state that a description of best available technologies and a description of measures that will be taken to control emissions are to be provided. While numerous areas of the document refer to “pollution control equipment” very little detail is given on the potential options that may be considered. A key criterion for the evaluation of Project options is that they be “proven technology.” Given this criterion, it is important that the EIS demonstrate that technologies, even if the final design for this Project has not yet been finalized, are capable of meeting all required standards. In Table 2.2, Volume 4, a mercury emission rate of 1.90 X 10 -5 ug/Rm3 is used instead of the Canada Wide Standard, 50 ug/Rm3.

In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide additional detail on the air pollution control equipment which might be used (for both the incinerator, and other remediation technologies). This level of detail should include descriptions and references from the literature of the emissions controls which have been achieved by potential control technologies (11.5).


8

• provide rationale for using a mercury emission rate of 1.90 X 10 -5 ug/Rm3 instead of the Canada Wide Standard. The Proponent should ensure that there is a technology capable of meeting this mercury standard.

3.3 Air Dispersion Modeling of Proposed Incinerator Section 10.4 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe and quantify the fate, transport and effects on air quality. In Volume 2, air dispersion modeling has been done prior to final determination of incinerator type, feed stock characteristics, feed rates, operational protocols and emission control technologies. These factors determine emission rates. It is unclear how emission rates were derived. When using dispersion models, it is important that the Proponent presents adequate information concerning the model application such that readers have a clear understanding of the limitation of the modeling approach being applied. It should be made clear that model simulations can only be considered as qualitative and not necessarily representative of complex behaviour found under environmental conditions. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide a more thorough presentation of general and specific model assumptions, uncertainties and limitations. Provide an explanation of how the modeling addresses meteorological scenarios where conditions would likely lead to elevated near surface pollutant levels (worst case scenarios) (10.4).

3.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment Section 12 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to demonstrate cumulative effects from the Project in combination with other activities (and for air issues, their corresponding emissions) in the area. While other emissions sources in the area are noted in Section 11.5.1 of the EIS, no quantitative information on the emissions from these sources is provided. As dispersion modelling has predicted that some exceedances due to Project activities will take place (Vol. 1- P. 6-13, Vol. 2 - P. 25, Vol. 4 – Sec. 7-6) it is important to identify if more exceedances will be likely when other emissions sources are taken into account.

In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide more detail on the potential for cumulative effects for those pollutants where modeling of Project activities show exceedances or


9

near exceedances. Where possible, this should be a quantitative description (12).

3.5 Compliance Monitoring and Follow-up Programs Section 16 of the Guidelines indicates the Proponent shall provide a framework upon which compliance and effects monitoring will be based. This program must include determining the effectiveness of mitigation measures and any contingency plans for addressing potential exceedances. The document is vague on how the various types of air monitoring will be used to help ensure Project emissions remain below regulatory criteria. It is also unclear what parameters will be monitored continuously. The document does not describe how monitoring information will be used in relation to the public response plan if there is an exceedance of air quality criteria. In many cases, the document states that detail on monitoring and contingency plans will be provided in an Environmental Management Plan to be developed in the future. It is unclear when this plan will be provided and who will have an opportunity to review and comment on it. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide a clear description of the air monitoring program that will be used for both the incinerator and the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens site. This description should include a framework for the continuous emissions monitoring and periodic stack testing for the incinerator, and real-time and filter-based monitoring for areas surrounding the incinerator site as well as the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens sites (16).

• provide information on the EMP and its review process. The

monitoring program should allow any potential exceedances to be addressed in a timely manner to prevent or minimize any potential harm (16).

The ambient air criteria developed as part of the contract for the “Development of Interim Separation Zones, Former Coke Ovens Site Sydney, Nova Scotia, 2000, AGRA Earth & Environmental” are not discussed or referenced in the EIS. These criteria were developed in response to community concerns associated with surface remediation activities at the Coke Ovens site. These criteria took into account existing background concentrations of the chemicals of concern as well as the contribution of the additional contaminants resulting from project activities. These criteria were endorsed by provincial and federal departments of health and environment for cleanup activities. In addition, they were accepted by the parties of the cost share agreement as acceptable ambient air criteria for the stated purpose. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:


10

• provide some discussion on the continued applicability (or not) of

the ambient air criteria developed through the “Development of Interim Separation Zones” report.

Additional air quality comments can be found in Appendix A. 4.0 WATER 4.1 Water Quality Section 7.2.2 of the Guidelines states the Proponent shall describe permanent or temporary structures that will be constructed. Throughout the EIS, many methods are proposed to control ground and surface waters. More detailed information should be provided on all these methods. Without additional information, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the proposed surface/ground water control methods. As well, the sequence of events is not described in sufficient detail to allow for an understanding of the potential impacts. Section 6.8 of the EIS indicates that the release of contaminants to Sydney Harbour will be reduced by construction of a cofferdam, however it is not clear from the description whether containment will be complete since there is no description of an abiteau structure with the cofferdam and the mechanism of contaminant retention is therefore not understood. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide details regarding the design and/or installation of sheet piles, portable dams, all proposed liners whether geotextile geomembrane, geosynthetic or others, vertical barrier walls, diversion and/or interception trenches; containment curtains and materials to be used in cap/dams (clay, fill, etc..) (7.2.2).

• provide estimates of the amount of containment of contaminants

during the construction phase provided by the cofferdam, with and without flow restriction at the mouth of Muggah Creek (10.8).

4.2 Wastewater Section 7.2.2 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe the permanent and temporary structures that will be constructed, including wastewater management facilities.


11

Sections 2.2.1, 2.3.1,2.4.3 and 6.4.5 do not clearly describe the wastewater management facilities. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide an assessment of treatability of all the potential effluents.

• provide a clear description of technology(s) to be used to treat wastewater to level meeting regulatory requirements (7.2.2).

• provide design parameters and schematic for all water treatment

facilities (7.2.2). Section 7.1.4 of the Guidelines requires the proponent to identify alternative water control and treatment and alternative water treatment facility locations. Section 2.13.2 of the EIS does not describe any different wastewater treatment schemes. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• describe other schemes that may be technically and economically feasible to achieve acceptable effluent quality (7.1.4).

• provide an analysis supporting the selection of the preferred option.

4.2.1 Mitigation Section 11.7 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to provide a description of all mitigation measures that will be used to reduce effects to surface water resources. Sections 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.3 and 6.4.5 of the EIS do not provide a clear description of the technology(s) to be used to treat the wastewater. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide a clear description of technology(s) to be used to treat wastewater to levels meeting regulatory requirements (11.7).

• provide information regarding the need for disinfection of the treated

wastewater prior to release (11.7).


12

• provide a clear description of the fate of waste sludges from the water treatment systems.

4.3 Groundwater Section 9.9.2 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to provide a description of the regional and local hydrogeology of the Project area. Currently there is virtually no discussion on the overall nature of current groundwater contamination. Discussion should provide general comments on whether individual groundwater plumes can be identified/delineated, their general shape, and vertical extent. The available temporal data on various COC plumes should be summarized and the plume stability status should be discussed, including their expected evolution. Also, any contamination that has been detected (or sampled for) below the shallow bedrock should be highlighted (transport mechanisms may be expected to differ based on the rock characteristics). Section 5.6.1 of the EIS provides summary information: however, the nature and extent of the underlying data and investigations is unclear. It was often difficult to assess whether particular aspects of the hydrogeology have been adequately investigated to properly evaluate Project impacts. The use of numerical groundwater models is mentioned in several sections of the EIS (e.g. 5.6.2 & 6.3.2.4) but no discussion is provided. This discussion should provide summary details, such as: areas covered by the model(s) domain and the lateral and vertical extent to which they are deemed to provide a reasonable representation; limitations of the model; assumptions used to develop the models; what hydrogeological aspects were modeled and how were they represented (e.g. steady-state/transient groundwater flow; advective-dispersive or conservative contaminant transport); calibration results and identification of areas with poor agreement with field data; reconciliation of discrepancies between model and measured parameters (e.g. distribution of hydraulic conductivity); how the bedrock was conceptualized in the model (equivalent porous media versus discrete fractures) and justification; etc. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide a brief discussion of the nature and use of numerical groundwater models and their role in interpreting the groundwater and surface water aspects associated with the Project.

