environmental assessment report for the phase 1 new...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PHASE 1 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO PICKLE LAKE PROJECT SECTION 5.0: PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION AND EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

October 2017 Project No. 1535751 5-139

5.3 Air Quality This section describes and summarizes the baseline studies undertaken for New Transmission Line to Pickle Lake Project (the Project) and presents an assessment of the effects of the Project on air quality.

The assessment follows the general approach and concepts described in Section 4.0.

5.3.1 Input from Engagement Issues pertaining to air quality that were raised by Aboriginal communities, groups and stakeholders during engagement and how they were addressed in the environmental assessment (EA) are listed in Table 5.3-1. Comments, responses and follow-up actions are provided in Appendix 2.3A – Aboriginal Engagement Summary Report and Appendix 2.4A – Stakeholder Engagement Summary Report.

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Issues Raised during Engagement Related to Air Quality

Issue How addressed in the Environmental Assessment

Aboriginal Community or Aboriginal Group / Stakeholder

Concerns regarding potential effects on air quality.

Air quality was selected as a criterion and the effects of the Project on air quality are assessed in this section. Negligible net effects were predicted for changes to air quality indicators, given the effective implementation of impact management measures. As a result, there would be no significant effects to air quality relative to baseline values.

Engagement with Cat Lake First Nation on criteria and indicators.

5.3.2 Information Sources Information for the air quality baseline was collected from review of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC) National Air Pollution Surveillance Network (NAPS) database (ECCC 2016). The review of this data allowed for characterization of baseline air quality conditions in the air quality local study area (LSA) (Section 5.3.4.2). Field studies were not completed to characterize the existing air quality in the Project footprint or LSA because there were sufficient data available from existing data sources.

For the purposes of the EA, sufficient information was deemed to be available from the NAPS database to assess the potential effects of the Project on air quality.

5.3.3 Criteria and Indicators The criteria and indicators selected for the assessment of Project effects on air quality, and the rationale for their selection, are provided in Table 5.3-2.



Table 5.3-2: Air Quality Criteria and Indicators

Criteria Rationale Indicators Air quality Sensitivity of human health to air quality.

Sensitivity of the environment (soils, plants, animals) to air quality.

Predicted ambient concentrations of: SPM PM10 and PM2.5 CO NO2 SO2

Notes: CAC = Criteria Air Contaminant; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulphur dioxide.

The indicators for air quality, commonly referred to as criteria air contaminants (CACs), are defined as follows:

Ambient concentrations of Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM): SPM collectively describes airborne particles or aerosols less than 44 micrometres (µm) in size (MOECC 2012). SPM is commonly known as dust and results in reduced visibility.

Ambient concentrations of PM (PM10 and PM2.5): PM10 is airborne particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter and PM2.5 is airborne particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter. Emissions of PM10 can result in local nuisance effects. Emissions of PM2.5 can penetrate deep into the respiratory system and cause health effects (MOECC 2015).

Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO): CO is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas, and at high concentrations can cause negative health effects. It is produced primarily from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, as well as natural sources (MOECC 2015).

Ambient concentrations of sulphur dioxide (SO2): The presence of SO2 in the atmosphere has known health (e.g., lung irritation) and environmental (e.g., acid precipitation) effects (MOECC 2015).

Ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2): The presence of NO2 in the atmosphere has known health (e.g., lung irritation) and environmental (e.g., acid precipitation, and ground-level ozone formation) effects (MOECC 2015).

While ozone (O3) is not directly emitted into the atmosphere from the Project, it is associated with the reaction of NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to create NO2 (MOECC 2015). Ozone baseline data will be used to calculate the NO2 emissions from the Project.

The CAC above are focused on the concentrations in the environment of those compounds that are anticipated to be emitted as a result of the Project, for which relevant air quality criteria exist, and that are generally accepted as indicative of changing air quality.

The MOECC has issued guidelines related to ambient air concentrations that are summarized in Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria (MOECC 2012). These guidelines represent indications of good air quality, based on protection against negative effects on health or the environment. The guidelines are not regulatory enforceable limits (MOECC 2012).



There are two sets of federal objectives and standards – the National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQOs) and the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQSs) (formerly National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]). The NAAQOs are benchmarks that can be used to facilitate air quality management on a regional scale, and provide goals for outdoor air quality that protect public health, the environment, or aesthetic properties of the environment (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment [CCME] 1999). The federal government has established the following levels of NAAQOs (Health Canada 1994):

the maximum desirable level defines the long-term goal for air quality and provides a basis for an anti-degradation policy for unpolluted parts of the country and for the continuing development of control technology; and

the maximum acceptable level is intended to provide adequate protection against negative effects on soil, water, vegetation, materials, animals, visibility, personal comfort, and wellbeing.

In 2010, the CCME agreed to move forward with a new collaborative air quality management system that included the development of CAAQSs, designed to better protect human health. The CAAQSs were developed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and include standards for SO2, PM2.5 and ozone, which is not addressed by the NAAQS. There are two standards for ozone and PM2.5. The first standard came into effect in 2015 and will be superseded by a more stringent standard in 2020 (Government of Canada 2013). Similarly, there are two standards for SO2, the first standard comes into effect in 2020 and will be superseded by a more stringent standard in 2025. Similar to the NAAQOs, the CAAQSs are not regulatory limits, but rather, are used as national targets for PM2.5 and ozone (CCME 2014).

None of the air quality criteria, objectives, or standards described above are regulatory limits. Their purpose is to serve as an indicator of good air quality and as a comparison benchmark for monitoring data. Monitoring data in Canada periodically exceeds these criteria, objectives, and standards at different locations. This does not result in an immediate effect to human health, but serves as guidance for identifying areas where air quality could potentially be improved.

A summary of provincial and federal criteria, objectives and standards applicable to the Project are listed in Table 5.3-3. The applicable criteria, objective or standard was selected for each of the indicator compounds to establish a conservative limit for the effects of the Project on air quality. These limits are described as Project Criteria in Table 5.3-3. Some of the NAAQOs phase out in 2020, to be replaced by more stringent standards. As construction of the Project is predicted to occur into 2020, pre-2020 limits were not considered for selection as Project Criteria. The different averaging periods in Table 5.3-3 represent the different periods of concern over which the health, environmental or aesthetic effects are usually measured in the relevant criteria, objective or standard.



Table 5.3-3: Available Provincial and Federal Air Quality Criteria, Objectives and Standards for the Indicator Compounds (µg/m³)

Indicator Compounds

Averaging Period

Ontario Ambient

Air Quality Criteria(a)

CAAQSs(b)

NAAQOs(c) Selected Criteria, Objectives and

Standards for the Project

Maximum Desirable

Maximum Acceptable

SPM (µg/m3)

24-Hour 120 n/a n/a 120 120 Annual 60 n/a 60 70 70

PM10 (µg/m3) 24-Hour 50 n/a n/a n/a 50

PM2.5 (µg/m3)

24-Hour 25(d) 28/27 n/a n/a 27 Annual n/a 10/8.8 n/a n/a 8.8

NO2 (µg/m3)

1-Hour 400 n/a n/a 400 400 24-Hour 200 n/a n/a 200 200 Annual n/a n/a 60 100 100

SO2 (µg/m3)

1-Hour 600 183.4(f) 450 900 900 24-Hour 275 n/a 150 300 300 Annual 55 13.1(g) 30 60 60

CO (µg/m3)

1-Hour 36,200 n/a 15,000 35,000 35,000 8-Hour 15,700 n/a 6,000 15,000 15,000

O3 (µg/m3)

1-Hour 165 n/a 100 160 165 8-Hour n/a 122 (e) n/a n/a 122

Notes: a) MOECC 2012. b) CAAQS published in the Canada Gazette Volume 147, No. 21 - May 25, 2013. The standards will be phased in in 2015 and 2020, with both numbers shown in the table. The larger (first) value represents the CAAQS for 2015. c) CCME 1999. d) Compliance with the Ontario ambient air quality criteria for PM2.5 is based on the 98th percentile of the annual monitored data averaged over three years of measurements. e) The 8-hour CAAQS for O3 is based on the fourth highest 8-hour value annually, averaged over a 3-year period. f) CAAQS for SO2 provided as 70 ppb and converted to µg/m³ using a reference temperature of 25°C and pressure of 1 atm. g) CAAQS for SO2 provided as 5 ppb and converted to µg/m³ using a reference temperature of 25°C and pressure of 1 atm. CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards; CO = carbon monoxide; NAAQO = National Ambient Air Quality Objectives; n/a = No guideline available; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; ppb = parts per billion; PM = Particulate Matter; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre.



5.3.4 Assessment Boundaries 5.3.4.1 Temporal Boundaries The Project is planned to occur during two stages:

Construction stage: the period from the start of construction to the start of operation (approximately 18 to 24 months); and

Operation and maintenance stage: encompasses operation and maintenance activities throughout the life of the Project.

The assessment of Project effects on air quality considers effects that occur during the construction stage as emissions are considered to be largest during this stage of the Project. This timeframe is intended to be sufficient to capture the effects of the Project.

