WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project - British Columbia · WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

SE

CT

ION

8.1

: H

UM

AN

HE

AL

TH

Submitted to:


Environmental Assessment Certificate Application

Part B – Assessment of Environmental, Economic, Social, Heritage and Health Effects

Section 8.1: Human Health

1

8.1 HUMAN HEALTH

The Human Health assessment presents the existing conditions and results of the assessment of potential Project

effects on human health. The rationale for the selection of Human Health as a Valued Component (VC) and

assessment boundaries are also described. Assessment findings, including identification of Project interactions

and effects, proposed approaches to mitigation, characterization of residual Project and cumulative effects, and

determination of significance are presented. Monitoring and follow-up programs to be conducted with respect to

human health are also described.

The Human Health assessment is linked to the following Sections:

Section 4.4 Air Quality

Section 4.6 Water Quality

Section 6.1 Socio-community

Section 6.2 Land and Marine Resource Use

Section 6.3 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes

Section 6.4 Visual Quality

Supplemental information (baseline chemistry data, air quality predictions and comparison of chemistry data to

environmental quality guidelines for the protection of human health) that support the Human Health assessment

are provided in the following appendices:

Appendix 8.1-1 – Baseline Data Collection and Results: Description of the baseline sampling program that

included both terrestrial and aquatic components;

Appendix 8.1-2 – Screening of Environmental Chemistry Data: Provides the environmental quality guidelines

and comparison of these guidelines to measured baseline chemistry data for soil, sediment, surface water,

and fish;

Appendix 8.1-3 – Soil Deposition Model: Description of the data and methods used to predict soil

concentrations from air deposition inputs; and,

Appendix 8.1-4 – Air Quality Screening: Provides the air quality standards and guidelines used in the acute

and chronic inhalation assessment and the comparison of these air quality standards and guidelines of the

air quality predictions for Baseline, Application and Project Only Cases.

Appendix 8.1-5 – Risk Estimates: Provides the calculated risk estimates for the human health inhalation risk

assessment.





2

8.1.1 Context and Boundaries

8.1.1.1 Context

Human Health was selected as a VC based on its importance to Aboriginal Groups, the public, or other

stakeholders as well as for its regulatory importance. This chapter addresses the effects of the proposed Project

identified in the construction, operation and closure phases on the Human Health VC.

Regulation and government context relevant to the Human Health assessment includes provincial and federal

legislation. Specifically, the methods used in this Human Health assessment are based on risk assessment

guidance provided by Health Canada (Health Canada 2010a, 2012) the British Columbia Ministry of Environment

and Climate Change Strategy (BC ENV 2017a, b) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA

1989) and other applicable risk assessment and health assessment guidance documents and manuals.

CEAA 2012 Sections 5(1)(c)(i) and 5(2)(b)(i) are relevant to Human Health as changes to air and water quality are

linked to the health and socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal peoples and to public stakeholders. This includes

potential project-related changes in air and water quality that may increase exposure to constituents of potential

concern, which has the potential to affect the health of local peoples.

The purpose of the Human Health assessment is to quantify the potential health risks to people from Baseline

Case (present day), Application Case (Baseline plus Project), Project Only Case (predicted using modeling), and

if necessary, a Cumulative Case (interactions between Proposed Project-related residual effects and incremental

effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities) environmental quality in the Proposed

Project area to determine any impacts resulting from the Proposed Project.

8.1.1.2 Valued Components

The process for identifying and selecting VCs followed the EAO’s Guideline for the Selection of Valued

Components and Assessment of Potential Effects (BC EAO 2013), as outlined in Section 3.1 (Issues Scoping and

Selection of Valued Components). Valued components were identified based on an understanding of the Project,

input from consultation, requirements set out in the Application Information Requirements, and experience with

other marine infrastructure projects in British Columbia (BC). VCs were developed during the VC Selection process

with the participation of working group members, which included Aboriginal Groups and government agencies. A

public comment period was held during this selection process providing the public and other stakeholders an

opportunity to comment on the proposed VCs. Concerns of stakeholders and Aboriginal Groups regarding potential

Project effects on human health were identified through Project consultations. Where available, traditional use

information was applied to the selection of VCs.

As stated above in Section 8.1.1.1, Human Health was selected as a VC based on its importance to Aboriginal

Groups, the public, or other stakeholders as well as for its regulatory importance. The Project could adversely

affect the health of human receptors through Project effects (i.e., changes to soil, sediment, surface water, country

food and air quality). CEAA (Minister of Justice 2017) requires an assessment of an effect of any change that may

be caused to the environment on Aboriginal health conditions as per section 5(1)(c)(i).

For clarity, the Human Health VC considers health risks related to the physical environment (e.g., chemical

emissions from the Project). The Socio-community VC (Section 6.1) will address the social and economic

determinants of health (including those of Aboriginal Groups).





3

The assessment of Project effects on Community well-being and nuisance effects due to noise and nighttime light,

was added to the assessment as a subcomponent of Socio-community in response to feedback received through

consultation on the draft AIR and Valued Component Selection Document. The community well-being

subcomponent adopts a social determinants of health framework, an emerging best practice for Health Impact

Assessment (HIA), which considers a range of factors that can contribute to and influence individual and

community health and wellbeing. Building the World Health Organization’s definition of heath which states that

health is “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or

infirmity” (WHO, 1948), methodological approaches to HIA address health through health determinants, which are

the factors that affect health outcomes. More locally, Metro Vancouver (n.d.) has defined health determinants for

Transportation and Land Use Planning Activities as follows:

Physical and biophysical environment;

Built environment;

Community and social factors;

Livelihood factors; and

Lifestyle factors.

Aboriginal groups have traditionally viewed health holistically (First Nations Health Council, 2011). For example,

the BC First Nations Health Council identifies health as a “holistic connection between food, work, culture, family,

and community” (First Nations Health Council, 2011). Other Aboriginal health frameworks have identified, Food

security, culture, self-determination, and equity as key health determinants (Nesdole, Voigts, Lepnurm, & Roberts,

2014; Reading & Wien, 2009).

While the Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC) Application for this Project does not include a formal HIA,

the health determinants are addressed throughout the EAC Application in different discipline studies. Table 8.1-1

lists the VCs and subcomponents within the Application that include indicators linked to the identified health

determinants.

Table 8.1-1: Indicators for Human Health

Health

Determinants VC/Subcomponent Indicators (from AIR)

Physical

environment

Human Health Risk

Assessment (Section 8.1)

Comparison of air, water, soil, and country foods

measurements/predictions to applicable human health

guidelines/standards and comparison of baseline

conditions to predicted application case conditions to

identify potential substance of potential concern

Socio-community –

community health and

wellbeing subcomponent

(Section 6.1)

Nuisance due to noise and nighttime light

▪ Perceived brightness during nighttime viewing

▪ Predicted changes in noise nuisance





4

Health

Determinants VC/Subcomponent Indicators (from AIR)

Built

environment

Socio-community –

community infrastructure

subcomponent

(Section 6.1)

Water service demand and supply

Solid waste service demand and supply

Road transportation demand and capacity

Community and

social factors

Socio-community –


wellbeing subcomponent

(Section 6.1)

Social determinants of health

▪ Community connectedness and social support

networks

Socio-community – health

and emergency services

subcomponents

(Section 6.1)

Health service supply and demand

Police service supply and demand

Fire service supply and demand

Ambulance service supply and demand

Marine emergency service supply and demand

Livelihood

factors

Economy VC

(Section 5.1) Employment

Employment income

Socio-community –


well-being subcomponent

(Section 6.1)


▪ Community connectedness and social support

networks

▪ Education and literacy

▪ Employment and working conditions

Lifestyle factors

Socio-community –



(Section 6.1)


▪ Social support networks

▪ Personal health practices and coping skills

▪ Healthy child development

Aboriginal-

specific factors

Current Use of Lands and

Resources for Traditional

Purposes VC

(Section 6.3)

Ability to access preferred harvesting locations for

harvesting land and marine resources for cultural

practices

Availability of preferred resources for current use of land

and resources for traditional purposes

Quality of preferred resources for current use of lands

and resources for traditional purposes

Quality of experience when accessing areas of current

use for harvesting and cultural practices

Socio-community –



(Section 6.1)


Part C: Aboriginal

Consultation

(Section 12.0)

Effects on Aboriginal Interests, including:

▪ Disruptions to the exercise of cultural practices that

may affect the cultural health of community members

Notes: AIR = Application for Information Requests; VC = valued component.