• provide a description of the currently available monitoring-well

network, particularly a table (and perhaps location map) summarizing the number of wells by Project area and by hydrogeology units.


13

• provide an expanded discussion of the details related to the contaminant hydrogeology at the various Project sites. Specifically, the discussion should include metal concentrations, and DNAPL mobility and its occurrence (including vertical extent).

• provide more details related to the hydraulic conductivities results.

Specifically, the tables summarizing hydraulic conductivities (e.g. 5.6-1, 5.6-4) should all contain the minimum, maximum, and average hydraulic conductivity by hydrostratigraphic unit (and location) and the number of measurements performed on each unit.

• provide an analysis, interpretation or summary of investigations

regarding the potential for natural attenuation of contaminants in the groundwater in the Project areas. (Natural attenuation is presented as a mechanism for remediation of contaminated groundwater within the site boundaries in Section 2.1.6. However no analysis, interpretation, or summary of investigations is presented in the EIS document.)

Section 10.7 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe any anticipated changes to groundwater quality and quantity. The EIS does not provide enough details with respect to groundwater management and the potential impacts to this resource. This Project will have definite impacts to groundwater levels with the installation of barriers/cut-off walls at the Coke Oven site (Sec 2.3.1.2, page 2-34 and Sec 2.3.1.5, page 2-37) and surface water diversions. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide a map of the Muggah Creek watershed to indicate groundwater flow and surface water drainage post-construction compared to the pre-project flow system.

• discuss and illustrate impacts to groundwater flow as a result of

both the surface water and groundwater diversion activities, identifying any anticipated (significant) changes in flow direction (vertical or horizontal), discharge locations/pattern, discharge volume, etc. The impact of reduced groundwater flow on water levels in the North and South Ponds should be discussed. The expected degree, extent and location of potential groundwater mounding should also be indicated. (10.7).

• evaluate and discuss if any areas within the Project boundaries have

the potential for contaminant remobilization in response to changing geochemical and/or hydrogeological conditions associated with the construction of a particular control measure(s).


14

• indicate to what depth and/or through which HU will each control

measure be constructed. For the proposed groundwater collection measures, to what depth will they influence the groundwater system (e.g. will their influence be limited to shallow groundwater flow or to deeper portions of the flow system).

• indicate how particular control measures/technologies will be

monitored to evaluate their performance (e.g. type of measurements, locations relative to installations, etc.), what the expected performance for each proposed control measure is and how changes in monitored parameters for the control measure will be separated from natural (or seasonal) variability.

• quantify the amount of groundwater that will be captured by the wall

and pumped to the wastewater treatment plant.

4.4 Marine Contamination Section 7.2.3 of the Guidelines require the Proponent to describe all phases of operations of all components of the Project, detail all proposed remedial technologies and their design and describe material handling, treatment, and disposal plans. Control of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and other contaminants of concern (CoCs), sediment movement and potential discharges of water resulting from the sediment excavation in the North Pond are not sufficiently described. Sections 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.1.3 of the EIS do not clearly indicate the fate of the excavated material that will be removed for the proposed watercourse channel construction adjacent to the North Pond. The report states that the material excavated for the watercourse channel adjacent to the South Pond will likely be disposed of “at a designated location” within the South Pond. The fate of the material excavated adjacent to the North Pond is not addressed. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide a more detailed description of how water, contaminants, and sediments will be properly controlled within the North Pond during excavation (7.2.3).

• describe the type of monitoring program which will be implemented

to ensure that water or sediment plume will not create a problem in the harbour during the excavation (16).


15

• provide a detailed description of the fate of the dredged material to be excavated for the watercourse channel adjacent to the North Pond. This description should include whether or not the material will be disposed of in the North Pond, or transported to a designated location within the South Pond (7.2.3).

Section 10.8 and Section 10.9 require the Proponent to describe the effects of the Project on the marine environment as well as the effects on flora and fauna. Discussion of the methodology and results of the modelling of contaminant inputs to Sydney Harbour are provided in Volume 7. In Section 5.2, the importance of contaminant inputs and remediation of Muggah Creek are discussed in more detail. However, sufficient detail is provided neither for the reported increase of five fold in contaminant input during remediation, nor for a decrease by a factor of 10 after remediation. Several important facts have not been included in this discussion. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide detailed calculations for the reported increase of five fold in contaminant input to Sydney Harbour during remediation, and for the decrease by a factor of 10 after remediation.

• discuss the ecological risk associated with much higher

concentrations of contaminants that would be present near the mouth of Muggah Creek as opposed to average concentrations for the whole of South Arm (10.8).

• discuss what would be the ecological risk associated with

multiple guideline exceedances as documented in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.7 (10.8, 10.9).

Section 11.9 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to discuss measures that will be taken to minimize the effects of the Project on the marine environment. The modelling in Volume 7 indicates that contamination of some components of the harbour will be reduced to below current levels within approximately 10 years; however that contaminant reduction timeline is not compared with the natural attenuation of contamination in the harbour. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide comparison of reduction in Sydney Harbour contamination with other alternatives particularly the natural attenuation timeline (11.9).


16

4.4.1 Compliance and Effects Monitoring Section 16 of the Guidelines requires a framework upon which compliance and effects monitoring will be based throughout the life of the proposed Project. The Proponent is required to describe the compliance reporting methods to be used including reporting frequency, methods and format. There are no monitoring programs described for Sydney Harbour and the EIS states that the regulatory agencies will monitor marine habitat and biota (Table 12.1-1). In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide details of the construction and post-construction monitoring of marine habitat and biota in Sydney Harbour (16).

Additional comments regarding water issues can be found in Appendix A. 5.0 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (S/S) Section 7 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to provide specific detail to clarify the nature of the Project. The solidification/stabilization (S/S) of the Sydney Tar Ponds was presented and discussed in the EIS very generally with no specific details provided on the S/S technique to be used. Insufficient information is provided in the Project description to assess whether or not S/S of the contaminated sediments in the Sydney Tar Ponds will achieve the short or long-term objectives: to quantify any environmental effects; to evaluate the ability of the proposed process to meet generally accepted standards and guidelines; and, to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed mitigation techniques. A S/S treatability study reportedly conducted by IT Corporation for Vaughan Engineering Limited under the Technology Demonstration Program is referenced in the EIS (Appendix B, page B-18); however, no details of the study results are provided. Results from a comprehensive S/S treatability study are needed as a minimum to conduct a thorough review. Exothermic reactions can occur with the addition of the binding agents, possibly increasing the volatilization of contaminants. This issue was not raised in the EIS. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:


17

• provide details on the S/S technique including the reagent or reagents to be used, acceptance criteria to be applied, results of any treatability or pilot studies, or mitigation techniques to be used (7).

• conduct modelling and/or studies of volatile emissions utilizing

results from the treatability studies (10).

• provide a statement regarding the possibility of increased volatilization of contaminants due to the addition of binding agents.

5.1 Malfunctions Section 10.11 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe a range of scenarios, including worst-case, and the associated environmental effects of accidents and malfunctions. A failure to effectively stabilize organic contaminants is not listed as a possible malfunctioning in Section 2.10 of the EIS. In addition, from the EIS it is understood that the upper layer will be solidified whereas the bottom layer will remain “fluid”. As such, measures to ensure mechanical integrity should be discussed. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• consider the effects of the malfunction of the solidified/stabilized layer (10.11).