5.3.4.2 Spatial Boundaries Spatial boundaries for the assessment are provided in Table 5.3-4 and shown in Figure 5.3-1.

Table 5.3-4: Area of the Air Quality Spatial Boundaries

Spatial Boundaries

Area (ha) Description Rationale

Preliminary Proposed Corridor Project footprint

1,630 The Project footprint includes the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW, connection facility at Ignace, temporary laydown areas, turn-around areas, staging areas, temporary construction camps, and access roads.

To capture the potential direct effects of the Project on air quality criteria within the physical footprint of the Project.

Local study area

180,899 Includes the 2-km-wide corridor around the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW, a 1.5 km radius around the connection facility and transformer station footprint, a 500-m buffer around access roads and trails, a 500-m radius around the laydown area footprints, and a 500-m radius around the temporary construction camps footprints.

To capture potential local direct and indirect effect of the Project on air quality criteria that may extend beyond the Project footprint.



Table 5.3-4: Area of the Air Quality Spatial Boundaries

Spatial Boundaries

Area (ha) Description Rationale

Corridor Alternative Around Mishkeegogamang Project footprint

1,455 Corridor Alternative Around Mishkeegogamang ROW that travels west around Mishkeegogamang First Nation including connection facility located 20 km west of Ignace transformer station at Pickle Lake, access roads and trails and temporary construction works (e.g., temporary construction camps and temporary laydown areas).


Local study area


To capture potential local direct and indirect effect of the Project on air quality criteria that may extend beyond the Project footprint.

Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang Project footprint

1,445 Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang route ROW that travels east through Mishkeegogamang First Nation including connection facility located 20 km west of Ignace transformer station at Pickle Lake, access roads and trails and temporary construction works (e.g., camps and temporary laydown areas).


Local study area


To capture potential local direct and indirect of the Project on air quality criteria that may extend beyond the Project footprint.

Notes: ha = hectares; km = kilometres; m = metres; ROW = right-of-way.

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

WapesiLake

MamiegowishLake

Bow Lake

CollishawLake

KapikikLake

Springpole Lake

NarrowLake

WenasagaLake

GardenLake

OtukamamoanLake

MercutioLake

EsoxLake

ManionLake

Fry Lake

SmoothrockLake

ClearwaterWest Lake

IndianLake

RugbyLake

LostLake

PenassiLake

AmikLake

KukukusLake

BellLake

BasketLake

UpperManitou

Lake

DinorwicLake

AgimakLake

ManitouRiver

GulliverLake Scotch

Lake

WhiteOtter LakeKaopskikamak

Lake

VickersLake

CarillonLake

ShabumeniLake

TroutLake

BerthaLake

SesikinagaLakeConfederation

LakeJeanette

Lake

PerraultLake

ZionzLake

CedarLake

BluffyLake

BlackstoneLake

Lake St.Joseph

AdamhayLake

MinissLake

CarlingLake

Savant Lake

HeathcoteLake

OnamakawashLake

St.Raphael

Lake

De LessepsLake

TullyLake

MarchingtonLake

KawaweogamaLake

RaggedWood Lake

UnevenLake

VistaLake

HarmonLake

HilltopLake

BigVermilion

LakeAbramLake

Big SandyLake

MountairyLake

MetiongaLake

WeaverLake

WawangLake

MooselandLake

ArmisticeLake

MuskegLake

Lac Seul

Lac desIles

PelicanLake

AchapiLake

RedpathLake Upturnedroot

Lake

TotoganLake

OchigLake

CoucheemoskogLake

MenakoLakes

WrightLake

KamungishkamoLake

OsnaburghLake

WhitestoneLake

KasagiminnisLake

Cat Lake

KapkichiLake

WilliamsLake Badesdawa

Lake

PickleLake

TarpLake

MeenLake

ObaskakaLake

KishikasLake

BrennanLake

GraysonLake

GraniteLake

DoranLake

BamajiLake

BedivereLake

Lac desMilleLacs

IreneLake

PettitLake

SelwynLake

GooseLake

BirchLake

LittleTroutLake

WhitemudLake

DobieLake

WapikaimaskiLake

SparklingLake

LowerWabakimi

Lake

KashishibogLake

ObustigaLake

FairchildLake

SeseganagaLake

FinlaysonLake

BotsfordLake

MorrisLake

SowdenLake

BoyerLake

BertrandLake

CrowrockLake

RouteLake

GullwingLake

EltrutLake

Ord Lake

BendingLake

KeecheneekeeSahkaheekahn/Upper

Goose Lake

ArmitLake

VincentLake

TurtleLake

RaleighLake

ElsieLake

ChurchillLake

NoraLakeHarris

LakeDibbleLake

SeineRiver

JoyceLake

BarringtonLake

PaguchiLake

KinlochLake

HighstoneLake

PressLake

Holinshead Lake

GullLake

WapageisiLake

MinchinLake

FitchieLake

StormyLake

EntwineLake

EastPashkokogan

Lake

McCreaLake

BarrelLake

MinnitakiLake

SturgeonLake

CecilLake

ClearLake

KezikLake

McVicarLake

MattawaLake

MamakwashLake

HookerLake

ZarnLake

SlateLake

ObongaLake

Shikag Lake

WomanLake

HorseshoeLake

WhitefishLakeThaddeus

Lake

WinteringLake

LowerManitou

Lake

SandbarLake

PekagoningLake

Eye Lake

MountLake

HamiltonLake

OtatakanLake

PakashkanLake

EagleLake

FawcettLake

WhitewaterLake

UchiLake

Dog Lake

WatcombLake

HWY

599

H W Y 1 7

H W Y 1 7

HWY

516

H W Y6 22

HWY

50 2

HWY72

H W Y 6 4 2

VERMILION RIVER ROAD

SLATE FALLS ROAD

HWY

599

ST. RAPHAELLAKE PROVINCIAL PARK

(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

BUTLER LAKEPROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

KOPKA RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

OBONGA-OTTERTOOTHPROVINCIAL PARK(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

EAST ENGLISH RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

(WATERWAY CLASS)

!TURTLE RIVER-WHITE OTTERLAKE PROVINCIAL PARK

(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

WINDIGO POINTPROVINCIAL NATURERESERVE

!

MINNITAKI KAMESPROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

KAIASHKPROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE!SANDBAR LAKEPROVINCIAL PARK(NATURAL ENVIRONMENTCLASS)

!

PIPESTONE RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

!

BRIGHTSAND RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

! OJIBWAYPROVINCIAL PARK

WABAKIMIPROVINCIAL PARK

!

PANTAGRUELCREEK PROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

LOLA LAKEPROVINCIAL

NATURERESERVE

! AARONPROVINCIAL

PARK

!

PAHNGWAHSHAHSHKOHWEEMUSHKEEG

!

GULL RIVER PROVINCIALPARK (WATERWAY

CLASS)

ALBANY RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

!

BEEKAHNCHEEKAHMEENGDEEBAHNCHEEKAYWEEHNEENAHOHNAHNUHN

!

PIPESTONERIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

!

PANTAGRUELCREEK PROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

BEEKAHNCHEEKAHMEENGDEEBAHNCHEEKAYWEEHNEENAHOHNAHNUHN

!

BONHEUR RIVER KAME PROVINCIAL NATURE RESERVE

E1CTRANSMISSION LINE

M1MTRANSMISSION LINE

Cat LakeFirstNation

Lac Seul First Nation

McDowell Lake FirstNation

Slate Falls Nation

WabigoonLake Ojibway

Nation

Eagle LakeFirst

Nation

Lac Des MilleLacs First Nation

Mishkeegogamang FirstNation

OjibwayNation ofSaugeen

WabauskangFirst Nation

Savant Lake

PICKLELAKE

!

OSNABURGHHOUSE

WABIGOON

AMESDALE

CAMPROBINSON

CASUMMIT LAKE

COLLINS

ENGLISHRIVER

GOLDPINES

RAITH

TRAPPER'SLANDING

UCHI LAKE

DRYDEN

SIOUXLOOKOUT

IGNACE

DINORWIC

HUDSON

ALLANWATERBRIDGE

EAR FALLS

SAVANT LAKE

CATLAKE

FRENCHMAN'S HEAD

SIX MILECORNER

CENTRALPATRICIA

PICKLE CROW

SWAIN POST

EAGLERIVER MINNITAKI

SAVANNE

SAMLAKE

UPSALA

MIGISISAHGAIGAN

MACDOWELL

PERRAULTFALLS

NARROW LAKE

SLATE FALLS

SOUTHBAY

GRAHAM

! NEWOSNABURGH

SUPERIORJUNCTION

CLIENTWATAYNIKANEYAP POWER L.P.