5

Noise was not assessed using a formalized quantitative risk assessment, since the atmospheric noise predictions

(Section 4.5) provide adequate confidence that changes in the acoustic environment in the vicinity of the project

will not result in adverse health effects. In summary, atmospheric noise was assessed based on criteria from

Health Canada’s document ‘Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise’

(Health Canada 2017a). Health Canada suggests three specific criteria for assessing adverse noise effects, which

include Percent Highly Annoyed, Sleep Disturbance, and Sentence Intelligibility (see Section 4.5 for more details).

These criteria were considered at a number of noise receptors, which included nearby dwellings. Detailed results

assessing each Health Canada criterion are presented in Section 4.5. The conclusions of the atmospheric noise

assessment are that the effects from Project construction, operation, and closure on the atmospheric noise at

these receptor locations are not significant.

The Human Health VC addresses the physical determinants of health and is assessed using a human health risk

assessment (HHRA) approach. The HHRA provides an evaluation of risks at receptor locations where people are

known to be present including communities, Aboriginal harvesting areas and recreational areas that are in

proximity of the Project. A list of the receptor locations is provided in Table 8.1-8 and presented in Figure 8.1-1.

_̂

_̂

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( ")

")

")

#*

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

_̂

_̂

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂_̂

_̂_̂

#*

#*

#*

$+$+

$+$+

$+$+

$+

$+

$+$+$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+$+

$+

$+$+

$+

!

!

$+̂_$+$+

$+

_̂

_̂

_̂

$+

_̂

_̂$+ GF

FRASER RIVER (SOUTHARM

)

STRAIT OFGEORGIA

King George/CambieCommunity Park

Kathleen McNeely Elementary

James Whiteside Elementary

South Arm Outdoor Pool

Boat LaunchSouth Dyke Trail

Farm 1

Farm 2

VancouverGeneralHospital

AmherstHospital Holy Family

Hospital

RichmondHospital

BurnabyHospital

UBC Hospital

RichmondNature Park East

Richmond HorseshoeSlough Park

King George Park

WoodwardsLanding Deas Park 1

Gary Point Park

Musqueam IR2

Musqueam IR4

TFN Lands

Daniel WoodwardElementaryThomas Kidd Elementary

Richmond JewishDay School

KingswoodElementary

Az-ZahraaIslamic Academy

BC MuslimSchool

Neilson GroveElementary

HawthorneElementary School

Cambie Secondary

Mitchell Elementary

Choice Schoolfor Gifted Children

TamanawisSecondarySchool

Princess MargaretSecondary School

South DeltaSecondary School

Pebble HillElementary

School District No. 40(New Westminster)

New WestminsterSecondary School

St. Thomas More Collegiate

CarnarvonCommunityPreschool

TrafalgarElementary

St. George'sSchool Prince of Whales

Secondary School

Finn Slough

Hugh McRoberts Secondary

Walter Lee Elementary

R.C. Palmer Secondary

Burnaby Lake Park

Deer Lake Park

Watershed Park

North DeltaSecondary

Crescent Park

Delta Gymnastics SocietyDelta Secondary Delta Hospital

SurreyMemorialHospital

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT BOUNDARY

HUMAN HEALTH LAA

HUMAN HEALTH RAA

FRASER RIVER SHIPPING CHANNEL

CANADA - U.S.A BORDER

HEALTH RECEPTOR LOCATION

! RESIDENCE

$+ SCHOOL

_̂ PARK

_̂ RECREATION

GF HOSPITAL

") FARM

!( DYKE

#* RESERVES AND TFN LANDS

#* ABORIGINAL HERITAGE AREA

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049 17000 2 8.1-1

2019-03-14

JP

VH

VH

AW

Pat

h: \\

gold

er.g

ds\g

al\b

urna

by\C

AD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\W

esP

ac_M

idst

ream

_LLC

\Tilb

ury\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

3142

2004

9_M

arin

eJet

ty\0

2_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\170

00\M

XD

\Rep

ort\H

uman

_Hea

lth\T

ILB

UR

Y_H

EA

LTH

_8_1

-1_H

uman

_Hea

lth_L

AA

_RA

A.m

xd

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

: AN

SI B

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

0 2,750 5,500

1:120,000 METRESSCALE

HUMAN HEALTH RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

TILBURY MARINE JETTYDELTA, B.C.

WESPAC MIDSTREAM - VANCOUVER LLC

1. SHIPPING CHANNEL OBTAINED FROM AUSENCO-100761-0000-W-K50-A 04-17-2015.2. IMAGERY © 20170903 ESRI AND ITS LICENSORS. SOURCE: DIGITALGLOBE, VIVIDWV02. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

25m

m0

_̂

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

#*

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂!

Bike Route

Dyke East

Dyke West 1Dyke West 2

Dyke North 1

Dyke North 2

Farm 3

TI'uqtinus

TriangleBeach

Deas Park 2

Tilbury IceWatermania

NearestResidence to

Facility Site

METRESSCALE: 1:50,000

300 0 300





7

8.1.1.2.1 Indicators

Indicators and Measurable Parameters provide a means of determining a Project-related change to a VC. The

Indicators and Measurable Parameters and the rationale for their selection are presented in

Table 8.1-2.

Table 8.1-2: Indicators for Human Health

Indicator Valued Component /

Subcomponent Rationale for Selection

Hazard quotient: indicates whether the amount of a constituent taken in by the receptor is greater than the amount of the constituent below which there would be essentially no risk of adverse health effects; calculated as the ratio of the estimated daily intake, based on the exposure assessment, to the selected toxicity reference value

Human Health

Risk estimates (hazard quotients) are a quantitative tool used to evaluate the potential effects of contaminants on human health

Incremental lifetime cancer risk: the increased risk attributed to constituent exposure above background cancer risks caused by genetics, lifestyle, and other non-constituent factors

Human Health

Risk estimates (incremental lifetime cancer risks) are a quantitative tool used to evaluate the potential effects of contaminants on human health

8.1.1.3 Assessment Boundaries

This section describes the methods used in identifying spatial, temporal, administrative and technical boundaries

for the Human Health assessment.

8.1.1.3.1 Spatial Boundaries

The Local Assessment Area (LAA) and Regional Assessment Area (RAA) for the Human Health assessment are

defined in Table 8.1-3 and shown in Figure 8.1-1.

The LAA was established to encompass the area within which the Project is expected to interact with, and

potentially have an effect on human health. The LAA for the Human Health assessment corresponds to the air

quality VC LAA. Information to support the assessment is also derived from the assessment of linked VCs,

including: Land and Marine Resource Use (Section 6.2), Water Quality (Section 4.6) and Current Use of Lands

and Resources for Traditional Purposes (Section 6.3).

The RAA was established to provide a regional context for the assessment of Project effects. The RAA also

encompasses the area within which the residual effects of the Project on human health are likely to combine with

the effects of other projects and activities to result in a cumulative effect. The RAA for the Human Health

assessment corresponds to the air quality VC RAA. Information to support the assessment of effects is also derived

from linkages to other VCs including Air Quality (Section 4.4), Water Quality (Section 4.6), Current Use of Lands

and Resources for Traditional Purposes (Section 6.3).