6.0 LANDFARMING Section 7 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to provide specific and sufficient detail to clarify the nature of the Project and to identify its potential effects. The EIS does not supply sufficient information regarding the landfarming operation. In Table 2.3-1, page 2-29, it states “Transportation of excavated contaminated soils to landfarming area.” In the subsequent pages (i.e. page 2-36), it would appear that the soils are being treated in-place and not excavated. Fig 2.3-2 indicates several large areas to be landfarmed and/or capped. It is not clear which area will be landfarmed. There is a potential for large volumes of water to run off the Project area, due to extremely heavy rainfall events, and carry contaminants into the receiving waters. If this occurs during landfarming operations, when vegetation has been removed, the potential for runoff would be increased dramatically. Section 9 of the Guidelines states the Proponent shall provide baseline descriptions of the biological environments. The EIS describes the


18

microorganisms present in Sydney Harbour in Section 5.7.7; however, there is no description of baseline data for the microbiological community present at the Coke Ovens Sites, which will be landfarmed. This information is necessary to effectively bioremediate the surface soil. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide more details regarding the landfarming operation, such as the rate of nutrient application and method of water application. (7).

• clarify whether excavated contaminated soils will be transported to

the landfarming area or treated in-place (7). • clarify whether or not there will be one area dedicated for the actual

landfarming operation (7).

• ensure the water treatment design has the capacity to effectively treat the excess water and associated contaminants from the site runoff.

• provide a description of the microbiological environment present at

the Coke Ovens site (9). 7.0 CAPPING Section 7.2.3 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe all proposed remedial technologies and their design. The design of the surface capping at the Coke Ovens and the Tar Ponds lacks sufficient detail. In addition, throughout the report, it is unclear whether following site remediation the remaining environment of the North Pond will become a salt marsh (Section 2.2.1.5), a marine (Section 13.4) or terrestrial environment (Section 6.8.5.1). This may have implications regarding the potential applicability of the Disposal at Sea Regulations under CEPA, 1999. The source of the soils for the cap does not appear to be identified in the report. Section 11 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe all measures that will be taken to mitigate negative effects of the Project. The EIS does not appear to address the generation of particulate matter, such as dust, from the capping operation. Mitigative strategies should be identified. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide rationale for selecting 0.3 m as the cap thickness at the Coke Ovens site (page 2-38). Identify the source of the soils, describe the


19

density to which the soils will be compacted and the type of soils which will be used in the cap.

• provide rationale for selecting 0.5 to 1.0 m of fill as the initial lift at

the Tar Ponds (page 2-21). Describe to what density the soils will be compacted, what type of soils will be used in the cap, and how impervious it will be.

• clarify the description of the remaining environment of the North

Pond, following site remediation.

• provide a description of any mitigative techniques proposed for minimizing the generation of particulate matter during the construction of the cap (11).

7.1 Malfunctions Section 10.11 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe a range of scenarios, including worst-case, and the associated environmental effects of accidents and malfunctions. The EIS does not address the fact that the long-term physical integrity of a cap can be more difficult in the subaqueous environment. The EIS did not provide sufficient information regarding the potential malfunction of the cap design in the following areas: failure of any ground water interception where there is significant flow in the shallow bedrock areas, groundwater mounding under the cap, nonaqueous phase layer (NAPL) migration and the generation and migration of gas. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• describe how the final design and implementation of the cap will be responsive to problems that may arise.

• state the technical designs that will appropriately consider the

difficulties with the subaqueous environment, groundwater flow through shallow bedrock, including mounding, nonaqueous phase layer (NAPL) migration and the generation and migration of gas under the capping layer.

7.2 Compliance and Effects Monitoring Section 16 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe the compliance and effects monitoring program. The EIS lacks detailed information on the monitoring of the cap. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:


20

• describe the specific means by which the monitoring will be

conducted to ensure the physical integrity of the cap at both the Coke Ovens and Tar Ponds sites (16).

8.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (ERA) Sections 10.8 and 10.9 of the Guidelines require the Proponent to describe the effects of the Project on the marine environment and the effects of the Project on aquatic fauna and habitat. In Volume 6, Section 2.3, Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) were conducted on landfarming of surface soil contamination at the Coke Ovens site and the incinerator operation. Tar Ponds construction and remediation work was not carried forward in the ERA, despite the fact that Table 2.3 indicates potential exposure to freshwater and marine organisms from Tar Ponds Remediation activities (e.g. treating and discharging wastewater, construction of channels, removal of contaminated sediments from channels, dredging/excavation of sediment containing PCB material from North and South Ponds). Although it was considered “unlikely that chronic effects would be evident” from these activities, given the remediation of the Tar Ponds is a major component of the Project, EC believes an ERA should have been conducted on marine receptors. The contaminant modelling indicates that during construction and excavation, mean concentrations of contaminants in some environmental compartments of Sydney Harbour will exceed probable effects levels, where they are known, however the magnitude of environmental impact has not been estimated by risk assessment. According to the methods of contaminant increase calculation, the zone of influence of the Project would appear to be whole of the South Arm. That approach is inconsistent with statements that fish will not spend their entire life cycle within the zone of influence. In addition, the South Arm is a much larger area than the currently highly contaminated Coke Ovens and Tar Ponds sites. The assessment indicates the construction activities will result in contamination of a much larger area (South Arm) above probable effects thresholds which is inconsistent with a containment philosophy. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide an evaluation of ecological risk on marine receptors from the Tar Ponds Project activities. This will provide predictions that could be tested in follow up programs to ensure that the proposed mitigation actions are effective at protecting the marine environment (10.8, 10.9).

Additional comments regarding ecological risk assessment can be found in Appendix A.


21

9.0 COMPLIANCE AND EFFECTS MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP FRAMEWORK Section 16 of the Guidelines requires a framework upon which compliance and effects monitoring will be based throughout the life of the proposed Project. The Proponent is required to describe the compliance reporting methods to be used including reporting frequency, methods and format. In Section 12.0, the “framework” provided in the EIS is composed of the Environmental Effects Monitoring and Environmental Compliance Monitoring Programs. The EIS clearly states that the detail on monitoring and contingency plans will be provided in an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and further, that the EMP will be “the primary vehicle for documenting all regulatory requirements”. The EIS states that the EMP is yet to be developed, and that information gained through the EA review process will be incorporated into the EMP at a future date. It is not stated exactly when this EMP will be developed, and who will be able to participate in the development of it. The EIS does state that the public will be able to review the document before it is finalized. Given that all details pertaining to the monitoring and follow-up programs are largely expected to be in the EMP, it would be very useful to have an understanding of how the EMP will be developed, and its likely content. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide a preliminary draft of the EMP (16). • provide more detail regarding consultations with the public and

Aboriginal peoples during the development of the EMP. • include contingency procedures/plans for addressing exceedances

of environmental protection standards, guidelines or approvals (16). Section 6.5 of the Guidelines clearly indicates that all federal and provincial environmental regulations and laws, as well as applicable policies, guidelines, codes, standards and best management practices that would help avoid or reduce adverse impacts of the Project should be identified. Section 6.6 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe the implications of international agreements that may influence the Project or its environmental effects. While some federal laws and regulations are listed in Table 2.1 of Appendix C, other policy instruments are not. (It is noted, however, that some of these are noted throughout the text). This makes it difficult to assess whether procedures will be in place to determine Regulatory Compliance (Sec. 11.1 of the Guidelines).