PROJECT

TITLELOCAL STUDY AREA FOR AIR QUALITY

G:\Projects\2011\11-1151-0456_Dryden_To_PickleLake_TransmissionLine\GIS\MXDs\Working\EA\AirQuality\P1_EA_Air_0001.mxd

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES N

OT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS

SHOW

N, TH

E SH

EET S

IZE H

AS BE

EN M

ODIFI

ED FR

OM:

25mm

0

1535751 #### #### 5.3-1

2017-09-05JMCJMCCSAE

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDDESIGNEDPREPAREDREVIEWEDAPPROVED

LEGEND!. City/Town

")

Wataynikaneyap PowerCommunity(First Nation Community)

") First Nation CommunityRailwayRoadHighwayWaterbodyProvincial ParkConservation ReserveFirst Nations Reserve

Utility LinesExisting ElectricalTransmission LineNatural Gas Pipeline

Air Quality Local Study Area

PHASE 1 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO PICKLE LAKE PROJECT

0 20 40

1:1,100,000 KILOMETERS

REFERENCE(S)1. BASE DATA - MNRF LIO AND NTDB, OBTAINED 20152. CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES - PROVIDED BY GENIVAR MAR-AUG 20123. PRELIMINARY PROPOSED 40-M-WIDE ALIGNMENT ROW - PRODUCED BYGOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. OCTOBER 24, 20134. ACCESS DATA - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. POWTEL ACCESS STUDY2015-06-26.ZIP, CAMPS PREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ, 599 ROUTE ACCESS.KMZ5. CONNECTION FACILITY & TRANSFORMER STATION - PROVIDED BYPOWERTEL. STATIONS PREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ6. FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES FROM INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRSCANADA (WWW.AINC-INAC.GC.CA)7. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIOMINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20088. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATESYSTEM: UTM ZONE 15

1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING TEXT.2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.3. NOT FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES.

NOTE(S)



This page intentionally left blank



5.3.5 Description of the Existing Environment This section provides a summary of the existing environment for air quality as determined through desktop review.

5.3.5.1 Methods A desktop review was completed to identify baseline conditions in the LSAs. Background air quality in the LSAs has been described by considering regional concentrations based on publicly available monitoring data. The background air quality represents the existing conditions of air quality before the construction and operation and maintenance of the Project. Sources of emissions include vehicles on roadways, long-range transboundary air pollution such as industrial sources in the United States and small regional sources such as local industry. Available air quality data sources were reviewed and relevant information assembled to provide a general understanding of air quality conditions in the LSA.

In Ontario, regional air quality is monitored through a network of air quality monitoring stations operated by the MOECC and ECCC’s NAPS. The air quality monitoring stations are owned and operated by the MOECC but are also part of the larger NAPS network and adhere to the operating principles of the network. These stations are operated under strict quality assurance and quality control procedures (ECCC 2016). There are no stations that monitor air quality within 100 kilometres (km) of the Project footprint with the exception of two stations located in Experimental Lakes Area and Pickle Lake. However, both stations only provide data on ozone concentrations. The MOECC typically installs monitors in locations where air quality is an issue. Northern Ontario does not typically have air quality issues as much of the landscape is natural and undisturbed. There are no major human-made influences on air quality within the LSA. The nearest potential industrial emission source is the Musselwhite Mine, which is located approximately 150 km north of the Project. The only sources that could potentially influence the Project include naturally occurring sources and those from long range transport. The predominant west wind limits contributing emissions from Southern Ontario. For these reasons, it is assumed that background levels from the next three closest stations are located in Winnipeg and Thunder Bay are most appropriate to characterize the air quality in this area and are applicable for each of the corridors. All of these three stations are located in much more urban environments than the Project, however, the Winnipeg Flood Pump station is located further away from major urban road intersections and was therefore selected as the most representative, where data from the Pickle Lake Station were not available.

Table 5.3-5 provides station information for each of the relevant monitoring locations from which data were obtained.

Table 5.3-5: Monitoring Station Information

Station ID Location NAPS ID Type of Area Approximate Distance and Direction from Project Site

Pickle Lake Ontario 65901 Rural 0 km (North) Experimental Lakes Ontario 64001 Rural 60 km (west South West) Thunder Bay Ontario 60809 Urban 300 km (South East) Winnipeg (65 Ellen Street) Manitoba 70118 Urban 300 km (West) Winnipeg (Flood Pump Street) Manitoba 70119 Urban 300 km (West)

Notes: Data for the monitoring period predates the name change of the Winnipeg Flood Pump Street Station to the 299 Scotia Street Station. NAPS = National Air Pollution Surveillance Network; km = kilometre.



Table 5.3-6 provides a summary of the monitoring data available from each of the identified stations from 2000 to 2013. At the time of this assessment, complete datasets were available up until 2013, with only partial information available for 2014 and 2015. Not all compounds have the same data availability period for a given station, as additional compounds are added to the station at different dates as required by the ECCC (e.g., SO2 was only monitored starting in 2008).

Table 5.3-6: Availability of Ambient Air Quality Data

Compound Pickle Lake Experimental Lakes Thunder Bay

Winnipeg Station

(65 Ellen Street)

Winnipeg (Flood Pump

Street) SPM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a PM10 n/a n/a n/a 2006 - 2013 n/a PM2.5 n/a n/a 2004 - 2013 2000 - 2002,

2013 2000 - 2002, 2011, 2013

NO2 n/a n/a 2006 - 2013 2000 - 2013 2000 - 2013 NO n/a n/a 2006 - 2013 2000 - 2013 2000 - 2013 SO2 n/a n/a n/a 2008 - 2013 n/a CO n/a n/a n/a 2006 - 2013 2006 - 2013 O3 2006-2008,

2010 - 2012 2000-2008, 2010-2013

2004 - 2013 2000 - 2013 2000 - 2013

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO = nitric oxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; n/a = data for the criteria were not available at that station.

5.3.5.2 Results The 90th percentile of the 1-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour measurements are typically used to represent the background air quality value when conducting an effects assessment as this value is exceeded only 10% of the time. Air quality is not a normally distributed data set, therefore using the maximum would be overly conservative. The industry common practice is to use the 90th percentile as the background concentration to avoid the influence of outlier data. The annual average concentration is used for annual background levels (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2013). The MOECC does not provide specific guidance for this; therefore, guidance from another Canadian jurisdiction was used.

5.3.5.2.1 Concentrations of Particulate Matter Particulate emissions occur from anthropogenic sources, such as agricultural, industrial and transportation sources, as well as natural sources (e.g., forest fires). Particulate matter is classified based on its aerodynamic particle size, primarily due to the different health effects that can be associated with the particles of smaller diameters (i.e., PM2.5). In addition, larger particles (i.e., SPM and PM10) can result in nuisance effects, such as dust or soiling and results in reduced visibility. In Ontario, particulate emissions have been demonstrating a steady decline since 2003 (MOECC 2015).



For 24-hour PM2.5, measurements meet the pending CAAQS values of 27 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m³) (2020 phase in date), as shown on Figure 5.3-2. The annual average PM2.5 values are below the pending CAAQS of 8.8 µg/m³ (2020 phase-in date).

µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre.

Figure 5.3-2: Monitored 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) from Monitoring Stations

No local monitoring data were available for SPM and PM10. However, an estimate of the background SPM and PM10 concentrations can be determined from available PM2.5 monitoring data. Fine particulate matter (i.e., PM2.5) is a subset of PM10, and PM10 is a subset of SPM (Figure 5.3-3). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the ambient concentrations of SPM will be greater than corresponding PM10 levels, and PM10 concentrations will be greater than the corresponding levels of PM2.5. The overall levels of typical background PM2.5 in Canada were found to be approximately 50% of the PM10 concentrations and approximately 25% of the SPM concentrations (Brook et al. 2011). By applying this ratio, background SPM and PM10 concentrations were estimated for the region. Derived SPM and PM10 values are below the relevant Project Criteria.



Figure 5.3-3: Relationship between SPM, PM10 and PM2.5

5.3.5.2.2 Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, and, at high concentrations, toxic gas. It is produced primarily from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, as well as natural sources. Emissions of CO have been decreasing since 1990, mainly due to transportation emission reductions (ECCC 2016). While CO monitoring was not available at most of the monitoring stations, there were no values above the Project criteria for CO recorded at the Winnipeg stations (65 Ellen Street and Flood Pump) between 2009 and 2013 (Figure 5.3-4 and Figure 5.3-5).

SPM

PM10

PM2.5



%ile = percentile; µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre. Figure 5.3-4: Monitored 1-hour Carbon Monoxide from Monitoring Stations

µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre. Figure 5.3-5: Monitored 8-hour Carbon Monoxide from Monitoring Stations



5.3.5.2.3 Concentrations of Sulphur Dioxide The primary source of SO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels in a variety of sectors such as the electricity and smelter sectors. In both Ontario and Manitoba, emissions have decreased considerably due to the phase out of coal-fired generating stations in Ontario. A summary of the monitored SO2 concentrations are summarized on Figure 5.3-6 and Figure 5.3-7. While SO2 monitoring was not available at most of the monitoring stations, no SO2 values above the Project criteria for SO2 were recorded at the Winnipeg station (65 Ellen Street) between 2009 and 2013.

µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre. Figure 5.3-6: Monitored 1-hour Sulphur Dioxide from Monitoring Stations



µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre. Figure 5.3-7: Monitored 24-hour Sulphur Dioxide from Monitoring Stations

5.3.5.2.4 Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are emitted in two primary forms: nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO reacts with ozone in the atmosphere to create NO2. The primary source of NOX in the region is the combustion of fossil fuels. Emissions of NOX result from the operation of stationary equipment such as incinerators, boilers, and generators, as well as agricultural sources and the operation of mobile sources such as vehicles, haul trucks, and other equipment.

The presence of NO2 in the atmosphere has known environmental effects (e.g., acid precipitation, ground-level ozone formation) (MOECC 2015). As a result, regulatory guideline levels are based on NO2 emissions and concentrations. Emissions of NO2 in Ontario have shown a steady decline from 2004 (MOECC 2015). As shown on Figure 5.3-8 and Figure 5.3-9, the monitoring data assessed shows that no exceedances of the Project criteria for NO2 were recorded at any of the Monitoring Stations for which data were available.



NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre. Figure 5.3-8: Monitored 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide from Monitoring Stations

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre Figure 5.3-9: Monitored 24-hour Nitrogen Dioxide from Monitoring Stations



5.3.5.2.5 Concentrations of Ozone Ground-level ozone (O3) is formed when NOx and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight. A summary of the monitored O3 concentrations is provided in Figure 5.3-10 and Figure 5.3-11. Although the maximum 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of O3 were above the Project criteria, the average and 90th percentile concentrations were below. Overall, O3 values above the 1-hour Project criteria were measured less than 8% of the time throughout the period of 2009 to 2013 (equivalent to approximately 29 days per year).

O3 = ozone; µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre. Figure 5.3-10: Monitored 1-hour Ozone from Monitoring Stations



O3 = ozone µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre. Figure 5.3-11: Monitored 8-hour Ozone from Monitoring Stations



5.3.5.2.6 Summary of Monitored Data by Station For each of the five monitoring stations, monitoring data for the years 2009 through 2013 were summarized by CAC for the averaging period relevant to the Project Criteria. As discussed above, to provide an understanding of the variability of the monitoring data, the average, 75th percentile, 90th percentile, and maximum values for all stations are summarized in Table 5.3-7 through Table 5.3-11.

Table 5.3-7: Summary of Background Air Quality at the Winnipeg Station (65 Ellen Street) (2009 – 2013)

CAC Averaging Period Average (µg/m³)(a)

75th (µg/m³)(a)

90th (µg/m³)(a)

Max (µg/m³)(a)

SPM 24-hour 13.63 16.23 22.46 83.25 Annual 13.72 n/a n/a 19.45

PM10 24-hour 6.81 8.11 11.23 41.63 PM2.5(b) 24-hour 6.65 8.29 11.58 33.46

Annual 6.64 n/a n/a 6.64 NO2 1-Hour 18.45 24.45 39.50 165.53

24-Hour 18.48 24.62 35.41 71.23 Annual 18.48 n/a n/a 21.86

SO2 1-Hour 0.74 0.00 2.62 47.15 24-Hour 0.75 1.09 2.62 9.79 Annual 0.75 n/a n/a 1.30

CO 1-Hour 373.75 458.10 801.67 6642.40 8-Hour 453.79 588.98 916.19 2192.32

O3(c) 1-Hour 43.85 58.87 74.57 141.30 8-Hour 56.88 72.37 86.35 135.90

Notes: a) Data measured in parts per billion (ppb) or parts per million (ppm), were converted to µg/m³ assuming standard temperature and pressure (25°C and one atmosphere of pressure). b) The 24-hour CAAQS for PM2.5 is based on the three-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily averaged monitored data. The annual CAAQS for PM2.5 is based on the three-year average of annual averaged monitored data. Please note, the table does not present the values to compare to the relevant CAAQS due to insufficient data. c) The 8-hour CAAQS for O3 is based on the fourth highest 8-hour value annually, averaged over a 3-year period. Please note, the table does not present the values to compare to the relevant CAAQS; however, this value may be found in Section 5.3.3. µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre; CAC = criteria air contaminant; CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; n/a = data for the criteria were not measured at that station.



Table 5.3-8: Summary of Background Air Quality at the Winnipeg Station (Flood Pump) (2009 – 2013)


75th (µg/m³)(a)

90th (µg/m³)(a)

Max (µg/m³)(a)


PM10 24-hour 11.44 14.36 22.35 67.57 PM2.5(b) 24-hour 5.72 7.18 11.17 33.78


24-Hour 12.81 17.02 26.58 79.75 Annual 12.70 n/a n/a 14.47

SO2 1-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a 24-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a

CO 1-Hour 298.32 343.64 572.73 3779.99 8-Hour 361.27 472.50 687.27 2650.90

O3(c) 1-Hour 50.11 66.74 82.44 251.25 8-Hour 64.78 79.25 94.46 135.19




Table 5.3-9: Summary of Background Air Quality at the Thunder Bay Station (2009 – 2013)


75th (µg/m³)(a)

90th (µg/m³)(a)

Max (µg/m³)(a)


PM10 24-hour 9.23 12.17 17.83 101.91 PM2.5(b) 24-hour 4.62 6.08 8.92 50.96


24-Hour 14.83 18.85 26.42 59.89 Annual 14.83 n/a n/a 16.19


CO 1-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a 8-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a

O3(c) 1-Hour 49.62 66.74 80.48 145.25 8-Hour 64.47 76.06 87.35 127.83




Table 5.3-10: Summary of Background Air Quality at the Experimental Lakes Station (2009 – 2013)


75th (µg/m³)(a)

90th (µg/m³)(a)

Max (µg/m³)(a)

SPM 24-hour n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a

PM10 24-hour n/a n/a n/a n/a PM2.5(b) 24-hour n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a NO2 1-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a

24-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a



O3(c) 1-Hour 63.13 76.55 90.29 151.14 8-Hour 72.02 85.14 97.41 144.52




Table 5.3-11: Summary of Background Air Quality at the Pickle Lake Station (2009 – 2013)


75th (µg/m³)(a)

90th (µg/m³)(a)

Max (µg/m³)(a)

SPM 24-hour n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a

PM10 24-hour n/a n/a n/a n/a PM2.5(b) 24-hour n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a NO2 1-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a

24-Hour n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a



O3(c) 1-Hour 59.39 72.63 84.40 149.18 8-Hour 68.18 79.62 90.78 130.53




5.3.5.2.7 Summary of Existing Environment A summary of the background air quality concentrations for indicator compounds is provided in Table 5.3-12. Overall, the monitoring data indicate that background air quality surrounding the Project is below the relevant provincial and federal ambient air quality guidelines, criteria and standards. The same baseline air quality concentrations are used for all three corridors.

Table 5.3-12: Air Quality Background Concentrations

Indicator Compound Averaging Period Background

Concentration (µg/m³)

Project Criteria (µg/m³)

% of Project Criteria

SPM 24-Hour 44.70 120 37% Annual 22.73 70 32%

PM10 24-Hour 22.35 50 45% PM2.5 24-Hour 11.17 27 41%

Annual 5.68 8.8 65% NOX

(expressed as NO2) 1-Hour 31.98 400 8% 24-Hour 26.58 200 13% Annual 12.70 100 13%

SO2 1-Hour 2.62 900 0% 24-Hour 2.62 300 1% Annual 0.75 60 1%

CO 1-Hour 572.73 35,000 2% 8-hour 687.27 15,000 5%

O3 1-Hour 84.40 165 51% 8-Hour 90.78 122 74%

Notes: 1-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour values are based on 90th percentile, while annual values are averaged over the five annual values available in the period. The 24-hour PM2.5 is calculated according the requirements of the standard, which uses the three-year rolling average of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour observations. Data are taken from Pickle Lake Station, where data are measured. Where data are not measured, data were taken from the Winnipeg Flood pump and then Winnipeg Ellen Street. SPM and PM10 concentrations are derived from PM2.5 monitored data. µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre; CO = carbon monoxide; O3 = ozone; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; % = percent.



5.3.6 Potential Project-Environment Interactions Potential Project-environment interactions were identified through a review of the Project Description and existing environmental conditions. The linkages between Project components and activities and potential effects to air quality are identified in Table 5.3-13.

Table 5.3-13: Project-Environment Interactions for Air Quality

Criteria Indicator

Project Phase

Description of Potential Project-

Environment Interaction

Construction (includes access road and ROW

preparation, installation, and

reclamation activities)

Operation (includes

operation and maintenance

activities)

Air Quality Predicted ambient concentrations of: SPM PM10 and PM2.5 CO NO2 SO2

* Change in CAC and fugitive dust emissions from construction activities

Notes = A potential Project-environment interaction could result in an environmental or socio-economic effect. _ = No plausible interaction was identified. * The assessment of Project effects on air quality considers effects that occur during the construction stage as emissions are considered to be largest during this stage of the Project. This timeframe is intended to be sufficient to capture the effects of the Project.