8

Table 8.1-3: Spatial Boundary Definitions for Human Health Valued Component

Spatial Boundary Description of Assessment Area

Local Assessment Area (LAA) The LAA is a 10 km by 10 km area centered around the Project and a 1 km buffer each side of the navigation route between the Project site and the Sand Heads

Regional Assessment Area (RAA) A rectangle 25 km (north-south) by 30 km (east-west)

Cumulative Effects Assessment Area

Same as RAA

8.1.1.3.2 Temporal Boundaries

Temporal characteristics of the Project’s construction, operation and decommissioning phases are defined in the

Project Description (Section 1.0). In summary, the temporal boundaries established for the assessment of Project

effects on human health encompass these Project phases:

Construction — 2019 to 2023 (just over three years);

Operation — 2023 to 2053 (30 years minimum); and

Decommissioning — 2053 or later (one year).

The HHRA was conducted using reasonable, conservative estimates of emissions that were predicted to occur

throughout the three stages of the Project. The HHRA evaluated both the long-term (chronic) and short-term

(acute) effects of constituent exposures on human health.

For the long-term HHRA, it was assumed that people live their entire life within the RAA (i.e., up to 80 years),

rather than the length of the Project. Conservatively, and consistent with (Health Canada 2012) methods, the peak

concentrations of constituent emissions predicted to result from the Project in combination with existing conditions

were assumed to persist for a person’s lifetime. However, the constituent emissions contribution to existing or

natural conditions (e.g., soil and plants) in the region, was assumed to occur only for the Operations phase of the

Project (i.e., 30 years), and the maximum concentrations occurring during this time are assumed to persist for the

lifetime of a person.

The short-term inhalation assessment evaluates exposure durations of less than 24 hours. The short-term

inhalation assessment was completed for exposure constituents in air.

The risk estimates (i.e., hazard quotients and incremental lifetime cancer risks) provided in the HHRA are

reasonable conservative estimates of potential effects of the Project on human health. Air quality predictions and

deposition rates used in the HHRA are based on the Baseline Case, Application Case (Normal Operation and

Dredger Operation Scenarios) as defined in the Air Quality VC (Section 4.4). Risk estimates are not provided for

each phase of the Project (i.e., construction, operations and decommissioning). Instead, the risk estimates for the

operations phase (e.g., the scenario with the greatest air emissions) are conservatively assumed to apply over the

lifetime of the Project.





9

The risk estimates provided in this effects assessment are reasonable conservative estimates of potential effects

of the Project on human health.

8.1.1.3.3 Administrative Boundaries

The Project is located in BC; however, the Project is under joint review by the BC and federal Environmental

Assessment Agencies. The BC Ministry of Health (BC MoH) and the BC ENV rely heavily on Health Canada’s risk

assessment guidance. Therefore, Health Canada guidance is used for this Project, with minor adjustments for BC

context, where appropriate.

8.1.1.3.4 Technical Boundaries

There are no applicable technical boundaries related to the Human Health assessment.

8.1.2 Existing Conditions

8.1.2.1 Information Sources

A review of existing information was conducted to support the characterization of existing conditions for the Human

Health assessment, which included the following sources:

Water quality data for metals and conventional parameters from the water quality assessment as outlined in

the Water Quality VC (Section 4.6). Baseline water quality data are presented in Appendix 8.1-2

Sediment quality data for metals, conventional parameters, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), phenolics, polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins and furans as outlined in the

Water Quality VC (Section 4.6). Baseline sediment quality data are presented in Appendix 8.1-2

Fish tissue data collected from the Fraser River adjacent to the Project site, which were analyzed for metals

and PAHs. Baseline fish tissue data are presented in Appendix 8.1-1, along with methods used to collect this

information and the sample locations. The data were used to gain a better understanding of baseline

conditions for the Project.

Air quality baseline data for metals, VOC, PAHs and particulate matter (consisting of particulate matter less

than 10 microns [PM10] and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns [PM2.5]), nitrogen dioxide and sulphur

dioxide, provided in the Air Quality VC (Section 4.4).

In 2015, the Proponent initiated a baseline sampling program to characterize the environmental contaminant levels

present in the soil and country foods consumed by people in the LAA and RAA (e.g., berries and fish), and to

provide background conditions in the event that a multimedia assessment is necessary based on the results of

soil depositional modeling. The objectives of the baseline sampling programs were to determine baseline

concentrations of metals and PAHs in soil, berries and fish tissue in the LAA and RAA.





10

Sampling programs were designed to collect soil and country foods from a range of habitats and a range of

distances from the Project. Sampling locations focused on those that may be potentially impacted by the Project.

Shellfish were not collected because they were not present in the South Arm of the Fraser River within the Study

Area, and were not observed during the baseline sampling program. In addition, shellfish areas along the outer

estuary are closed to shellfish harvesting (Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2018). The results of the baseline

sampling program are presented in Appendix 8.1-1.

8.1.2.1.1 Traditional Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge Incorporation

Information on traditional use and traditional ecological knowledge (TU/TEK) was gathered from Project-specific

studies undertaken by Aboriginal groups and from publicly-available sources.

TU/TEK sources were reviewed for information that could contribute to an understanding of human health. The

main sources of this information included:

An expert report produced on behalf of Tsleil-Waututh Nation, in relation to the Project (Morin 2016)

An expert report produced on behalf of Kwantlen First Nation, in relation to the Project (Jones and McLaren

2016)

Comments produced on behalf of Métis Nation British Columbia, in response to the Draft Aboriginal

Consultation Report (Gall 2016)

xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study: WesPac Midstream’s Proposed LNG

Marine Jetty Project, prepared by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc. with the Musqueam

Indian Band (Tam, J. et al., 2018).

Impacts of marine vessel traffic on access to fishing opportunities of the Musqueam Indian Band, prepared

by M. Nelitz, H. Stimson, C. Semmens, B. Ma, and D. Robinson for the Musqueam Indian Band (Nelitz, M et

al., 2018)

Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study. Prepared for the Proposed George Massey Tunnel

Replacement Project by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc. (Tam, J. et al., 2016)

Other documents and export reports prepared for other projects in the vicinity of the Project site including the

George Massey Tunnel replacement project (Charlie 2015, Kennedy 2015) and the Pattullo Bridge

replacement project (Marshall 2017)

TU/TEK information, as obtained through consultation with Aboriginal groups and available through other sources

provided no specific information on traditional knowledge of human health. The Cowichan Nation relied on

resources on the lower Fraser River for community physical, mental and spiritual health (Charlie 2015). Access to

these traditional resources has been limited by the privatization of traditional lands and habitat loss (Brealey 2010,

Charlie 2015). For a full summary of TU/TEK information, refer to Part C of this application.





11

8.1.2.2 Description of Existing Conditions

This section describes the existing conditions for the Human Health assessment, as well as the surrounding

environment and factors influencing human health.

Unlike other technical disciplines in this assessment, field data were not used to directly measure the current risks

to human health. Instead, existing risk is estimated using the same risk assessment approach and methods used

to evaluate the Project and Baseline Case risk estimates are provided in this report. Measured baseline field data

are summarized in Appendix 8.1-1.

8.1.3 Methodology for Assessment of Potential Project Effects

The assessment methodology used to assess the potential adverse effects of the Project is outlined in Section

3.0. A summary of this assessment methodology as it relates to human health is provided below.

The purpose of the HHRA is to assess the potential health risk to people that could result from the Project. This is

done by identifying the chemicals or chemical groups present in the emissions from the Project, predicting resultant

Project-related changes to environmental media to which people could be exposed (e.g., soil, water, country foods

and air), and estimating and assessing the risk that the predicted changes represent to human health. The risk

assessment approach provides a structured framework for evaluating potential adverse effects on receptors

(e.g., people) from environmental stressors (e.g., metals in soil). Health risks are evaluated using the existing and

predicted quality of soil, sediment, water, country food (including fish and wild vegetation) and air. The HHRA is

comprised of three components:

1) A multimedia assessment, to evaluate risk associated with exposure to constituents that might be present in

soil, sediment, water, country food and air;

2) An air quality risk assessment, which evaluated the acute and chronic effects associated with airborne and

gaseous substances that are only present in air; and

3) An evaluation of the risks of estimated exposures to airborne particulate matter.