22

The report did not properly address the potential implication of the proposed backfill of treated incineration ash into the North Pond. The treated ash from the incinerator may be considered as “industrial waste” under CEPA Part VII and, therefore, may be prohibited for disposal into the North Pond from floating platforms. If the treated ash is to be disposed of from land based equipment into the North Pond, it may not trigger CEPA. Article 3, General Obligations, of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, stated that “In implementing the provisions of this Protocol, Contracting Parties shall act so as not to transfer, directly or indirectly, damage or likelihood of damage from one part of the environment to another or transform one type of pollution into another”. The proponent should observe these international obligations when making a decision on disposing the treated ash from the incinerator. Acceptable standards of TSS and contaminants for water and sediment discharges into the harbour from the North Pond and the new channel are not present in the EIS. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• update Table 2.1 in Appendix C to include all applicable federal policies (including any relevant discussion with respect to CEPA Toxics lists), guidelines, codes, standards and best management practices relevant to the Project. This table should also include relevant CCME policies (6.5, 11.1).

• provide a more detailed description of how the treated ash from

incineration will be disposed.

• include the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention in Section 1.5.3. of the report (6.6).

• provide a table listing all the proposed standards and guideline

numbers for groundwater and surface water discharges and the potential TSS from the North Pond into the harbour during and after excavation. Where site specific standards have not been developed, that should be noted in the table (6.5).

Additional comments regarding compliance and effects monitoring can be found in Appendix A. 10.0 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS The EIS refers to Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) which will be developed and implemented prior to the


23

construction stage. It is anticipated that the Proponent will provide adequate information and details regarding methods to address malfunctions, spills and accidents in these documents. Additional detail is required on contingency plans, including the public response plan, in the event monitoring information indicates an exceedance of air quality criteria. It is unclear what reporting procedures will be followed. Descriptions of the air quality monitoring program (current and proposed) appear throughout the text in various sections. To improve clarity, a complete description should be provided in one location in the text. It is understood that a detailed air monitoring program will be developed in consultation with relevant regulatory officials after the detailed Project design and will be included with the EMP (pg-6-22). The consideration of a well-developed pollution prevention plan is important to minimize the potential for malfunctions and accidental events. It is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide Environment Canada, the public and Aboriginal peoples an opportunity to provide comments on the EPPs and EMPs to improve the plans, prior to the commencement of the Project.

• provide additional detail regarding the public response plan in the

event of exceedances of air quality criteria. • develop a pollution prevention plan which considers the most

effective technologies, policies and procedures for the prevention of malfunction and spill incidents.

Section 10.11 of the Guidelines requires the Proponent to describe a range of scenarios, including worst-case, and the rationale for their use. It is not clear in the EIS if there was an analysis of worst-case scenario, including the possibility of events happening concurrently or sequentially. In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• provide more discussion on worst case scenarios – either clarifying that concurrent/sequential events are unlikely and/or describing additive impact/mitigation measures (10.11).

10.1 Incineration Section 10.11 requires the Proponent to describe the effects of accidents and malfunctions on the environment.


24

The type of incinerator to be used and the associated risks that could result in malfunctions and accidents need to be assessed in order to understand the Project’s effects on the environment. On page 8-5, in discussing releases from the bypass stack, the report states that the expected duration of bypass stack releases during upset conditions is likely to be under a minute. In volume 4, page xiii, paragraph 3, the report defines incineration upset conditions as “…once per month, an event that results in the temporary release of emissions at levels that are ten times higher than normal operating conditions for a duration of 30 minutes per event.” In accordance with the Guidelines, it is recommended that the Proponent:

• indicate the type and volume of fuel to be consumed and the type of storage facilities for fuel and contaminants by the proposed incinerator, in order to consider protocols for spills or accidental discharges.

• provide a description of the countermeasures to contain spills onsite

and protocols for response, cleanup and disposal of spilled contaminants during transportation from the Coke Ovens or the Tar Ponds to the incinerator site.

• explain the different estimates for the expected duration of bypass

stack releases during upset conditions.


25

APPENDIX A: Additional Comments Note: Where possible, references are made to specific volumes and sections of the documents. Some comments are more generic in nature and therefore are not referenced. Air Issues • In Volume 1, Section 2.4 (page 2-41), the quantity of sediments should be identified

as either wet or dry weight. • In Volume 1, Section 2.4 (page 2-41) the text states that the incinerator will be

designed to have a minimum contaminant Destruction level of 99.9999%, while Volume 2 – P.10 gives a level of 99.99% for PAHs. It is assumed that this apparent discrepancy refers to PCB and PAH removal efficiency respectively. However, this difference should be clarified.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.4.3.2 (page 2-49), an estimate of the anticipated fuel (litres)

and type of fuel(s) to be used to fire the temporary incinerator where the contaminated materials will be incinerated should be provided.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.9, Table 2.9-1 (page 2-60), refers to NOx as nitrous oxide

when it should read nitrogen oxides (noted in various areas throughout document). Also, not all the chemicals identified here for the incinerator appear to be included in the discussion of emissions and effects in Section 6.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.10, Table 2.9-2 (page 2-62) -it should be noted that the

filtered fly ash is also likely to include dioxins and furans. • In Volume 1, Section 4.3.3, Table 4.3-2 (page 4-7) does not include the incinerator

as a possible pathway for project-environment interactions. • In Volume 1, Section 5.4.2, Table 5.4-2 (page 5-19) refers to the NPRI provides

information from the CAC inventory. No discussion of actual NPRI industrial emissions is provided in the following text.

• In Volume I, Section 5.4.2 (page 5-19) the provincial inventory provided does not

include many of the emissions which are discussed later in the document (i.e. SO2, dioxins and furans). It also states that the inventory for Nova Scotia would be representative of those in Sydney, yet there are some significant differences (Sydney has the province’s largest SO2 emissions source, would not be likely to have agricultural emissions) that should be discussed.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.1, Table 5.4-4 (page 5-21), indicates there is no Canada-

wide Standard for TSP. TSP should be listed as a National Ambient Air Quality Objective (NAAQO). As well there are there are a couple of discrepancies with the Ontario Standards that should be corrected. (also in Table 6.1-2 (page 6-5)), While there is no ambient standard for benzene in the Ontario Point of Impingement Guidelines, it is noted as a carcinogen, and as such “emissions to the environment are to be prevented or limited to the greatest extent possible”. The 24 hour xylene standard should be 730 (2300 is the half hour standard).


26

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.2 (pages 5-22/26) only provides data for 2002 and 2003, yet the References section for the document includes the Ambient Air Monitoring Program, 2004 Annual Summary Report (P. 15-2). The complete set of available data should be summarized.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.2, Table 5.4-6 and accompanying text (page 5-23)

provides a description of recovery issues and methodology changes for naphthalene, but does not provide any information on what these changes mean.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.2, (page 5-25) the text states that the AAMP will need to

be modified to take into account incinerator emissions and new compounds. No details on these proposed changes are provided.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.3, (page 5-26) the text indicates that some compounds

are not included and mentions TSP and particulates, yet both PM2.5 and PM10 appear in Table 5.4-10.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.3, in Table 5.4-10 (page 5-27), it is not clear what is

meant by the term “Broad Scale Comparison” of NAPS values for other stations provided. Do these represent the lowest and highest values wherever Canadian data was available?

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.3, in Table 5.4-10 (page 5-27), a comparison of Sydney’s

air quality with major urban centres known to have elevated air pollutant concentrations and justifying Sydney as less polluted may not be an appropriate comparison. A comparison of air quality at the sites of concern with regional background sites, Sydney itself and urban centres of comparable size and industrial development would be more valuable.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.4.3.4, (page 5-31) dioxin and furans range comparison uses

old numbers for background levels and these levels may have decreased since then. Please comment on whether there may be any long term global or national trends which may affect any comparisons with current data.