5.3.7 Potential Effects, Impact Management Measures, and Net Effects This section presents the potential effects, appropriate impact management measures, and predicted net Project effects for air quality. Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of potential effects, impact management measures and net effects apply to all corridors. A summary of the potential effects, impact management measures and net effects are presented in Table 5.3-27.



5.3.7.1 Change in Criteria Air Contaminants and Fugitive Dust Emissions from Construction Activities

5.3.7.1.1 Potential Effects The potential sources of air and fugitive dust emissions are from equipment and activities associated with construction of the Project. Specifically, construction activities have the potential to temporarily affect local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Emissions from construction are primarily comprised of fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter that is suspended in air by wind action and human activity) and tailpipe emissions (i.e., CAC) from the movement and operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Potential effects associated with construction are anticipated to be minimal due to their short duration and intermittent frequency. Additionally, the majority of construction activities are expected to occur in winter, which will reduce fugitive dust emissions by providing natural impact management measures from precipitation. A screening assessment was completed to assess potential short-term effects on local air quality.

The emission sources associated with construction of the Project include the following:

land clearing and material handling;

vehicular emissions;

fugitive dust from vehicles travelling on unpaved roads;

concrete batching; and

diesel generators at the construction camps.

These activities will be sequentially staggered and therefore it is not reasonable to include all construction activities in the modelled scenario. However, it was assumed that as a worst case, all activities could occur within any 24-hour period and within an approximately 5 km stretch along the corridor (applies to all three corridor options). Corresponding equipment data for these activities were used in combination with published emission factors to prepare emission rate estimates for a representative, approximately 5 km stretch of construction activities. Published emission factors were taken from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) database. This is an MOECC approved data source and industry standard, given that Ontario does not publish emission factors to the same level of detail. A description of how emission calculations were prepared for each type of emission source is provided in the following sections. Impact management measures were assumed to be implemented and were incorporated into the fugitive dust and material handling calculations. Impact management measures planned to further reduce the effects of air emissions associated with the Project include practices to control dust and other air emissions (e.g., maintenance of vehicles and equipment, wetting areas). In areas where there are residences or sensitive receptors located within approximately 200 m of the Project footprint, emphasis will be placed on comprehensive implementation of impact management measures, in particular dust suppression activities such as watering and dust suppressants. Fugitive dust controls on unpaved roads and material handling activities range from a 10% to 90% control (Western Governors’ Association 2006). In this assessment, a conservative mid-range control efficiency of 65% was assumed.



5.3.7.1.1.1 Land Clearing and Material Handling Land clearing and material handling activities include the use of excavators, dozers, graders, and dump trucks to extract and move material. Emissions from these activities include fugitive dust from material movements.

Emission Calculation – Grading An equation from U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining (1998) was used to calculate the emission factors associated with grading activities. The equation for SPM, PM10 and PM2.5 are as follows:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 0.0034 × 𝑆𝑆2.5

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆10 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆15 × 0.6

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆2.5 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 0.031

where: EFxxx = particulate emission factor (kg/VKT) S = speed of grader (km/hr)

The following equation was used to determine the emission rates for SPM, PM10 and PM2.5 from grading using the emission factor equation above.

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 × 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 ×1,000 𝑔𝑔

1 𝑘𝑘𝑔𝑔 ×

1 ℎ𝑟𝑟3600 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

×𝐻𝐻

24 ℎ𝑟𝑟× (1 − 𝐶𝐶)

where: ERGR= emission rate from grading (g/s) EFxxx =particulate emission factor (kg/VKT) VKT = vehicle kilometres travelled/day H = hours per day grading is occurring (hr) C=Control efficiency (%)

Emission Calculation – Bulldozing An equation from U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining (1998) was used to calculate the emission factors associated with bulldozing activities. The equation for SPM, PM10 and PM2.5 are as follows:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 =2.6 × 𝑠𝑠1.2

𝑀𝑀1.3

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆10 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆15 × 0.75

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆2.5 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 0.105

where: EFxxx = particulate emission factor (kg/hour) s = silt content (%) M= material moisture content (%)



The following equation was used to determine the emission rates for SPM, PM10 and PM2.5 from bulldozing using the emission factor equation above.

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 ×1,000 𝑔𝑔

1 𝑘𝑘𝑔𝑔 ×


×𝐻𝐻

24 ℎ𝑟𝑟× (1 − 𝐶𝐶)

where: ERBZ= emission rate from bulldozing (g/s) EFxxx =particulate emission factor (kg/hour) H = hours per day grading is occurring (hr) C=Control Efficiency (%)

Emission Calculation – Material Handling A primary source of fugitive dust in construction is the result of transfer of materials to/from stockpiles. The emission factors will vary depending on the moisture content of the material being moved.

The emissions from material handing include SPM, PM10 and PM2.5. To quantify emissions from these activities, an equation in U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles (2006) was used to calculate the fugitive dust emission factors associated with material handling activities. The equation is as follows:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀 = 𝑘𝑘 × 0.0016 ×� 𝑈𝑈2.2�

1.3

�M2�

1.4

where: EFMH = particulate emission factor (kg/Mg), k = particle size multiplier for particle size range (Table 5.3-14) U = Wind speed (m/s), and M =moisture content of material (percent) (%)

Table 5.3-14: Particle Size Multipliers – Material Handling

Size Range Particle Size Multiplier (k)

PM2.5 0.053 PM10 0.35 SPM 0.74

Notes: k = particle size multiplier for particle size range; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm.



The following equation was used to determine the emission rates for SPM, PM10 and PM2.5 from material handling using the emission factor equation above.

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀 × 𝐷𝐷𝑉𝑉 ×1,000,𝑔𝑔

1 𝑘𝑘𝑔𝑔×

1 𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟

×1 ℎ𝑟𝑟

3600 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠× (1 − 𝐶𝐶)

where: ERMH = emission rate (g/s) DT = daily throughput (Mg/day) EFMH = emission factor (kg/Mg)

C=Control Efficiency (%)

Emission rates for land clearing and material handling were calculated using the following inputs (Table 5.3-15):

Table 5.3-15: Land Clearing and Material Handling Emission Calculation Inputs

Emission Activity Input/Emission Factor Notation Value Notes

Grading Grader Vehicle Speed (km/h)

S 5 None

VKT/day VKT/day 50 Assumed two graders cover 25 VKT/ day each

Hours per day grading is occurring

H 10 Typical length of a construction day

Dust Suppressant Control Efficiency (%)

C 65% Mid-range of typical dust control efficiencies

Bulldozing Silt content (%) s 6.9% Typical silt content of overburden (AP 42, section 11.9)

Hours per day grading is occurring

H 10 Typical length of a construction day



Material handling Moisture Content M 3.4% Typical moisture content of exposed ground (AP 42, section 13.2.4)

Wind Speed (m/s) U 3.44 Environment and Climate Change Canada Climate Normal for Wawa

Material Hauling DT 1,200 tonnes/day n/a Dust Suppressant Control Efficiency (%)


Notes: n/a = not applicable; km/h = kilometres per hour; m/s = metres per second; VKT = vehicle kilometres travelled; % = percent.



5.3.7.1.1.2 Vehicular Emissions Vehicle engine emission rates for all off-road vehicles (i.e., the mobile fleet) were derived using the emission standards for off-road engines outlined in the Canadian Off-Road Compression Engine Emission Regulation SOR/2005-32, promulgated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) (ECCC 1999). This regulation aligns engine certification values to those of U.S. EPA Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards (US EPA 2010). Vehicle exhaust emissions were conservatively prepared, assuming vehicles comply with U.S. EPA Tier 3 emission standards. Tier 3 emission standards are the minimum emission standards that vehicle exhausts are required to meet in Ontario on equipment purchased after 2010. New equipment is typically designed to meet more stringent Tier 4 emission standards that can be less than 10% of Tier 3 emission standards. Vehicles were assumed to be operating for ten hours, 365 days per year. This is a conservative assumption as construction of an approximately 5 km stretch of the Project is predicted to take substantially less than one year.

Tier 3 emission standards are provided for NOX, CO, and total SPM. Within these limits all SPM is in the form of PM10, and PM2.5 emissions are 97% of PM10 emissions.

The following equation was used to determine the emission rates for non-road vehicles exhaust:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟 𝐸𝐸𝑑𝑑𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑔𝑔 × 𝑉𝑉 × 𝐿𝐿𝐸𝐸 ×𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑜 𝑂𝑂𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

24 ℎ𝑟𝑟 ×


where: ER = emission rate (g/s) V = number of vehicles EF = emission factor (g/hp-hr), and LF = load factor

Load factors were derived from published literature for the respective vehicle categories.

For SO2, emissions were calculated based on fuel consumption rates for each specific equipment type. The sulphur content of fuel was assumed to be 15 parts per million (ppm), and is based on the Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations SOR/2002-254, dated June 2012, promulgated under CEPA (CEPA 1999). The following equation was used to determine the SO2 emission factor:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑠𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 × 𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅 ×𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑆𝑆𝑂𝑂2

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟

where: MM = molar mass (g/mol)



Table 5.3-16 outlines the inputs used (i.e., horsepower, number and load factors) to calculate the emissions from the construction fleet engine exhaust.