The number of components conducted for the HHRA is dependent upon which environmental media are retained

for further evaluation (i.e., the media for inclusion in the risk assessment were identified as those that exceed a

health-based environmental quality standard or guideline).

Although the overall Environmental Assessment methods (Section 3.0) are, in general, applied in the assessment

of the effects of the Project on human health, some modifications and refinements to the methods are made to

accommodate the specific nature of the risk assessment, and include the following elements:

In contrast to some other disciplines, such as air quality, there is no stand-alone baseline report or baseline

assessment for the Human Health assessment. Rather, the baseline data that were collected specifically for

this assessment (e.g., soil and vegetation) are presented in Appendix 8.1-1. Also, data and information from

the other disciplines noted in this section are used as inputs for the HHRA and, therefore, the baseline reports

prepared for other disciplines are also relevant to the Human Health assessment;





12

The identification of direct interactions between the Project and the changes in environmental quality that

could potentially impact human health are not explicitly identified. Rather, the evaluation of Project-VC

interaction focuses on identifying linkages where the potential exists for the Project to affect human health

through predicted changes to water quality, air quality, or other components of the physical environment.

These linkages are then assessed to determine the significance of Project-related effects; and

Relative to other sections, the Human Health assessment uses a slightly different approach to the

classification of residual effects and evaluation of significance because several of the criteria

(e.g., geographical extent, duration, frequency and reversibility) were already incorporated into the risk

estimates and, therefore, are not independent variables. The evaluation of significance is described in more

detail in Section 8.1.3.4.2.

8.1.3.1 Risk Assessment Approach

Health risks are evaluated based on the existing (Baseline Case) and predicted (i.e., Project related) quality of

soil, water and air using a risk assessment approach. The Baseline Case includes regional background estimates

as well as the existing FortisBC operations and provides context for understanding the incremental effects

predicted for the Project Only Case. The Application Case includes the Baseline Case combined with contributions

from the Project. The Project Only Case includes air quality predictions based only on the Project (i.e., do not

include regional background estimates). Two air emission scenarios were evaluated for the Application Case:

Normal Operations and Dredger Operations.

Normal Operations reflects the Project emissions under normal operation. The Normal Operations scenario

was modelled for acid gases, particulate matter, inorganics, PAHs and VOCs for the 1-hour, 24-hour and

annual averaging times.

Dredger Operations scenario reflects the Project emissions during the two-week period each year when

dredging activities will take place at the Project and no LNG loading will take place. The Dredger Operations

scenario was modelled for acid gases PM2.5 and PM10 for the 1-hour and 24-hour averaging times.

The air quality predictions for the Baseline and Application Cases include regional background estimates, which

are determined from regional ambient air quality monitoring data (Section 4.4.1, Appendix 4.4.1-2) representing

the contribution from existing natural and regional anthropogenic emission sources. Regional background

estimates are different than Baseline Case predictions in that Baseline Case includes regional background, as

well as emission sources at the adjacent Tilbury LNG Plant, including predicted emissions from the approved

expansion that is currently under construction.

The framework for HHRA approach is presented on Figure 8.1-2. The components of the risk assessment

framework are described the following sections.





13

Note: Diagram is derived from Health Canada (2010a) and reflects the risk assessment process in general and may not reflect specific

terminology or steps taken in the environmental assessment process.

Figure 8.1-2: Human Health Risk Assessment Framework





14

8.1.3.1.1 Problem Formulation

The problem formulation is used to develop an understanding of how emissions from the Project might affect

human health. The problem formulation helps to focus the assessment on the constituents, people and exposure

pathways of greatest concern, specifically the following:

People who are likely to be exposed to constituents of potential concern (COPCs);

Constituents of potential concern; and

Exposure pathways that account for the majority of exposure to constituent emitted.

8.1.3.1.2 Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment involves characterizing the degree to which receptors are exposed to COPCs through

the identified exposure pathways. For people, exposure is calculated as a total daily dose (i.e., amount taken in

per day) from the relevant pathways in a multimedia evaluation (e.g., inhalation, ingestion of drinking water and

dietary items, direct contact with soil and surface water). Exposure to certain airborne or gaseous substances

(e.g., nitrogen dioxide) only occurs via the inhalation pathway, and therefore is calculated as the concentrations of

these constituents in air.

8.1.3.1.3 Toxicity Assessment

Toxicity assessment involves the classification of the toxic effects of constituents and the estimation of the amounts

of constituents that people can be exposed to over a given time without adverse health effects. A toxicity reference

value (TRV) is the dose of a constituent that a person can be exposed to daily over a lifetime without experiencing

adverse health effects. For each COPC, an appropriate TRV is determined based on a reported mode of action

(i.e., threshold versus non-threshold mode of action) and exposure pathway (i.e., ingestion, inhalation and dermal

contact). The TRVs are based on critical effects observed from studies of exposed human populations or animal

species. HHRAs include consideration of both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of COPCs.

8.1.3.1.4 Risk Characterization

For the air quality and multimedia assessments, the potential for adverse human health effects are assessed by

comparing the estimated exposures (from the Exposure Assessment) with those exposures that are determined

to be acceptable (i.e., TRVs from the Toxicity Assessment). The characterization of risk includes consideration of

uncertainty and conservatism in the risk assessment. The resulting ratio for non-carcinogens is typically termed a

hazard quotient (HQ) and determined according to the following equation:

𝐻𝑄 = 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑇𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒





15

The incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) is also estimated for COPCs known to be carcinogenic. An ILCR is

calculated using the following equation:

𝐼𝐿𝐶𝑅 = 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 × 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘

A HQ approach is not appropriate for the Human Health assessment from particulate matter exposure because

no threshold exists below which there are no changes to health effects. If particulate matter is identified as a COPC

based on the results of the problem formulation, a qualitative assessment will be undertaken to assess potential

health effects from increased particulate matter concentrations as a result of the Project. The qualitative

assessment will include a literature review of key epidemiological studies focused on human health effects from

particulate matter.

8.1.3.2 Guidelines and Standards

The applicable soil, sediment, surface water and air quality guidelines and standards used in the HHRA are

presented below.

Soil

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the

Protection of Human Health (CCME 1999a); and

British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (BC ENV) Contaminated Sites

Regulation (CSR) Matrix Numerical Soil Standards (Schedule 3.1 – Part 1) and Generic Numerical Soil

Standards to Protect Human Health (Schedule 3.1 – Part 2), residential low density standards (BC ENV

2018a).

BC ENV Regional Background Soil Concentrations for the Lower Mainland (BC ENV 2017c).

Sediment

In the absence of sediment quality criteria from BC and Canadian jurisdictions that are protective of human health,

baseline sediment quality data were screened against the residential soil quality standards and guidelines

described above for direct contact exposure (incidental ingestion and dermal contact). This approach is consistent

with Health Canada’s sediment guidance (Health Canada 2017b). It is acknowledged that soil criteria are

developed based on exposure factors specific to human interactions with soil, and that human exposure to

sediments is typically different from human exposure to soil (e.g., exposure to sediment is typically associated with

potentially greater dermal adherence than exposure to soil). Soil quality criteria are considered sufficiently

protective of human health for the Project as people are not expected to participate in high contact-type activities

with sediments near the Project site due to the industrial nature of the facility.





16

Surface Water

Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada 2017c).

BC ENV Recreational Water Quality Guidelines (BC ENV 2017d) and Source Drinking Water Quality

Guidelines (BC ENV 2017e).

BC ENV CSR Generic Numerical Water Standards for Drinking Water (Schedule 3.2), drinking water (BC

ENV 2018a).

US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Residential Tapwater (US EPA 2018a).