• In Volume1, Section 6.1.1, (page 6-1), (and in Section 6.1.6 (page 6-21)), the

definition of greenhouse gases should be corrected. • In Volume 1, Section6.1.4 (page 6-7), the summary of emissions for the incinerator

does not include many of the pollutants identified in Section 2 (e.g. dioxins and furans etc.) Table 2.9-1 should probably reappear here.

• In Volume 1, Section 6.1.5.1, (page 6-13) in the discussion of the modeling results,

EC is unsure as to why specific years for anticipated exceedances were identified. This seems to indicate a degree of certainty that is probably not justified. If exceedances are anticipated upon specific activities occurring during these years, the activities should be identified and not the years per se.

• In Volume 1, Section 6.1.5.2, (page 6-15) the text states there are no applicable

standards for dioxins and furans, however, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment does have ambient air quality criteria for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins.


27

• In Volume 1, Section 6.6.7, Table 6.6-1 (page 6-81) states atmospheric deposition from the incinerator is reversible. How does this apply to persistent pollutants that may be present and taken up by surrounding biota?

• In Volume 2, Section 6.1.1 (page 16), the text states upper air sounding data from

the Yarmouth, NS Upper Air Station were used as model input data. Another Upper Air Station is located in Stephenville, NL which is geographically much closer to the Sydney Airport, NS site, and therefore should be more representative of the Sydney Airport upper air conditions. For this reason, Stephenville upper air data should have been considered for use as model input.

• In Volume 2, Section 6.1.1 (page 17), the wind rose presented in Figure 6.1, which

represents the frequency of occurrence of hourly wind speed and direction, is not consistent with the Sydney Airport hourly wind data in Environment Canada’s National Climate Archive. For example, Figure 6.1 indicates that the most frequent wind direction is from the southwest for this period. Environment Canada’s National Climate Archive indicates that the most frequent wind direction for this period is from the west. These discrepancies should be addressed.

• In Volume 2, Section 7.3.1, Table 7.3 (page 24), particulate matter (PM) is not

defined. When presenting and discussing data concerning PM, the document must be clear on the nature of the PM (e.g. PM <2.5, PM < 10 or TSP). Canada Wide Standards for PM is not referred to implying that the PM is not PM<2.5, possibly TSP.

• In Volume 2, Section 7.3.1.3 (page 25), (and in Volume 4 (Appendices)) some

potential exceedances were noted in the modelling yet the document provides no detailed information on how these potential exceedances may be mitigated. These sections also provide some descriptions of ambient concentrations resulting from project-specific emissions and compares them to ambient criteria, but do not appear to take into account for the pre-existing levels of these contaminants from other sources.

• In Volume 2, Appendix A, Figures A-14 and A-15 show predicted ground level

concentrations of mercury at the VJ site. The basis for the mercury stack concentration in Volume 2 should be provided.

• In Volume 2, Appendix A, Figures A-16 and A-17 show predicted ground level

concentrations of two dioxin congeners. Were these plots based on 0.50 ηg of dioxin TEQ out the stack or 0.08 ηg of dioxin TEQ

• In Volume 3, Section 7.4 (page 7-3), the text states that hourly wind speed and

direction data from the Sydney Airport, for 1987 to 1991, were used in the refined modeling, and that these data were representative of the 30-year climatological record for this site. Normally, 15 to 20 years of climatological data, as a minimum, are required for the dataset to be considered representative of the long-term climatological record. There is no indication that there has been any analysis done to determine that the relatively short hourly wind velocity dataset, used in this study, is sufficiently representative of the long term hourly wind velocity record for the Sydney Airport.


28

• In Volume 3, Appendix A, Table A-1, the Henry’s law constants for emissions calculations appear to be slightly different than shown. For example, the Henry’s constant for xylenes seems too low and instead of 5.2E-03 should be about 6.2E-03. These calculations should be verified.

• In Volume 4, Section 2.2, Table 2.2, (page 2-9) the correct references for the

arsenic, cadmium, and chromium VI emissions limits should be provided. Rationale should also be provided for why PM, HCl, CO, SO2, and NOx emission rates are provided in Table 4.1, but not Table 2.2.

• In Volume 5, Section 5.1,Table 5-1 (page 5-13), the data are generally referenced

back to the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency’s residential monitoring program (page 5-2); however, this reference does not provide information on how the actual table numbers are derived or where the data that supported them can be obtained.

• In Volume 1, Section 6.1.6, (page 6-21), a listing of the anticipated greenhouse

gases by individual species and weights to be released from the incinerator should be provided. Greenhouse gases should be tabulated by individual species and give the total anticipated amounts to be released from the incinerator on an annual basis. Table 6.1-10 (page 6-21) should be corrected as required.

• In Volume 1, Section 6.1.6, (page 6-21), should be modified to remove the

suggestion that the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions are not significant and to include an explanation of the cumulative effects approach where all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are of importance for the purposes of emissions accounting and mitigation (i.e. greenhouse gas reduction). Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation plans should be considered and described, including: minimization of firing fuel requirements, potential for energy recovery in the form of thermal energy, and potential for energy recovery in the form of electricity generation.

• In Volume 1, Section 6.1.6, (pages 2-21/22), there is a difference in greenhouse gas

emissions for the Project as given in Table 6.1-10 and Table 6.1-11. • Where appropriate throughout the documents, emission limits should be stated with

reference conditions (temperature, pressure, oxygen). Incineration • In Volume 1, Section 2.4.2.1, (page 2-46), an un-interruptible fuel supply system is

listed as site infrastructure. Should it have stated an uninterruptible power supply (UPS)? Clarify if the authors mean uninterruptible battery power supply for computer operation and other critical low energy systems from crashing during the brief period that it takes fuel fired power generators to come on line.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.4.2.1 (page 2-47), the text states that staging areas will be

large enough to allow for several months of feedstock. In Volume 2, Section 4.0 (page 8), the staging area is described as sufficiently large to allow for several days worth of feedstock. Discrepancies should be clarified.


29

• In Volume 1, Section 2.4.3.1, (page 2-49) the text should provide the water criterion (PCBs) to be applied for discharging treated water from the site.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.4.3.1, (page 2-50) indicates the expected Secondary

Combustion Chamber (SCC) operating temperature. • In Volume 1, Section 2.5, Table 2.5-1 (page 2-55) clarify whether the dewatering

facility will be located at the dredging locations (Ponds and Brooks) or at the incineration facility, or at both sites.

Surface Water • In Volume 1, Section 2.1.6, (page 2-16), CCME water quality guidelines are not

designed as discharge criteria and adherence to these criteria does not necessitate compliance with the Fisheries Act.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.9.2 (page 2-59/60), it is not clear where the wastewater

generated during the removal of materials from the Tar Ponds will be treated. In addition, clarification is required regarding the treatment of groundwater pumped from the Coke Ovens site.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.10, Table 2.10-2 (page 2-66) it is estimated that a failure of

the water management system could lead to the release of up to 5000L of contaminated water. The basis for this estimate should be provided.

• In Volume 1, Section 2.10, (pages 2-61/73), there is a potential for large volumes of

water to run off the Project area, due to extremely heavy rainfall events, and carry contaminants into the marine receiving environment. The capacity of the treatment system should be adequate to ensure the excess water and associated contaminants can be effectively treated.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.6.2, Figure 5.6-18 (page 5-81) shows the watersheds within

the Project area; however, there are no apparent recharge and discharge areas identified. In addition, in Section 5.6.2 there is no description of present or future surface water uses.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.6.2.4 (page5-85) the text states that gradually declining total

annual precipitation characterized the 1990’s, and that this is closely correlated with total annual volume discharged. Neither details nor a reference is provided. Provide statistical details on how the precipitation trend was determined and correlated with total annual discharge volume.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.6.4, (page 5-101), Lingan Brook drains the Phalen mine site

to the East, not Laffins Brook. • A statement regarding impacts on the surface water levels within the north and south

ponds should be provided. Provide a statement regarding possible risks of exposure to ecological receptors if contaminated sediment is exposed due to the lowering of water levels.