Table 5.3-16: Off-Road Vehicles Exhaust Emission Rate Calculation Parameters

Equipment Number of Vehicles

Engine Size (hp) Load Factor

Daily Operating Hours

per Vehicle(a) Personnel carriers (tracks) – Group 5 173 0.5 5 Personnel carriers (tracks) – Individual 5 50 0.5 10 Bulldozers 5 363 0.58 10 Excavators 7 417 0.53 10 Concrete mixers 1 475 0.43 10 Line trucks 4 305 0.43 5 Gravel trucks 3 717 0.43 5 Transport trucks – A 2 511 0.43 5 Transport trucks – B 4 455 0.43 5 Truck mounted cranes 7 523 0.43 10 Skidders 4 250 0.23 10 Logging trucks 3 600 0.43 5 Pick-up trucks 28 365 0.43 5 Fuel truck 1 717 0.43 5 Dozer 3 646 0.58 10 Grader 2 532 0.64 10

Notes: a) Within a 5 km stretch of construction activities along the ROW. hp = horsepower.



5.3.7.1.1.3 Fugitive Dust from Vehicles Travelling on Unpaved Roads Emissions from unpaved roads occur as the result of the entrainment of dust from the road as a result of vehicle traffic. Particles are lifted from the surface and entrained. The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the road after the vehicle has passed.

The predictive emission equation in U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads (2006) was used to calculate the emissions of SPM, PM10 and PM2.5 from unpaved roadways. The equation applicable to vehicles travelling on unpaved surfaces at industrial sites (Equation 1a) was used, and is as follows:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝑘𝑘 �𝑠𝑠

12�𝑎𝑎�𝑊𝑊3�𝑏𝑏

where: EF = emission factor (lb/VMT) k = particle size multiplier (lb/VMT) (Table 5.3-17) s = surface silt content (%) W = mean vehicle weight (tons) a = empirical constant (Table 5.3-17) b = empirical constant (Table 5.3-17), and 1 lb/VMT = 281.9 g/VKT

This emission factor is then multiplied by the number of vehicles travelling the roadway and the length of the roadway (denoted as VKT) to derive a SPM emission rate. Due to the high variability from site to site, it is recommended that site specific values be determined. For example, a 1% change in silt content will result in a 34% reduction in the pounds per vehicle mile travelled (lbs/VMT).

Table 5.3-17: Particle Size Constants for Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Roads Equation

Size Range k (lb/VMT) a b PM2.5 0.15 0.9 0.45 PM10 1.5 0.9 0.45 SPM 4.9 0.7 0.45

Notes: lb/VMT = pound per vehicle mile travelled; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm.

In addition, the effect of routine watering to control emissions was applied. Unpaved road dust emissions were calculated without an adjustment for natural impact management measures. This is very conservative as the majority of construction activities are anticipated to occur in winter which provides natural impact management measures through precipitation.



The emission rate calculation for unpaved roads was as follows:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉/𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ××1 𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝑟𝑟

×1 ℎ𝑟𝑟

3600 𝑠𝑠× 𝐶𝐶

where: EF = emission factor in g/VKT VKT/day = vehicle kilometre travelled per day C= Control Efficiency (%)

Table 5.3-18 outlines the inputs used to calculate the fugitive dust emissions from the trucks travelling on the access roads. The required information to calculate the vehicle kilometres travelled per day (VKT/day) and the fugitive dust emissions from the unpaved roads are presented in Table 5.3-19.

Table 5.3-18: Unpaved Road Dust Emission Rate Calculation Parameter

Emission Activity Input/Emission Factor Notation Value Notes Unpaved Road Dust

Silt content (%) s 6.9% Typical silt content of overburden (AP 42, section 11.9).


C 65% Mid-range of typical dust control efficiencies.

Notes: % = percent.

Table 5.3-19: Off-road Vehicles Fugitive Dust Emission Rate Calculation Parameters

Equipment Number of Vehicles

Weight (tons)

Maximum VKT/day/vehicle(a)

Daily Operating Hours per Vehicle(a)

Personnel carriers (tracks) - Group 5 1.97 10 5 Personnel carriers (tracks) -Individual 5 0.28 5 10 Excavators 7 13.28 5 10 Concrete mixers 1 44.28 5 10 Line trucks 4 6.40 5 5 Gravel trucks 3 25.68 5 5 Transport trucks - A 2 9.87 5 5 Transport trucks - B 4 39.36 5 5 Skidders 4 14.76 5 10 Logging trucks 3 66.91 5 5 Pick-up trucks 28 2.46 5 5 Fuel truck 1 35.42 5 5

Notes: a) Within a 5 km stretch of construction activities. b) Vehicle weight shown in Table 5.3-19 is a mean vehicle weight. VKT/day/vehicle = vehicle kilometres travelled per day per vehicle.



5.3.7.1.1.4 Concrete Batching It was assumed that one concrete batching plant may be needed to pour foundations for the connection facility, transmission station or pole foundations. Emissions from concrete batching occur from transfer of sand, aggregate and cement from storage to conveyors, weigh hopper and truck loading in the appropriate quantities.

Emission factors for each material transfer point, typical of a truck mix plant are provided in U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 11.12 Concrete Batching (2012) to calculate the emissions of SPM, and PM10. Emission Factors are provided on a mass per cubic yard of concrete basis. In the absence of additional data, it was assumed that all PM10 emissions may also be PM2.5.

Emission rates were calculated for each transfer point, as follows:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ×𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠3

𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ×

1000𝑔𝑔2.2𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙

×1 𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝑟𝑟

×1 ℎ𝑟𝑟

3600 𝑠𝑠

where: EF = emission factor in lb/yard³ yard³/day = daily concrete production rate (Table 5.3-20)

Table 5.3-20: Concrete Batching Emission Rate Calculation Parameter

Emission Activity Input/Emission Factor Notation Value Concrete batching Daily concrete production rate yard³/day 130

Notes: yard3/day = cubic yard per day.

5.3.7.1.1.5 Power Generation It is anticipated that temporary construction camps will utilise two diesel power generators, one will provide power to the camp and the second will provide back up or standby power. Emissions occur from diesel combustion. Emission factors were taken from manufacturer specification sheets for a generator of the same size and are provided in Table 5.3-21 below:

Table 5.3-21: Power Generation Emission Factors

Indicator Compound Emission Factor (g/hp-hr)

NOx 5.15 CO 0.41

SPM 0.02 SO2 0.055

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrous oxides; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm.g/hp-hr = grams per horsepower-hour.



It was assumed that all SPM is in the form PM10 and also PM2.5. Table 5.3-22 presents the parameters for the emission rates used for power generation calculations.

Table 5.3-22: Power Generation Emission Rate Calculation Parameter

Emission Activity Input/ Emission Factor Notation Value Notes

Power generation Maximum Capacity HP-hr 671 n/a Hours per day operational H 24 Assumed to be continuously operational

Notes: H = hours; HP-hr = horsepower-hour; n/a = not applicable.

5.3.7.1.1.6 Emissions Summary A summary of the total emission rates (estimated construction emissions including impact management measures for fugitive dust) for each indicator compound is provided in Table 5.3-23.

Table 5.3-23: Total Construction Emission Rates for Representative 5 Kilometre Segment of Project Construction

Indicator Compound

Emission Rates by Source Total Emission Rate for

Representative 5 km Segment of

Transmission Line Construction

(g/s)

Total Emission Rate for

Construction Camp (g/s)

Material Handling Activities

(g/s)

Vehicle Exhaust

(g/s)

Unpaved Road Dust (g/s)

Concrete Batch Plant (g/s)

Power Generation at Construction

Camp (g/s)

SPM 0.26 0.17 1.04 0.02 0.00 1.50 0.00 PM10 0.10 0.17 0.28 0.01 0.00 0.56 0.00 PM2.5 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.00 NOx as NO2 0 2.37 0 0 0.96 2.37 0.96 SO2 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 CO 0 3.38 0 0 0.08 3.38 0.08 Notes: g/s = gram per second; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; NOx = nitrous oxides; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide.

A screening assessment was completed using the emission rates presented in Table 5.3-23 and the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model to predict air quality concentrations at approximately 100 m intervals from the Project footprint to the outer boundary of the LSAs. AERMOD is a Gaussian plume model that calculates maximum ground level concentrations from point, area, flare and volume sources. It is used for compliance assessments in Ontario to estimate concentrations from stationary sources (MOECC 2008).



For emissions from the transmission line construction, emission rates were modelled as a series of volume sources located along a 5-km stretch of the transmission line to represent the emission sources operating at once in the same volume of air. This is a conservative representation of construction activities, likely to result in an overestimate of predicted concentrations as the activities are assumed to be stationary instead of mobile. This is appropriate for the screening level approach used for the assessment. During construction, emission sources will be spread out across the width of the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW and the maximum ground level concentrations resulting from each activity will not occur in the same location.

Emissions from the temporary construction camps were calculated to be considerably less than emissions from construction activities and therefore were not modelled further as any effects would be lesser in magnitude.