Air

Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Quality Objectives (Metro Vancouver 2018);

BC ENV Ambient Air Quality Objectives (BC ENV 2018b);

CCME Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CCME 2017) and National Ambient Air Quality Objectives

(CCME 1999b);

World Health Organization (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines for Europe (WHO 2000) and Air Quality Guidelines

for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, Global update (WHO 2006);

US EPA RSLs for Residential Air (US EPA 2018a) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (US EPA

2016);

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimal Risk Levels (ATSDR 2018);

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Consolidated Table of OEHHA/Air

Resources Board Approved Risk Assessment Health Values (Cal OEHHA 2018) and Acute, 8-hour and

Chronic Reference Exposure Level Summary (Cal OEHHA 2016);

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (OMOE) Ontario’s Air Contaminants

Benchmark List: standards, guidelines and screening levels for assessing maximum point of impingement

concentrations of air contaminants (OMOE 2018); and

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Effects Screening Levels (TCEQ 2018).

8.1.3.3 Potential Project Interactions

This section describes the process by which interactions between the Project components (construction, operation

and decommissioning) and/or activities and the Human Health assessment are identified and evaluated. Potential

effect pathways are identified, and mitigation measures are developed to minimize effects. A pathways analysis is

then used to focus further assessment on the key interactions between the Project and Human Health assessment,

evaluating the different effect pathways to determine if, after incorporating mitigation, there is still the potential for

residual effects. Where effects are adequately mitigated and are not forwarded for further analysis (i.e., secondary

pathways, or where mitigation will remove the pathway altogether), the reasons for concluding the assessment at





17

this stage are articulated. Primary pathways that may lead to residual effects after mitigation are carried forward

for further analysis and residual effects characterization.

For human health, the Project interactions identified by the other disciplines (i.e., Air Quality and Water Quality)

were reviewed to identity whether the potential exists for the Project to affect human health through predicted

changes to air quality, water quality, or other components of the physical environment. The key pathways for

consideration in the Human Health assessment were predicted changes to air quality and water quality. Specific

Project interactions are described in Section 4.4 (Air Quality) and Section 4.6 (Water Quality). Environmental

design features and mitigation included in the Project design that would minimize potential effects on human health

are also discussed in Sections 4.4 and 4.6.

8.1.3.3.1 Pathways Analysis Methods

The pathways analysis focuses on reviewing the key inputs to the risk assessment to identify whether the potential

exists for the Project to affect human health through predicted changes to water quality, air quality, or other

components of the physical environment.

Potential pathways were then evaluated under the following categories using scientific knowledge, logic,

experience with similar developments, and effectiveness of the environmental design features and mitigation:

No pathway – pathway is removed by environmental design features and mitigation such that the Project

would not be expected to result in a measurable environmental change relative to the Baseline Case and

therefore would have no residual effects on human health.

Secondary pathway – pathway could result in a measurable and minor environmental change, but would

have a negligible residual effect on human health relative to Baseline Case.

Primary pathway – pathway is likely to result in a measurable environmental change relative to Baseline Case

that could contribute to potentially significant residual effects on human health.

Environmental design features and mitigation that have been or could be incorporated into the Project to minimize

adverse effects are considered. Potential pathways that are completely removed due to implementation of

environmental design features or mitigation actions were not assessed further. Pathways that are assessed to be

secondary and demonstrate a negligible residual effect on human health levels through simple qualitative or

semi-quantitative evaluation of the pathway are also not advanced for further assessment.

Primary pathways are carried forward for more detailed quantitative and qualitative effects analysis to characterize

the residual effects of the Project and the Project in combination with other past, present and future developments.

8.1.3.4 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures that are expected to reduce or eliminate an adverse effect on human health, if applicable, or

enhance a beneficial effect, will be described in the applicable chapters (i.e., Water Quality and Air Quality).

Mitigation measures may include monitoring to verify results and standard mitigation measures such as best





18

management practices, including changes to the means in which the Project will be designed, constructed,

operated, or decommissioned. Mitigation will also consider the views of Aboriginal groups and key stakeholders.

Effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects are characterized using the

following criteria:

High effectiveness: the mitigation measure is expected, once implemented, to significantly improve or

eliminate the effect or improve the condition of the VC.

Moderate effectiveness: the mitigation measure is expected, once implemented, to moderately improve the

effect on a VC or moderately improve the condition of the VC.

Low effectiveness: the mitigation measure may provide no or little change in the effect on a VC, the

effectiveness of the mitigation measure is unknown or untested, or no improvement to the condition of the

VC.

Effectiveness of proposed mitigation has been considered in assessing the significance and likelihood of potential

residual effects. Information on the mitigation measures, including how they are prioritized and their effectiveness,

are summarized in Section 4.6 (Water Quality) and Section 4.4 (Air Quality).

8.1.3.4.1 Characterization of Potential Residual Project Effects

Residual effects are characterized using specific criteria for each VC as defined in the EAO’s Guideline for the

Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects (BC EAO 2013). Definitions for residual

effects criteria, developed with specific reference to the Human Health assessment, are presented in Table 8.1-4.

Effects that are negligible prior to mitigation measures are not carried forward to the assessment of residual Project

effects or cumulative effects.

Relative to other sections, the Human Health assessment uses a slightly different approach to the classification of

residual effects and evaluation of significance because several of the criteria (e.g., geographical extent, duration,

frequency, and reversibility) are already incorporated into the risk assessment and are therefore not independent

variables. These differences and how they apply to the Human Health assessment are discussed further below in

Table 8.1-4.

The Application will assess the likelihood for all residual adverse effects using appropriate quantitative or

qualitative terms and sufficient description to understand how the conclusions were reached. Likelihood refers to

whether or not a residual effect is likely to occur (BC EAO 2013). The likelihood of a predicted Project effect

occurring is high if the probability of the residual effect occurring is greater than 50%. A quantitative evaluation of

likelihood was incorporated into the residual effects assessment.





19

Table 8.1-4: Criteria Used to Characterize Residual Effects for the Human Health Assessment

Criteria Description Definition

Magnitude Expected size or severity of the residual effect

These are identified based on calculated hazard quotients and incremental lifetime cancer risks. For the purpose of the Human Health assessment, the magnitude of residual effects is considered either negligible or not negligible. Table 8.1-5 below further defines the criteria used to quantify the magnitude of effect.

Geographic Extent

Spatial scale over which the residual effect is expected to occur

Receptor locations were identified within the LAA and RAA. Therefore, the geographic locations were set, and risk estimates were calculated for each of these locations. As a result, geographic extent was fixed in the HHRA and is not used to determine significance of residual effect for the Human Health assessment.

Duration

Length of time over which the residual effect is expected to persist

Exposure duration is not an independent variable in the HHRA because it was necessary to assume an exposure duration to calculate a daily exposure dose resulting from chronic exposure to a COPC. As a result, duration is not used to determine residual effects or their duration for the Human Health assessment.

Frequency and probability

How often the residual effect is expected to occur

For the HHRA, the frequency of exposure is not an independent variable because it was necessary to assume a particular exposure frequency to calculate an estimate of a daily exposure dose in accordance with risk assessment guidance that would result from chronic exposure to a COPC. As a result, frequency is not used to determine residual effect or significance for the Human Health assessment. Probability was used to quantitatively evaluate the likelihood of a residual effect occurring.

Reversibility

Whether or not the residual effect can be reversed once the physical work or activity causing the effect ceases

The HHRA did not include an assessment of reversibility of potential health effects, which cannot be determined for people.

Context Is the VC sensitive or resilient to Project-related stressors

In the case of the HHRA, context is the comparison of the Application Case risk estimates to those of the Baseline Case to evaluate changes that could be attributed to the Project or the Project in combination with other developments.

Notes: COPC = constituent of potential concern; HHRA = human health risk assessment; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area; VC = valued component.





20

Table 8.1-5: Criteria Used to Assess Magnitude of Potential Risk for the Human Health Assessment

Parameter Levels of Magnitude of Potential Risk

Negligible Not-negligible

Non-Carcinogenic Constituents

Multimedia Assessment

No change from Baseline Case, below applicable guidelines or

hazard quotient1 ≤ 1

Magnitude of potential risk determined on a constituent specific basis. Discussion is presented in the applicable residual effects analysis tables for each COPC with hazard quotients above 1.