30

Groundwater • In Volume 1, Section 5.6.1 (page 5-48), there is no discussion of groundwater

quantity. Estimates of groundwater quantities in the study areas should be provided. Wetlands • Wetlands in the vicinity of the incinerator site should be adequately considered.

There does not appear to be any consideration of effects of the Project on these wetlands, and no measures are proposed to avoid or minimize effects, despite the fact that Project infrastructure appears to be located adjacent to some of these wetlands. A wetland evaluation should be conducted on any wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator site. A clear description of the effects of the Project on wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator site, mitigative measures considered, and residual adverse effects should be discussed.

Project Modifications • In Volume 1, Section 2.12, (page 2-2), plans for informing the public regarding

proposed modifications to the Project are not provided. Information should be provided regarding the method of notification as well as the timing of the notification, i.e., the stage within the modification process when the public will be informed of modifications to the Project.

Physiography/Geology • In Volume 1, Section 5.1, Figure 5.1-1 (page 5-2), shows elevations of the study

area; however, the smallest elevation interval is 30 m and the most detailed map shows an area approximately 15 km x 15 km. A detailed map of the sites with smaller elevation increments should be provided to better understand the local topography and drainage patterns at each site.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.2 (pages 5-1/10), there are no scale cross-sections of the Tar

Ponds, the shoreline area, SYSCO site and Coke Ovens Brook Connector or Coke Ovens, MAID, Whitney Pier (NOCO Site) Areas to indicate the thicknesses or relative reference of the geologic units to the topography. Also the cross-sections that are shown are only oriented in one direction. Geologic cross-sections should be provided with elevations for all areas in a minimum of two directions across each area to define the local and area geology.

Sediments • In Volume 1, Section 2.2, Figure 2.2-3 does not specifically indicate the areas of

PCB contamination greater than 50 ppm.


31

Wildlife • There is no proposed monitoring of contaminant levels in wildlife to confirm the

predictions of the ERA. Small mammals at the Coke Ovens site and fish in Grand Lake should be sampled to monitor contaminant levels in biota during operation and at decommissioning.

• Although maps showing Project infrastructure are provided, the locations of different

habitat types on these maps are not clear. For instance, only the generic term “wetlands” is used in Volume 1, Section 5.8.2, Figure 5.8-1, (page 5-135), and no other habitat types are shown. It is therefore not possible to use this map as a reference for the habitats mentioned in Table K-4, Appendix K.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.8.1.2, Table 5.8-1 (pages 5-133/134), states baseline studies

for PAH, PCB, dioxin TEQ and metals were conducted on fish in Grand Lake at the VJ site. However, baseline studies for PAH, PCB, metals, but not for dioxin TEQ were conducted for four unidentified mammals at the VJ site and are summarized in Table 2.7 in Appendix G. Justify why dioxin TEQ was not assessed in the four unidentified mammals and explain why these mammals were not identified.

• In Volume 1, Section 5.8.3.1, (page 5-138), it is indicated that 2 species of rare

bryophytes, Bryum caespiticium and Campylium polygamum, were identified at the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites. Both species are currently listed as S1 in Nova Scotia by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. There is no consideration of the effects of the Project on these rare bryophytes.

• In Volume 6, there are no mitigative measures proposed to reduce contaminant risks

to American robins in the Coke Ovens landfarming areas. Since these risks are significant in the short term, please identify possible mitigative strategies.

Ecological Risk Assessment • In the Executive Summary, Section 2.1, Table 1 (page 2-7) states that landfarming

will be carried out at the Coke Ovens Site. The top 0.3 to 0.5 m of soil at the Coke Ovens Site is referred to as hydrocarbon-contaminated soil, however according to p. 2-10 one of the main concerns is that terrestrial organisms will also come into contact with high levels of metals in those soils, as well as other contaminants.

• In Volume 6, Section 2.2.2.1, (page 2-2), the summary focuses on the methods used

in the assessment of the Muggahs Creek watershed, not the results of that assessment which would have been more useful information. The same is true for section 2.2.2.2, (page2-3) which focuses of the methods used in the assessment of the human health and Ecological Risk Assessment in the North and South Ponds, not the results.

• In Volume 6, Section 2.3, Table 2.3 (pages 2-7/11) excludes activities from risk

assessment with inadequate justification. In particular, it is believed that, without additional information as justification, the following activities should not have been omitted from the ERA:


32

(a) water treatment plant construction and operation; control of groundwater and surface water channels. (b) dredging/excavation of North and South Ponds; (c) excavation of Coke Oven Brook; (d) excavation of tar cell; and (e) landfarming of selected surface soil.

• In Volume 6, Section 2.3, (page 2-11) indicates a number of activities that were

considered as possibly significant, but were not carried forward for ERA. Rationale should be provided for each situation.

(a) A risk assessment for Sydney Harbour. With remediation, the harbour contamination will ultimately be reduced; however the increase in contamination at the time of construction and excavation will result in increased environmental effects, which need to be quantified. (b) The discharge from the wastewater treatment plant was eliminated because it will meet the requirements of the Fisheries Act. Additional information would be required to support this statement. (c) Best management practices would reduce the environmental impact from material handling/staging, excavation of tar cell, excavation of sediments and landfill construction operation to acceptable levels. Without knowing what those best management practices are, it is difficult to accept such statements.

• In Volume 6, Section 3.1.3 (page 3-3), it would have been useful to present information on relative densities of fish in order to determine the viability of fish populations in those water bodies. More information on the quality of fish habitat in those streams would also have been useful.

• In Volume 6, Section 3.2.2, Table 3.1, (page 3-8), does not provide any information

on the number of samples analyzed for the various parameters. In addition, the presentation of the median value for each parameter would have provided a more valuable statistical measure of central tendency of the data set. The maximum value for antimony appears to be incorrect.

• In Volume 6, Section 3.2.3, Table 3.2, (pages 3-11/12), the CCME Canadian Tissue

Residue Guidelines should be used for PCBs, and dioxins and furans (as they were for mercury).

• In Volume 6, Section 3.3.2, Table 3.3, (pages 3-15/16) the concentrations of most

contaminants, including metals, at the Rural Reference site is several times higher than concentrations at the mine site. The acceptability of this reference site should be examined.

• In Volume 6, Section 4.2.2.2, (page 4-4), measurement endpoints are vaguely

worded and poorly defined. The measurement endpoints here describe potential hazards of contaminant exposure to receptors, not a measurement of effects on an ecological component.


33

• In Volume 6, Section 4.5.2, (page 4-8), in the calculation of EPC values, use of the average value for each inorganic substance used should be justified. A more conservative approach would have been to use the 95% UCL of the data set. Using the mean tends to smooth out the data. From an environmental standpoint we are most interested in the higher concentrations and the risks they pose.

• In Volume 6, Section 4.5.2, (page 4-9), for TPH compounds, a factor of 0.1 was

assumed. Provide a reference for this assumption. • In Volume 6, Section 6.3.1, Table 6.1 (page 6-3), units of measurement for the CoCs

should have been presented. Justify the use of mean values rather than the more conservative 95% UCL values of the data sets. In some cases, values did not exceed the CCME Guidelines but the contaminant was still screened in (cadmium, chromium, mercury, vanadium). In other cases, values did exceed the CCME Guidelines but the contaminant was not screened in (boron). Justify this discrepancy.