Results were calculated based on 1-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour averaging periods. Annual results were also calculated for comparison to annual air quality criteria. This is a conservative comparison as the construction period for an approximately 5 km segment of the transmission line is anticipated to require much less than one year. A summary of results is provided in Table 5.3-24 and applies to each of the three corridors.

Table 5.3-24: Predicted Air Quality Concentrations at Increasing Distance from the Transmission Line Alignment Right-of-Way in the Air Quality Local Study Area

Indicator Compound

Averaging Period

Relevant Project Criteria

Distance from Transmission Line Alignment Right-of-Way (m)

100 200 300 400 500 1,000 1,500 SPM

(µg/m3) 24-Hour 120 70.51 47.70 36.14 29.32 24.80 22.04 11.12 Annual 70 12.13 8.03 6.09 4.94 4.16 3.59 1.57

PM10 (µg/m3)

24-Hour 50 26.49 17.92 13.58 11.02 9.32 8.28 4.18

PM2.5 (µg/m3)

24-Hour 27 10.79 7.30 5.53 4.49 3.79 3.37 1.70 Annual 8.8 1.86 1.23 0.93 0.76 0.64 0.55 0.24

NO2 (µg/m3)

1-Hour 400 325.91 209.05 156.31 127.05 106.13 91.12 43.65 24-Hour 200 111.98 75.75 57.40 46.57 39.39 35.00 17.65 Annual 100 19.27 12.75 9.67 7.84 6.60 5.70 2.49

SO2 (µg/m3)

1-Hour 900 0.88 0.56 0.42 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.12 24-Hour 300 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.05 Annual 60 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

CO (µg/m3)

1-Hour 36,200 464.11 297.71 222.59 180.93 151.14 129.76 62.16 8-Hour 15,700 259.27 166.31 124.35 101.07 84.43 72.49 34.73

Notes: 1-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour values are based on 90th percentile, while annual values are averaged over the five annual values available in the period. The 24-hour PM2.5 is calculated according the requirements of the standard, which uses the three-year rolling average of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour observations. Data are taken from Pickle Lake Station, where data are available. Where data are not available, data were taken from the Winnipeg Flood pump and then Winnipeg Ellen Street. SPM and PM10 concentrations are derived from PM2.5 monitored data. µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre; m = metre; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide.



The screening assessment indicates that predicted concentrations from Project activities of indicator compounds are below the relevant Project criteria (i.e., the lowest applicable criteria) within approximately 100 m of the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW. Predicted concentrations from Project activities were added to background data, where available, and summarized in Table 5.3-25 and apply to all three corridors and their respective LSAs. Predicted concentrations from Project activities in combination with background air quality are below the relevant criteria within approximately 100 m of the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW after effective implementation of impact management measures.

Table 5.3-25: Predicted Air Quality Concentrations (Including Background) at Increasing Distance from Transmission Line Alignment Right-of-Way in the Air Quality Local Study Areas

Indicator Compound

Averaging Period

Relevant Project Criteria

Distance from Transmission Line Alignment Right-of-Way (m)

100 200 300 400 500 1,000 1,500

SPM (µg/m3)

24-Hour 120 115.21 92.40 80.84 74.02 69.50 66.74 55.82 Annual 70 34.86 30.76 28.82 27.67 26.89 26.32 24.30

PM10 (µg/m3)

24-Hour 50 48.84 40.27 35.93 33.37 31.67 30.63 26.53

PM2.5 (µg/m3)

24-Hour 27 21.96 18.47 16.70 15.66 14.96 14.54 12.87 Annual 8.8 7.54 6.91 6.61 6.44 6.32 6.23 5.92

NO2 (µg/m3)

1-Hour 400 357.89 241.03 188.29 159.03 138.11 123.10 75.63 24-Hour 200 138.56 102.33 83.98 73.15 65.97 61.58 44.23 Annual 100 31.97 25.45 22.37 20.54 19.30 18.40 15.19

SO2 (µg/m3)

1-Hour 900 3.50 3.18 3.04 2.96 2.91 2.87 2.74 24-Hour 300 2.92 2.82 2.77 2.75 2.73 2.71 2.67 Annual 60 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76

CO (µg/m3)

1-Hour 36,200 1036.84 870.44 795.32 753.66 723.87 702.49 634.89 8-Hour 15,700 946.54 853.58 811.62 788.34 771.70 759.76 722.00

Notes: 1-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour values are based on 90th percentile, while annual values are averaged over the five annual values available in the period. The 24-hour PM2.5 is calculated according the requirements of the standard, which uses the three-year rolling average of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour observations. Data are taken from Pickle Lake Station, where data are available. Where data are not available, data were taken from the Winnipeg Flood pump and then Winnipeg Ellen Street. SPM and PM10 concentrations are derived from PM2.5 monitored data. µg/m³ = microgram per cubic metre; m = metre; SPM = Suspended Particulate Matter <44 µm; PM10 = particles nominally smaller than 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5 = particles nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulphur dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide.



A conservative screening assessment was completed to assess potential effects on air quality. In Ontario, there are no applicable regulatory limits for air quality emissions from construction activities. Therefore, predicted concentrations were assessed against the Project indicators that provide an indicator of good air quality. The results of the screening assessment indicate that predicted concentrations from Project activities and predicted concentrations from Project activities in combination with background air quality for indicator compounds are below the relevant regulatory criteria within approximately 100 m of the Project footprint for assessed averaging periods. Predicted concentrations decrease by as much as 50% an additional approximately 100 m from the Project footprint.

As part of the noise assessment (Section 5.5), a series of potential air and noise sensitive receptors were identified using Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Land Information Ontario (LIO) and CANVEC spatial datasets. The MNRF LIO and CANVEC spatial dataset identifies existing structures which include but are not limited to dwellings, garages, sheds and barns. These structures have been conservatively considered as potential points of reception (PORs), but it is anticipated that a number of these structures may not qualify as sensitive receptors and would require further verification. The number of existing potential receptors, within given distances to the Project footprint in the air quality LSA, is summarized in Table 5.3-26.

Table 5.3-26: Potential Receptors

Distances

Number of Potential Receptors

Preliminary Proposed Corridor LSA

Corridor Alternative Around

Mishkeegogamang LSA

Corridor Alternative Through

Mishkeegogamang LSA In Project footprint 2 8 13 0 to 50 m 4 8 10 50 to 100 m 8 19 21 100 to 250 m 19 62 82 250 to 500 m 50 132 169 500 to 1,000 m 97 203 255 1,000 to 1,500 m 42 139 179 1,500 m to edge of LSA 317 1,205 1,151 Total 539 1,776 1,880

Notes: LSA = local study area; m = metre.

Based on the table above, the Preliminary Proposed Corridor has the lowest number of total potential receptors and potential receptors within 100 m of the Project footprint. The potential receptors located within 100 m of the Project footprint of the preferred corridor will be verified for the air quality assessment and if confirmed, removed as a receptor as part of the Project detailed design.



5.3.7.1.2 Impact Management Measures Where reasonable and practical, vehicles and equipment will be turned off when not in use and will be regularly serviced, maintained and inspected for leaks. Slash piles will be burned in compliance with O. Reg. 207/96. In addition, other dust control practices (e.g., wetting with water) will be implemented. Dust-generating activities will be reduced, as practical, during periods of high wind. Multi‑passenger vehicles will be used to transport personnel, where practical.

5.3.7.1.3 Net Effect Overall, a negligible net effect of the Project is predicted on ambient concentrations of SPM, ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5, ambient concentrations of CO, ambient concentrations of NO2 and ambient concentrations of SO2 given the screening-level results and implementation of the impact management measures identified above (Section 5.3.8.7) and in Table 5.3-27. Change to air quality from CAC and fugitive dust emissions during construction activities is carried forward to the net effects characterization (Section 5.3.8).



Table 5.3-27: Potential Effects, Impact Management Measures, and Predicted Net Effects for Air Quality

Project Component or Activity Potential Effect Impact Management Measures Net Effect

Project activities during the construction stage: clearing, grading, earth moving,

grubbing of vegetation, and stockpiling of materials along the ROW and other access and construction areas, and construction of infrastructure (e.g., access roads, bridges, temporary laydown areas and temporary construction camps);

operation of vehicles, construction equipment, and diesel generators;

reclamation of decommissioned access roads, temporary laydown areas, staging areas, and construction camps; and

concrete mixing on-site or in batch plants.

Changes in CAC and fugitive dust emissions from construction activities

Where reasonable and practical, vehicles and equipment will be turned off when not in use, unless weather and/or safety conditions dictate the need for them to remain turned on and in a safe operating condition.

Vehicles and equipment will be regularly serviced, maintained and inspected for leaks.

Slash pile burning will be subject to agreements with Aboriginal communities, landowners, and to permits and approvals by appropriate regulatory agencies. Slash piles will be burned in compliance with O. Reg. 207/96.

Dust control practices (e.g., wetting with water) will be implemented at concrete batch plants, work sites and on access roads near residential areas or other areas.