Air Quality Assessment

No change from Baseline Case, below applicable guidelines or hazard quotient1 ≤ 1

Magnitude of potential risk determined on a constituent specific basis. Discussion is presented in the applicable residual effects analysis tables for each COPC with hazard quotients above 1.

Carcinogenic Constituents

No change from Baseline Case, below applicable guidelines or incremental lifetime cancer risk ≤ 1×10-5

Magnitude of potential risk determined on a constituent specific basis. A discussion is presented in the applicable residual effects analysis tables for each COPC with an incremental lifetime cancer risk above 1×10-5.

Notes: ≤ = less than or equal to; COPC – constituent of potential concern. Hazard quotient represents the target ratio of the predicted constituent exposure relative to its health-based benchmarks. Incremental lifetime cancer risk represents additional or extra risk of developing cancer due to exposure to a constituent (from the Project) incurred over the lifetime of an individual. 1. In the human health multimedia risk assessment, a hazard quotient of 1 is applied as the threshold for negligible risk when all exposure media and pathways, including background dietary intake, are considered (Health Canada 2012). For the human health inhalation risk assessment, concentrations in air are compared to thresholds specific to the inhalation pathway for the purpose of calculating a hazard quotient, and no apportionment is required to account for intake from other media. Therefore, a hazard quotient of 1 was considered appropriate as a threshold for negligible risk (Health Canada 2017d).

Residual effects for the Human Health assessment was evaluated based on the criteria listed in

Table 8.1-6.

Table 8.1-6: Determination of Residual Effects Used in the Human Health Assessment

Residual Effects Criteria

Analysis Criteria Discussion

Magnitude

Magnitude of cumulative risk estimate in the Application Case

For each assessment case, identify affected receptors and receptor locations and identify the magnitude of the estimated risk level compared to the target risk level for the COPC in question.

Identification of key exposure pathways (multimedia assessment)

For the Human Health assessment, the key pathways that are contributing to the risk estimate are identified and relative contributions are presented to help understand the conservatism and uncertainty in the risk estimates.

Frequency and probability of exceedances (inhalation assessment)

Where risk estimates are above thresholds, the frequency and probability of predicted air quality to exceed environmental standards is determined at individual receptor locations.





21



Context Comparison of Baseline Case to Application Case

For each scenario, identify the magnitude of the estimated risk level for the Baseline Case compared to the target risk level and compare to the risk estimates to determine whether the Project Only Case is higher than Baseline Case and by how much.

Prediction Confidence and Uncertainty

Conservatism and uncertainty in predictions

Identify the sources of uncertainty related to prediction of concentrations in environmental media (e.g., uncertainty related to emission rates and mitigating factors). Indicate whether an overall overestimate, underestimate, or reasonable estimate of COPC concentrations was likely.

Conservatism in the exposure assumptions

Identify the sources of uncertainty in the exposure assumptions used in the exposure dose calculations (e.g., whether an average or a reasonable maximum consumption rate was used in the exposure estimates).

Conservatism in the toxicity reference values

Identify the sources of uncertainty in the key studies used to derive the toxicity reference value and the uncertainty factors that were applied to derive the toxicity reference value.

Determination of Residual Effect

Provide an overall rating of the residual effect based upon the magnitude, context and uncertainties described above. The residual effect may be negligible, low, moderate or high.

Notes: COPC = constituent of potential concern.

8.1.3.4.2 Determination of Significance

As describe above in Section 8.1.3.4.1, the residual effects analysis methods for the Human Health assessment

were different in some notable ways from those used by other components. The assessment of potential effects

to human health results in the generation of risk factors that inherently consider the geographic extent, duration,

and frequency of the predicted changes to the environment that may result from the Project activities. As such,

these attributes cannot be used to determine environmental significance, as they can with other components.

Instead, environmental significance for the Human Health assessment is evaluated based on:

Context, which focuses on the comparison of the Project Only Case risk estimates to the Baseline Case risk

estimates to evaluate changes that could be attributed to the Project;

The magnitude of the risk, as indicated by the hazard quotient (HQ) and/or incremental lifetime cancer risk

(ILCR) calculation; and

The degree of conservatism and uncertainty in the analysis.





22

Together, potential magnitude (i.e., includes quantitative assessment of likelihood of risk) and conservatism were

used to determine overall risk, which, in turn, is used to evaluate environmental significance. The overall risk and

conservatism associated with the risk estimates were assessed on a constituent-specific basis.

The determination of significance of potential residual effects for the Human Health assessment was based on the

residual effects rating assigned (negligible, low, moderate and high), a review of background information,

consultation with government agencies and other experts, and professional judgement. Each residual Project

effect has been rated as not significant, or significant, as follows:

Not significant – Potential residual effect determined not significant are those that either do not result in a

measurable change to identified indicators for the Human Health assessment or where the potential residual

effects are determined to not meet the definition of significant. Negligible and low residual effects are

considered not significant.

Significant – Residual effects may be characterized as significant if there is a reasonable expectation that

the effect of the Project would result in moderate and/or high residual effects.

8.1.3.5 Confidence and Risk

There are inherent uncertainties associated with risk assessment predictions (e.g., model uncertainty). The

magnitudes of the uncertainties are in large part a function of the quality, quantity, and variability of available data.

When information is uncertain, it is standard practice in a risk assessment to make assumptions that are biased

towards safety (i.e., conservative assumptions that tend to overestimate exposure and the potential for adverse

effects). The conservatism employed in the HHRA also builds on the conservatism inherent in the predictions of

the water and air quality assessments that serve as primary inputs to the risk assessment.

The overall level of confidence was characterized for each predicted effect based on the underlying uncertainty

identified throughout the assessment. In risk assessment, narrative descriptions of risk (i.e., significance of

residual effect ratings) are often subjective, and their definition depends on the level of conservatism and

uncertainty in the risk analysis. In most cases, these descriptions provide an indication of the level of concern

associated with a given HQ result and they often integrate the likelihood and magnitude of potential effects in a

single narrative indicator. Given the need to apply conservative assumptions in predictive risk assessments,

narrative conclusions of “low” or “moderate” risk, are rarely synonymous with an expected future condition of

adverse effects that are low or moderate in magnitude. Rather, they indicate priorities for follow-up studies to refine

risk assessment conclusions and possible follow-up and monitoring to confirm or refute risk conclusions.

In addition to evaluation of model uncertainty, quality assurance checks are conducted during model development

to provide confidence in numerical output. The process includes peer review of parameter estimates, equations,

unit conversions and statistical manipulations of the data.

The level of confidence for each predicted residual Project effect is discussed to characterize the level of

uncertainty associated with both the significance and likelihood determinations. Level of confidence is based on

expert professional judgement. Assumptions are based on the following criteria:

Low – judgement hampered by incomplete understanding of cause-effect relationships or lack of data;





23

Moderate – reasonable understanding of cause-effect relationships and adequate data; or

High –- good understanding of cause-effect relationships and ample data.

The Human Health assessment will describe any measures to reduce uncertainty through monitoring, adaptive

management or other follow-up programs. This will be done in consultation with the Air Quality and Water Quality

disciplines to determine if additional monitoring is needed to address uncertainty.

8.1.4 Assessment of Potential Project Effects

8.1.4.1 Project Interactions

This section considers potential Project effects on human health in relation to the Indicators listed in

Table 8.1-2. As discussed in Section 8.1.3, the direct interactions between the Project and the changes in

environmental quality that could potentially impact human health is not explicitly identified. Rather, the evaluation

of Project-VC interaction focused on identifying linkages where the potential exists for the Project to affect human

health through predicted changes to water quality, air quality, or other components of the physical environment.

These linkages were then assessed to determine the significance of Project-related effects.

Key Project interactions for the Human Health assessment include the potential effects associated with changes

to soil quality from changes in air quality, sediment quality, water quality and air quality. Specific Project interactions

are discussed in Section 4.6 (Water and Sediment Quality) and Section 4.4 (Air Quality).