• In Volume 6, Section 6.4.1, (page 6-12), only terrestrial habitats and species were

considered in the ERA for the Coke Ovens Site. Yet Assessment Endpoint 1 for the ERA is populations of fish and aquatic invertebrates (p 4-4). In Table 2.3 there is an indication of the potential for exposure of freshwater organisms to treated water. There is not enough detail presented on those collection and treatment systems to provide any confidence that the level of exposure to aquatic organisms by various contaminants of concern will be reduced to acceptable levels. The Coke Ovens ERA should have considered aquatic receptors to be consistent with the overall assessment endpoint of the ERA.

• In Volume 6, Section 6.4.1., (page 6-12), the text indicates that inhalation is

considered a minor pathway of exposure. This assumption should be substantiated. • In Volume 6, Section 6.5.1, (page 6-13), given the small home-range sizes for

masked shrew and meadow voles (< 1 ha), the percentage of diet consumed from the land farmed areas in Section 6.5.1 and Table 6.5 (10%) appears to be too low. For small mammals inhabiting the land farming areas, diet consumption from these areas should be at least 50%. This needs to be corrected in the ERA, as it will affect the final conclusions of the ERA.

• In Volume 6, Section 7.1, (page 7-1) the rationale why the Victoria Junction site is

the preferred site over the Phalen site should be referenced to the Destruction Technology Siting Study, Volume 1, Appendix F.

• In Volume 6, Section 7.3, (page 7-1), justify why the marine sediments were not

considered in the ERA, given that the Phalen site is a coastal site. • In Volume 6, Section 7.4.1, (page 7-5), fish and benthic invertebrates are identified

as receptors, while all the other receptors are species specific. Justify why a particular species of fish was not identified. Clarify, if it is the community that is of interest, or specific species for benthic invertebrates.

• In Volume 6, Section 7.5.1, Figure 7.1 (page 7-6), it is assumed that “aquatic

receptors” refers to fish and benthic invertebrates. As benthic invertebrates are the


34

main food source for many fish species, the ingestion of freshwater invertebrates should have been identified as a potential exposure pathway for fish. Justify why the aquatic receptors group has not been divided into benthic invertebrates and fish.

• In Volume 6, It is difficult to determine from the level of detail presented on page 7-9,

whether bioaccumulation potential was considered for aquatic receptor exposure. It should also be indicated what species were used in the assessment.

• In Volume 6, Section 9.1, (page 9-1); clarify how the ERAs provide information for

the assessment of Marine Habitat and Biota VECs since neither ERA had any marine receptors.

• In Volume 6, Section 9.3, (page 9-3), the risk assessment for incineration only

addresses stack emissions and does not include all activities associated with siting and operating the incinerator, including storage, movement of waste materials and site runoff. In addition, non-compliance and upset conditions should be part of the incinerator risk assessment. Provide justification why these were not considered in the ERA.

• The risk assessments in general do not quantify uncertainty factors. Rationale should

be provided why this was not done. Also spills as a source of risk to the ecosystem are not included. Furthermore, in some of the other sections spills should also have been included as source of emissions, risk and exposure. Spills of contaminated material will be inevitable throughout the course of the restoration work.

• Details and decision criteria as to why some areas were chosen for landfarming,

some areas for excavation, and some areas for capping were not provided. Contaminant Modelling of Sydney Harbour • In Volume 7, there are no uncertainty analyses conducted on the operation of the

model, which is most important for comparison with guidelines. Also there are several conclusions which appear to be unsubstantiated:

a) Predicted aqueous concentrations of contaminants are below levels of concern, yet on page 38 it indicates that HPAH concentrations would be above CCME criteria during remediation.

b) There do not appear to be any significant risks to aquatic receptors as a result of the incremental contaminant concentrations in marine water that result from the present contaminant flux from Muggah Creek.

c) These will be minor effects, when in fact there has been no analysis, in the form of a site specific risk assessment which would support such a statement.

Environmental Compliance Monitoring • In Volume 1, Section 12.1.2, (page 12-2), environmental sampling is not identified as

an activity conducted by field inspectors. Environmental sampling is a key activity which should be part of any compliance monitoring program.


35

• EEM-related monitoring should be included in the proposed Freshwater Habitat and Biota monitoring plan.

Regulatory Compliance • In Volume 1, Section 1.5.3 (page 1-8), Canada is not a signatory country to the Bonn

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, therefore this agreement would not influence the Project. The Convention on the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States and the Convention on Biological Diversity are 2 applicable international agreements ratified by Canada.

• In Volume 1, Section 6.6.1, (page 6-74), the text indicates that under the Federal

Migratory Bird Convention Act, "no person shall deposit or permit to be deposited oil, oil wastes, or any other substance harmful to migratory birds in any waters or any area frequented by migratory birds". This section should be updated since Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which received Royal Assent on May 19, 2005, amended section 5 of the MBCA by adding:

"5.1(1) No person or vessel shall deposit a substance harmful to migratory birds, or permit such a substance to be deposited, in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such waters or such an area. 5.1(2) No person or vessel shall deposit a substance or permit a substance to be deposited in any place if the substance, in combination with one or more substances, results in a substance - in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which it may enter waters or such an area - that is harmful to migratory birds."

• In Volume 1, Section 6.6.1, (page 6-74), while it is indicated that migratory birds are protected under the MBCA, there is no mention of the fact that their nests and eggs are also protected. According to section 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations, no person shall "disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird".

• In Volume 1, Table 2.1, Appendix C should provide a more complete and accurate

description of all applicable regulations, guidelines, codes and standards that would contribute to the avoidance or reduction of adverse impacts if followed. Regarding the presentation of Table 2.1, a preferable option would be to list the Project activities in the first column and then list the regulatory, permitting requirements associated with each activity. Although the regulatory requirements are listed in Table 2.1 of Appendix C, reference to the Table should be made throughout the documents where applicable. The following items should be added:

• National Pollutant Release Inventory, CEPA 1999 • Environmental Emergency Regulations, CEPA 1999 • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) National Guidelines

for Hazardous Waste Incineration Facilities, • CCME Guidelines for Mobile Polychlorinated Biphenyl Destruction Systems,


36

• CCME National Guidelines for the Landfilling of Hazardous Waste, • CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans, • CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions, • Basel Convention Technical guidelines for the environmentally sound

management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs) or polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs),

• Draft guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best environmental practices relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Recommendation of the Council on the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste 9 June – C(2004)100

• Volume 2. Section 4.2.1. Currently this section only discusses the standards within

the CCME National Guidelines for Hazardous Waste Incineration Facilities. This discussion and analysis should be expanded to include standards outlined in the Federal Mobile PCB Treatment and Destruction Regulations, the CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans and the CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions.


37

APPENDIX B: Environment Canada Mandate The following list identifies legislation which Environment Canada administers, as well as Guidelines and Policies which are pertinent to the proposed Project. (This list is not a compete list of all legislation, guidelines and policies. The following summaries have been prepared for ease of reference and convenience only. For purposes of reliability and accuracy, and for interpreting and applying the Act, regulation or policy, it is recommended that the reader review the original document itself, including any subsequent amendments.) The Department of the Environment Act (1970) established the federal Department of the Environment (Environment Canada) and delegated responsibility to the Minister for: the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air, and soil quality; renewable resources, including migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna; water; meteorology; the enforcement of regulations made by the International Joint Commission regarding the management of transboundary waters between Canada and the U.S.; and, the coordination of federal policies and programs as they relate to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment. Environment Canada administers Section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance into waters frequented by fish, on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The goal of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention and to protect the environment, human life and health from the risks associated with toxic substances. CEPA, 1999 also recognises the contribution of pollution prevention and the management and control of toxic substances and hazardous waste to reducing threats to Canada's ecosystems and biological diversity. It acknowledges the need to virtually eliminate the most persistent toxic substances that remain the environment for extended periods of time before breaking down and bioaccumulative toxic substances that accumulate within living organisms. Health Canada works in partnership with Environment Canada to assess potentially toxic substances and to develop regulations to control toxic substances. The regulations under the Act are listed in Appendix 2. The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) and “Migratory Bird Regulations” contain provisions that prohibit the disturbance; destruction; and taking of a migratory bird, or its nest, egg, or nest shelter; or to be in possession of the above, except under the authority of a permit. The regulations also prohibit the deposition of oil, oil wastes, or other substance harmful to migratory birds in any waters or any area frequented by migratory birds. The Canada Wildlife Act provides for measures to be taken to protect any species of wildlife in danger of extinction. This provision led to the establishment of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 1977, which is a standing committee responsible for coordinating national wildlife conservation efforts.