Minimize dust-generating activities, as practical and where required, during periods of high wind to limit dust emissions and spread.

Multi‑passenger vehicles will be used to transport personnel, where practical.

Wataynikaneyap or their contractor(s) will prepare and implement a Dust/Air Quality Management Plan prior to construction. An overview of this plan can be found in Section 9.3.1.1.

Net changes in CAC and fugitive dust ambient conditions during construction activities



5.3.8 Net Effects Characterization 5.3.8.1 Net Effects Characterization Approach The effects assessment approach followed the general process described in Section 4.0 (methods section).

Net effects are described using the significance factors identified in Table 5.3-29. Effects levels are defined for the magnitude of effects characteristics for air quality in Table 5.3-28.

Table 5.3-28: Magnitude Effect Levels for Air Quality

Indicator / Net Effect

Magnitude Level Definition

Negligible Low Moderate High

Change in CAC and fugitive dust ambient conditions during construction activities

A small measurable change that is expected to be within the range of baseline or guideline values, or within the range of natural variability

A measurable change (discernable) that is expected to be at or slightly exceed the limits of baseline or guideline values

A discernable effect that is potentially detrimental but manageable – does not represent a management concern(a)

A discernable effect the is substantially detrimental – the effect can pose a serious risk and represents a management concern(a)

a) An effect that poses a management concern may require actions such as research, monitoring or recovery initiatives.

5.3.8.2 Net Effects Characterization A summary of the characterization of net effects of the Project on air quality is provided in Table 5.3-29. Net effects are described after the implementation of effective impact management measures, and summarized according to direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration/reversibility, frequency, and probability of the effect occurring following the methods described in Section 4.0. Effective implementation of impact management measures summarized in Table 5.3-27, Section 5.3.7.1.2, and the Environmental and Social Management Plan (Section 9.0) is expected to reduce the magnitude and duration of net effects on air quality.

5.3.8.3 Net Change in Criteria Air Contaminants and Fugitive Dust Ambient Conditions during Construction Activities

Construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to temporarily affect local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Potential effects associated with construction are anticipated to be minimal due to their short duration and intermittent frequency. Additionally, as the majority of construction activities are anticipated to take place during winter months, this will add additional natural impact management measures that were not accounted for in the calculations. As a result, construction emissions are unlikely to have a long-term effect on local air quality.

The magnitude of the effect is assessed as negligible because the implementation of impact management measures described in Section 5.3.7.1.2 will reduce CAC emissions and fugitive dust. The net effect does not extend into the Air Quality RSA and is considered to be short-term and reversible. The net effect is predicted to be intermittent and probable.



Table 5.3-29: Characterization of Predicted Net Effects for Air Quality

Criteria Indicators Net Effect Direct/ Indirect

Significance Factors Significance

Direction Magnitude Geographic Extent

Duration/ Irreversibility Frequency Likelihood of

Occurrence Air

Quality Predicted

ambient concentrations of: SPM PM10 and

PM2.5 CO NO2 SO2

Net change in CAC and fugitive dust ambient conditions during construction activities

Direct Negative Negligible Local - LSA Short-term – reversible

Infrequent Probable Not Significant



5.3.9 Assessment of Significance The assessment of significance of net effects of the Project is informed by the interaction between the significance factors, with magnitude, duration and geographic extent being the most important factors. Consideration is also given to concerns of interested agencies, groups and individuals raised during consultation and engagement and through review comments on the EA reports. Implementation of proven impact management measures is expected to avoid or reduce the duration and magnitude of net effects on air quality. The magnitude of the predicted net effect on air quality is negligible (a small measurable change that is expected to be within the range of baseline or guideline values), direct, and local (not extending into the RSA). The net effect is anticipated to be reversible over the short-term.

Net effects to a criterion would be considered to be significant if the majority of the net effects are assessed as high magnitude, long-term or permanent duration, at any geographic extent and represent a management concern. The predicted net effect on air quality is not anticipated to result in a change to the criteria that will alter the sustainability of the criterion beyond a manageable level and the net effects result in changes that are within provincial and federal guidelines. Therefore, the predicted net effects on air quality is assessed as not significant.

5.3.10 Cumulative Effects Assessment The magnitude of the net effect was predicted to be negligible; therefore, a cumulative effects assessment with future Projects was not completed.

5.3.11 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment The confidence in the effects assessment for air quality is high, considering that the impact management measures described in the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP; Section 9.0) is based on accepted and proven best management practices that are well-understood and have been applied to transmission line projects throughout North America. Uncertainty in the assessment has been further reduced by making conservative assumptions in the calculation and modelling methodologies used in the screening assessment, implementation of known effective impact management measures and monitoring measures and available best management practices and measures to address unforeseen circumstances should they arise. In particular, as the dust best management practices are revised through continuous improvements, the emissions from construction are likely to decrease even further.

For the calculations, it was assumed that equipment was operating at the same time, in the same representative, 5-km segment of the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW. Additionally, for fugitive dust and material handling, a lower impact management measures factor than what is likely to be achieved in practice was selected to increase conservatism. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that the emission estimates for the Project are underestimated.

Project activities were modelled as a series of volume sources. Modelling the emissions as volume sources is conservative since this model source type does not take advantage of favourable dispersion characteristics such as plume buoyancy and initial exit velocity of emissions from the batch mixing plant. Further, the dispersion modelling source dimensions selected for the volume source result in a dispersion modelling source which is smaller than the corresponding real-life source. This is conservative since estimated emissions occur over a smaller area, and thus, are more concentrated (and therefore less dispersed) at the point of release. As well, with this approach, it is assumed that the maximum concentrations from each activity would occur in the same



location, which is unlikely given that the activities will likely be more spread out. The results of the assessment are unlikely to underestimate the effects of the Project on air quality in the LSAs given the conservative approach of the assessment described above.

It is assumed that the conservative emission rates, when combined with the conservative operating conditions and conservative dispersion modelling assumptions description herein, are not likely to under predict the modelled concentrations.

5.3.12 Monitoring This section identifies any recommended effects monitoring to verify the prediction of the effects assessment and to verify the effectiveness of the impact management measures and compliance monitoring to evaluate whether the Project has been constructed, implemented, and operated in accordance with the commitments made in the Final EA Report. No follow-up or inspection programs are recommended for air quality.

5.3.13 Information Passed on to Other Components Results of the air quality assessment were reviewed and incorporated into the following components of the EA:

Surface water (Section 5.1);

Vegetation and wetlands (Section 6.1);

Wildlife (Section 6.3);

Heritage Resources (Section 7.2);

Socio-economics (Section 7.3);

Non-Aboriginal Land and Resource Use (Section 7.4)

Human Health (Section 7.6); and

Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests (Section 8.0).

5.3.14 Criteria Summary Table 5.3-30 presents a summary of the assessment results for air quality by criteria and corridor alternative.

Table 5.3-30: Air Quality Assessment Summary

Criteria Preliminary Proposed Corridor

Corridor Alternative Around Mishkeegogamang

Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang

Air quality Net effects are assessed to be not significant.

The Project is not predicted to contribute to cumulative effects.

Net effects are assessed to be not significant.


Net effects are assessed to be not significant.




5.3.15 References

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013. Air Quality Model Guideline – Effective October 1st, 2014. ISBN: 978-1-4601-0599-3, Edmonton, Alberta.

Brook, J.R., T.F, Dann, and R.T., Burnett. 2011. The Relationship Among TSP, PM10, PM2.5, and Inorganic Constituents of Atmospheric Participate Matter at Multiple Canadian Locations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. Accessed: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20#.V6JWYU32YiE.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2014. Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone, 2012 Final Report. PN 1526 ISBN:978-1-77202-009-0 PDF

CCME .1999. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality Objectives: Process and Status. Available at http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/. Retrieved November 6, 2014.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2016. NAPS data. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/rnspa-naps/. Retrieved August 26, 2016.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Available at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.31/. Retrieved May 24, 2017

Government of Canada. 2013. Canada Gazette Vol 147, 21. Available at http://ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/orders/OrderDetail.cfm?intOrder=532. Retrieved November 6, 2014.

Health Canada. 1994. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality Objectives: Process and Status.

MOECC (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change). 2015. Air Quality Ontario Report 2014. Retrieved on August 30, 2016 from http://www.airqualityontario.com/downloads/AirQualityInOntarioReportAndAppendix2014.pdf.

MOECC. 2012. Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria, PIBS #6570e01. Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

MOECC. 2008. Guideline A-11: Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario.

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Chapter 11.12 Concrete Batching

U.S. EPA. 2010. Non-road Engine Modelling (Compression Ignition) – U.S. EPA 009d (Report No. NR-009d).

U.S. EPA. 2006. AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Chapter 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads.

U.S. EPA. 2006. AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Chapter 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles.



U.S. EPA. 1998. AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Chapter 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining.

Western Governors’ Association. 2006. Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Fugitive Dust Handbook. Retrieved on August 31, 2016 from http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh/.

environmental assessment report for the phase 1 new...

Documents