8.1.4.2 Potential Project Effects

Results of the pathways analysis are presented in Table 8.1-7.

Table 8.1-7: Potential Pathways for Effects on the Human Health Assessment

Effect Pathway Project Activity Relevant Environmental

Design Features or Mitigation

Pathway Assessment

Potential changes to soil quality resulting from potential changes to air quality

As outlined in Appendix 8.1-3 Primary Pathway

Potential changes to sediment quality resulting from potential changes to water quality

As outlined in the sediment quality assessment (Section 4.6)

No pathway (a)

Potential changes to surface water quality

As outlined in the Water Quality VC (Section 4.6)

No pathway (a)

Potential changes to country food (fish) quality resulting from potential changes to water quality

As outlined in the Water Quality VC (Section 4.6)

No pathway (a)





24

Effect Pathway Project Activity Relevant Environmental

Design Features or Mitigation

Pathway Assessment

Potential changes to country food (berries) quality resulting from potential changes to air quality (deposition)

As outlined in Appendix 8.1-3 (soil prediction methods) and Appendix 8.1-2 (COPC screening)

Primary Pathway

Potential changes to country food (game) quality resulting from potential changes to air quality (deposition) and water quality

As outlined in Appendix 8.1-3 (soil prediction methods) and Appendix 8.1-2 (COPC screening) and Water Quality VC (Section 4.6)

Primary Pathway

Potential changes to air quality As outlined in the Air Quality VC (Section 4.4) Primary Pathway

Potential changes to groundwater quality

As outlined in the VC Selection Document No Pathway(b)

Notes: (a) Surface sediment and water quality are not expected to change as a result of the Project. (b) An interaction between the Project and groundwater was not identified through the VC selection process and therefore has not been considered.

8.1.4.2.1 Changes to Soil Quality

Many of the constituents that will be released to air from the Project are volatile and would not deposit to an

appreciable degree onto soil. However, particulate matter containing constituents from dust generation or from

incomplete combustion may deposit directly onto soil in the LAA and RAA. Some constituents (e.g., metals and

PAHs) can accumulate in soil. Therefore, the pathway between changes in soil quality and human health was

classified as primary and was evaluated further in the Human Health assessment.

8.1.4.2.2 Changes to Sediment Quality

Residual effects to sediment quality are not predicted as a result of the Project (Section 4.6) and therefore

exposure to sediment was not considered a primary pathway and not evaluated further in the Human Health

assessment.

8.1.4.2.3 Changes to Surface Water Quality

Residual effects to water quality are not predicted as a result of the Project (Section 4.6) and therefore exposure

to surface water was not considered a primary pathway and not evaluated further in the Human Health

assessment.

8.1.4.2.4 Changes to Country Food (Fish) Quality

Changes to constituent concentrations in fish tissue are not expected to occur as changes to sediment and water

quality are not predicted. Fish tissue quality was therefore not considered a primary pathway and not evaluated

further in the Human Health assessment.





25

8.1.4.2.5 Changes to Country Food (Berries) Quality

Many of the constituents that will be released to air from the Project are volatile and would not deposit to an

appreciable degree onto berries. However, particulate matter containing constituents from dust generation or from

incomplete combustion may deposit directly onto berry surfaces in the LAA and RAA. Some constituents

(e.g., metals and PAHs) can accumulate in berries that are significant country food sources for local residents.

Therefore, the pathway between changes in berry quality and human health was classified as primary and was

evaluated further in the Human Health assessment.

8.1.4.2.6 Changes to Country Food (Game) Quality

Game (e.g., mammal and birds) may ingest soil, surface water or vegetation from the LAA and RAA. As discussed

above, surface water quality is not expected to change as a result of the Project. However, changes to constituent

concentrations in game tissue may occur if there are changes to soil and vegetation quality. Therefore, the pathway

between changes in game tissue quality and human health was classified as primary and was evaluated further

in the Human Health assessment.

8.1.4.2.7 Changes to Air Quality

Residual effects to air quality as a result of the Project are predicted as outlined in Section 4.4. Residents of

regional communities, and people spending time in recreational areas may be exposed to airborne constituents

emitted from the Project via direct inhalation. The change to air quality was therefore considered a primary pathway

and was evaluated further in the Human Health assessment.

8.1.4.3 Mitigation Measures

As discussed above in Section 8.1.4.1, the mitigation measures assumed by the Water and Air Quality

assessments are included in the predictions used for the Human Health assessment. Information on the mitigation

measures, including how they are prioritized and their effectiveness, are summarized in Section 4.6 (Water Quality)

and Section 4.4 (Air Quality). Monitoring plans specific to the Human Health assessment will not be developed as

part of the Project. If necessary, monitoring plans will be developed in conjunction with other discipline teams

(e.g., Water Quality and Air Quality) and the monitoring plans will be included as part their EA chapters. The

monitoring plans will be used to confirm the predictions associated with predicted changes in levels of constituents

in environmental media to which people may be exposed.

8.1.4.4 Residual Project Effects

The analysis of effects for human health followed conventional HHRA methods outlined in Section 8.1.3.1:

Problem formulation;

Toxicity assessment;

Exposure assessment;





26

Risk characterization and determination of significance; and

Consideration of uncertainty.

There are three components to the Human Health assessment:

A human health multimedia risk assessment;

An air quality assessment (human health inhalation risk assessment); and

A particulate matter risk assessment.

A problem formulation was completed for each of the above three components to identify potential receptors,

COPCs and exposure pathways. The problem formulation distinguishes between pathways for which further

quantitative analysis is warranted and those that do not warrant further analysis, either because the potential for

risk is negligible or because a simple solution for mitigation exists.

Results of the human health multimedia risk assessment are presented in Section 8.1.4.4.1. Results of the human

health inhalation and particulate matter risk assessments are presented in Sections 8.1.4.4.2 and 8.1.4.4.3,

respectively.

8.1.4.4.1 Human Health Multimedia Risk Assessment

8.1.4.4.1.1 Problem Formulation

8.1.4.4.1.1.1 Identification of Receptors

Receptors identified for the human health multimedia risk assessment included community residents, Aboriginal

residents and recreational users. For the purposes of the human health multimedia risk assessment, it was

assumed that residents (community and Aboriginal) may live in the LAA and RAA for their entire lifetime and

recreational users may access the LAA and the RAA for recreational purposes including fishing, hunting and

harvesting plants. Additional information about the parks and protected areas, as well as hunting and fishing within

the assessment areas, are summarized in Section 6.3 (Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional

Purposes).

The receptor locations selected for the human health multimedia risk assessment are summarized in

Table 8.1-8 and shown in Figure 8.1-1. Human health receptor locations were selected within the LAA and RAA

based on identified land uses (e.g., camping sites, communities, identified Aboriginal residential and cultural areas)

and proximity to the Project. It was assumed that recreational users may be present in these areas on a seasonal

basis. Members of nearby Aboriginal communities may use areas within the RAA for fishing, hunting and

harvesting plants. The Project site is fenced, and access is restricted by a gate. Therefore, it is not anticipated that

members of the general public will access the Project site during construction, operations or decommissioning.





27

Employees, contractors and visitors working for the Project were not included as receptors in the human health

multimedia risk assessment because worker health and safety is covered under company occupational health and

safety plans.