The Species At Risk Act (2002) was designed to meet one of Canada's key commitments under the international Convention on Biological Diversity. The goal of the Act is to prevent endangered or threatened wildlife from becoming extinct or lost from


38

the wild, and to help in the recovery of these species. It is also intended to manage species of special concern and to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. Providing a framework for actions across Canada to ensure the survival of wildlife species and the protection of our natural heritage, the Species at Risk Act sets out the process for determining recovery and protection actions. It also identifies ways governments, organizations and individuals can work together, and establishes penalties for failure to obey the law.

Environment Canada also advocates the following policies and programs on behalf of the Government of Canada: Sustainable Development Strategy, Pollution Prevention Strategy, Toxic Substances Management Policy, Canada’s National Action Program on Climate Change, Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, A Wildlife Policy for Canada, and the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. The Treasury Board Federal Contaminated Sites Management Policy indicates that Environment Canada plays a leadership role by providing specialist advice and guidance to government departments, agencies, stakeholders, and other interest groups on the application and interpretation of federal and provincial policies, guidelines, and programs that may relate to federal contaminated sites; promotes compliance with regulatory requirements and guidance; serves as a liaison with provincial and territorial governments; and develops, in co-operation with partners, environmental quality criteria, site assessment protocols, and remediation technologies. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Part 1: Administration (Sections 6-10)

• creates a framework for co-operation and co-ordination between federal, provincial, and aboriginal governments

Part 2: Public Participation (Sections 11-42)

• establishes a public registry that improves the publics access to environmental information

• gives citizens the right to sue where a CEPA violation results in significant harm to the environment, and the federal government fails to take appropriate action

• provides expanded "whistle blower" protection

Part 3: Information Gathering, Objectives, Guidelines and Codes of Practice (Sections 43-55)

• monitor environmental quality and periodically report on the State of the Environment

Part 4: Pollution Prevention (Sections 56-63)

• gives parties an opportunity to prepare and implement self -directed site specific solutions for toxic pollution prevention


39

Part 5: Controlling Toxic Substances (Sections 64-103)

• establishes a firm time frame for a response and follow up action • requires all substances on the Domestic Substances List to be categorised and

screened for potential risks to human health, life and the environment • sets a new goal of virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic

substances

Part 6: Animate Products of Biotechnology (Sections 104-115)

• outlines the requirements for the assessment and introduction of living organisms that are the products of biotechnology Note: non-living products of biotechnology (enzymes) biochemical products and biopolymers are covered under part 5

Part 7: Controlling Pollution and Managing Wastes

• Division 1: Nutrients (Sections 116-119) • Division 2: Protection of Marine Environment from Land-based Sources of

Pollution (Sections 120-121) • Division 3: Disposal at Sea (Sections 122-137) • Division 4: Fuels (Sections 138-148) - National fuel mark system • Division 5: Vehicle Engine and Equipment Emissions (Sections 149-165) -

transfers legislative authority from the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to CEPA. Generally speaking air, rail and marine engines are covered by the Aeronautics Act (R.S.C 1985, c. A-2),the Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996, c. 10) and the Canada Shipping Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9)

• Division 6: International Air Pollution (Sections 166-174) • Division 7: International Water Pollution (Sections 175-184) • Division 8: Control of the Movement of Hazardous Waste and Recyclable

Material and Prescribed Non-Hazardous Waste for Final Disposal (Sections 185-192)

Part 8: Environmental Matters related to Emergencies (Section 193-205) - e.g. spills, explosions and leaks give Environment Canada new regulatory powers

• lead to establishing a national system of notification and reporting • may develop guidelines and codes of practise and • require environmental emergency plans

Part 9: Government Operations - Federal and Aboriginal Lands (Section 206-215)

• gives Environment Canada the responsibility of getting the Federal house in order

• will attempt close any regulatory gap between federal and provincial requirements by ensuring that federal operations, and works and undertakings on federal lands meet or exceed equivalent provincial provisions for emissions, effluents, waste handling and disposal, and environmental emergencies


40

Part 10 Enforcement (Sections 216-312) - includes inspections and monitoring to verify compliance and investigation of suspected violations

• creates a new category of "enforcement" officer with expanded powers • authorises enforcement officers to issue environmental protection compliance

orders on the spot to stop illegal activity and to correct violations • gives the option of negotiating environmental protection alternatives measures

rather than going to trial

Part 11 Miscellaneous Matters (Sections 313-343)

• provides economic instruments such as deposit-refund schemes and tradable units

Part 12 Consequential Amendments, Repeal, Transitional Provision and Coming Into Force (Sections 344-356)

Schedule 1: Toxic Substances Schedule 2: Equivalent Acts and Regulations Schedule 3, Part 1: Prohibited Substances Schedule 3, Part 2: Substances Requiring Export Notice Schedule 3, Part 3: Restricted Substances Schedule 4: Equivalent Acts and Regulations Schedule 5: Waste or Other Matter Schedule 6: Assessment of Waste or Other Matter

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 Regulations Asbestos Mines and Mills Release Benzene in Gasoline Chlor-Alkali Mercury Release Chlorobiphenyls Contaminated Fuel Disposal at Sea Environmental Emergency Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Export Control List Notification Export of Substances Under the Rotterdam Convention Federal Halocarbon, 2003 Federal Mobile PCB Treatment and Destruction Federal Registration of Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied

Petroleum Products on Federal Lands or Aboriginal Lands Fuels Information, No. 1 Gasoline and Gasoline Blend Dispensing Flow Rate Gasoline Interprovincial Movement of Hazardous Waste Masked Name New Substances Fees New Substances Notification New Substances Notification (Chemicals and Polymers)


41

New Substances Notification (Organisms) Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Off-Road Small Spark-Ignition Engine Emission On-Road Vehicle and Engine Emission Ozone-depleting Substances, 1998 PCB Waste Export, 1996 Persistence and Bioaccumulation Phosphorus Concentration Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances, 2005 Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer and Wood Chip Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Respecting the Form and Content of an Application for a Permit for Disposal at Sea Rules of Procedure for Boards of Review Secondary Lead Smelter Release Solvent Degreasing Storage of PCB Material Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Sulphur in Gasoline Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Tributyltetradecylphosphonium Chloride (TTPC) Vinyl Chloride Release, 1992 Guidelines and Standards There are several national guidelines and standards and international protocols which are relevant to the proposed Project and as such, should be considered. The following is a list of some of the applicable national guidelines and standards. (This is not a complete list.)

• Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) National Guidelines for Hazardous Waste Incineration Facilities,

• CCME Guidelines for Mobile Polychlorinated Biphenyl Destruction Systems, • CCME National Guidelines for the Landfilling of Hazardous Waste, • CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans, • CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions, • Basel Convention Technical guidelines for the environmentally sound

management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs) or polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs),

• Draft guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best environmental practices relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Recommendation of the Council on the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste 9 June – C(2004)100

Joint Review Panel - iaac-aeic.gc.ca

Documents

Transcript of Joint Review Panel - iaac-aeic.gc.ca