whites point quarry and marine terminal project · whites point quarry and marine terminal project...

Whites Point Quarry and Marine Terminal Project

Health Canada’sReview of the Environmental Impact Statement

June 19, 2007

Sharon Chard, Regional DirectorHealthy Environments and Consumer Safety

Draft V9.0

2

Overview

• Introduction• Mandate and authority• Role of Health Canada: CEAA• Role of Health Canada: EIS review• Areas of expertise/Review process • Concluding remarks

3

Mandate and Authority

• Health Canada is the federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health, while respecting individual choices and circumstances.

• Provincial/Territorial authorities have the responsibility and power for the provision and regulation of health care which includes public health and the medical system in general.

4

Role of Health Canada under CEAA

• Under CEAA, Health Canada’s legislated role is typically as a federal authority to provide expert information and knowledge onhealth issues when requested by other federal departments carrying out environmental assessments.

5

Role of Health Canada: EIS Review

• As an expert federal authority, Health Canada considered the potential environmental effects on human health of the proposed project activities.

• For the purposes of the EIS review, Health Canada utilized technical expertise/advice from within the department. The review was based on project information provided by the proponent.

• Health Canada commented on air quality, noise, drinking water, light, country foods and socio-economic impacts in its letter dated August 4, 2006 and posted on the CEAA website.

(http://www.ceaacee.gc.ca/010/0001/0001/0023/registry_e.htm)

6

Health Canada’s Technical Expertise- Noise

• Evaluate potential health effects of noise including hearing loss, high annoyance, sleep disturbance and speech interference.

• Consider noise sources from all types of machinery, equipment and related processes.

• Consider types of noise such as impulsive (e.g. blasting) and tonal (e.g. backup alarms).

• Standards and guideline references include: CAN/CSA-ISO1996-1:05 (ISO 1996-1:2003), U.S. EPA guidance, FTA Guidance Manual, NIOSH.

7

Health Canada’s Review - Resolved Noise Issue

• Outstanding issues related to noise were forwarded to the proponent through the panel manager in a letter dated May 15, 2007.

• The issues in the letter related to clarification of:Tonal and impulsive qualities of noise at the receptors during operation;Classification (for example, quiet rural area) of the baseline monitoring locations; Sound level monitoring during blasting recommended for specific sound exposure levels.

• Proponent addressed issues.

8

Health Canada’s Technical Expertise- Air Quality

• Evaluate predicted pollutant concentrations for various human exposure scenarios.

• Consider short and long-term human exposure effects.• Consider adverse health effects such as respiratory irritation,

reduced lung function, cardio-respiratory hospitalization, mortality.

• Consider air pollutants: conventional (CO, SO2, NO2, O3, PM10 and PM 2.5) and non conventional (PAH, formaldehyde).

• Utilize international (WHO, USEPA), national and provincial health based evaluation tools.

9

Health Canada’s Review - Unresolved Air issue

• Health Canada recommends clarification of emission estimates (e.g. diesel, fuel oil, particulate matter) from equipment and operational activities in order to better assess the potential for air quality impacts.

10

Health Canada’s Technical Expertise- Drinking Water

• Consider drinking water in surrounding areas influenced by a project including sources consumed directly (e.g. wells) or source water intakes for treatment facilities.

• Advise on treatment requirements and availability of treatment technologies for contaminants.

• Reference Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality as well as the provincial standard applicable to the project to assess for potential adverse human health effects.

• Provide expertise on human health risk assessment for chemical and microbiological contaminants that may be present in drinkingwater and recreational water.

11

Health Canada’s Review- Drinking Water

• Based on the information provided by the proponent, Health Canada finds that the water quality component, as described in the EIS, is protective of human health provided all applicable mitigative measures, as presented in the EIS and subsequent proponent responses, are undertaken.

12

Health Canada’s Advice- Country Foods

• Considers foods harvested by hunting, trapping, fishing or small-scale farming, and produce grown in vegetable gardens and orchards or collected from naturally occurring sources (e.g. wild berries). Country foods do not include any foods sold commercially.

• Advice is provided based on information about harvesting of country foods in the project areas.

13

Health Canada’s Review- Country Foods

• Health Canada provided advice relating to the frequency of sampling raspberries and periwinkles.

14

Health Canada’s Advice- Socio-Economic

• Health Canada recognizes that socio-economic factors do contribute to the health and well being of Canadians and has limited expertise in this area due to the broad nature and shared jurisdiction associated with socio-economics.

15

Health Canada’s Concluding Remarks

• Based on the information provided by the proponent, Health Canada finds that the project, as described in the EIS, is protective of human health provided all applicable mitigativemeasures, as presented in the EIS and subsequent proponent responses, are undertaken.