Table 8.1-8: Human Health Receptor Locations

Easting Northing Type Receptor Location

498094 5443055 Recreation Bike Route

496628 5439875 Recreation Boat Launch

497489 5443381 Dyke Dyke East

497098 5442905 Dyke Dyke West 1

496916 5442596 Dyke Dyke West 2

496630 5443756 Dyke Dyke North 1

497151 5444057 Dyke Dyke North 2

491330 5439918 Dyke South Dyke Trail

496628 5439875 Farm Farm 1

497452 5440294 Farm Farm 2

497499 5441935 Farm Farm 3

496909 5443942 Aboriginal Heritage Area TI'uqtinus

491827 5451625 Hospital Amherst Hospital

494674 5451128 Hospital Holy Family Hospital

489334 5446249 Hospital Richmond Hospital

493853 5446816 Park Richmond Nature Park East

496628 5439875 Park Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park

493425 5447859 Park King George Park

493669 5447843 Park King George/Cambie Community Park

492792 5440730 Park Woodwards Landing

498839 5444563 Park Triangle Beach

495207 5440970 Park Deas Park 1

495911 5441523 Park Deas Park 2

485782 5441569 Park Gary Point Park

498143 5442566 Recreation Tilbury Ice

495407 5442570 Recreation Watermania

486016 5452645 Reserves and TFN Lands Musqueam IR2

490887 5434896 Reserves and TFN Lands Musqueam IR4

491688 5433134 Reserves and TFN Lands TFN Lands

492895 5442770 School Daniel Woodward Elementary

492416 5442516 School Thomas Kidd Elementary

493334 5443952 School Richmond Jewish Day School

493042 5443600 School Kingswood Elementary

493391 5444230 School Az-Zahraa Islamic Academy

493622 5444600 School BC Muslim School

494643 5439239 School Neilson Grove Elementary





28

Easting Northing Type Receptor Location

494743 5438179 School Hawthorne Elementary School

493806 5447699 School Kathleen McNeely Elementary

494063 5447863 School Cambie Secondary

493449 5448070 School Mitchell Elementary

500310 5446406 School Choice School for Gifted Children

494501 5429301 School South Delta Secondary School

506094 5449770 School School District No. 40 (New Westminster)

505300 5451428 School New Westminster Secondary School

504551 5451415 School St. Thomas More Collegiate

491508 5440086 Residence Finn Slough

497533 5442289 Residence Nearest Residence to Facility Site

491222 5443023 School James Whiteside Elementary

491024 5442906 Recreation South Arm Outdoor Pool

490776 5443031 School Hugh McRoberts Secondary

491230 5443569 School Walter Lee Elementary

490636 5444481 School R.C. Palmer Secondary

501163 5453762 Park Deer Lake Park

507063 5440134 Park Watershed Park

506964 5444290 School North Delta Secondary

495685 5437340 Recreation Delta Gymnastics Society

493728 5437034 School Delta Secondary

495481 5437036 Hospital Delta Hospital

Notes: BC = British Columbia; IR = Indian Reserve; TFN = Tsawwassen First Nation.

8.1.4.4.1.1.2 Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern

The screening approach for the human health multimedia risk assessment focused on those media where

constituent concentrations could change as a result of the Project. Changes to constituent concentrations in

sediment and surface water were not predicted to change as a result of the Project (Section 4.6). Therefore,

sediment and surface water were not used to identify COPCs for the human health multimedia risk assessment.

Changes in constituent concentrations in fish tissue rely on changes in sediment and surface water. Because

changes were not predicted for these media, fish tissue constituent concentrations are also not expected to change

as a result of the Project. Sediment, surface water and fish tissue data were compared to screening values for

informational purposes in Appendix 8.1-2.

Changes to constituent concentrations in soil could occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, soil data were

compared to applicable soil quality criteria to identify COPCs for the human health multimedia risk assessment.

Changes to constituent concentrations in vegetation (berries) as a result of the Project are also possible; however,

there are no human health-based screening values available for vegetation. In the absence of screening values

for vegetation, a COPC identified in soil would also be retained for vegetation.





29

Changes to constituent concentrations in game as a result of the Project are also possible; however, there are no

human health-based screening values available for game. In the absence of screening values for game, a COPC

identified in soil would also be retained for game.

The constituent screening process used to determine the COPCs in soil and vegetation are discussed in

Appendix 8.1-2 and summarized in the following subsections.

Identification of Constituents in Soil

The baseline soil quality for the Project is presented in Appendix 8.1-1. Soil data were collected in July 2015 at

15 sample locations and analyzed for metals and PAHs; these soil concentrations represent baseline soil quality.

Future concentrations in soil as a result of the Project were predicted using annual wet and dry deposition rates.

The annual wet and dry deposition rates for metals and PAHs were predicted at each of the receptor locations

provided in Figure 8.1-1. There are no regulatory guidelines or risk-based concentrations that can be directly

compared to deposition rates. Thus, the deposition rates were used to predict surface soil concentrations which

were then compared to soil quality guidelines.

Incremental soil concentrations were calculated using protocols provided in the Human Health Risk Assessment

Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (US EPA 2005). A detailed description of the soil prediction

methods is provided in Appendix 8.1-3. Calculated incremental soil concentrations were added to baseline soil

concentrations (two scenarios, as described below) to predict Baseline and Application Case soil concentrations:

Deposition to Maximum Baseline Soil Concentration: Predicted soil concentrations were calculated by

combining receptor-specific soil deposition to the maximum observed soil concentration from the baseline

soil sampling. This is a conservative approach because it assumes that the maximum soil concentration

observed from the baseline sampling applies to all 58 receptor locations and is used as a first-tier screening

tool.

Deposition to Receptor-Specific Baseline Soil Concentrations: Soil concentrations specific to each

receptor location were calculated by combining receptor-specific soil deposition to receptor-specific baseline

soil concentrations where available. Receptor-specific baseline soil concentrations were determined by

pairing each of the receptor locations with the baseline sampling locations using the approach provided in

Appendix 8.1-3. This detailed approach (second-tier assessment) provides information on potential changes

to soil quality at each specific receptor location.

Predicted soil concentrations were compared to health-based screening values outlined in Appendix 8.1-2. A

constituent was identified as a soil COPC if the predicted soil concentration exceeded a soil screening value and

was above the regional background soil concentration (metals only). The predicted metal and PAH concentrations

(baseline plus incremental) were less than the applicable soil quality guidelines; therefore, no COPCs in soil were

retained for the human health multimedia risk assessment. The results are presented in Appendix 8.1-3.





30

Identification of Constituents in Vegetation

Because there are no human health-based screening values available for vegetation and no COPCs were

identified in soil, no COPCs were retained for vegetation (berries).

Identification of Constituents in Game

Because there are no human health-based screening values available for game and no COPCs were identified in

soil, no COPCs were retained for game.

8.1.4.4.1.1.3 Identification of Operable Exposure Pathways

The objective of the exposure pathway screening process was to identify potential routes by which people could

be exposed to constituents and the relative significance of these pathways to total exposure. A constituent

represents a potential health risk only if people can come in contact with it through an exposure pathway at a

concentration that could potentially lead to adverse effects. If there is no pathway for a receptor to come in contact

with the constituent, then there cannot be a risk, regardless of the constituent concentration.

Potential exposure pathways considered for the human health multimedia risk assessment are summarized in

Table 8.1-9. Based on the results of the pathway screening, no operable exposure pathways were retained for the

human health multimedia risk assessment. People may be exposed to constituents released to air from the Project.

Inhalation of constituents in air is evaluated in the human health inhalation risk assessment (Section 8.1.4.4.2)

and exposure to particulate matter in air is evaluated in the human health particulate matter risk assessment

(Section 8.1.4.4.3).

Table 8.1-9: Exposure Pathways Considered in the Human Health Multimedia Risk Assessment

Exposure Pathway Description Operable Pathway?

Incidental ingestion of soil

Airborne constituents may deposit onto soil. People may subsequently be exposed to constituents in soil through incidental ingestion and dermal contact. Changes to soil concentrations as a result of the Project were estimated using a deposition model. Predicted soil concentrations were below applicable soil screening criteria and no COPCs were identified.

No

Dermal contact with soil

No

Inhalation of dust No

Incidental ingestion of sediment

People may be exposed to constituents in sediment through incidental ingestion and dermal contact during recreational activities such as swimming or fishing in the Fraser River. However, sediment quality is not expected to change as a result of the Project and no COPCs were identified in sediment in the Fraser River.

No

Dermal contact with sediment

No

Incidental ingestion of surface water

People may be exposed to constituents in surface water through incidental ingestion and dermal contact during recreational activities such as swimming or fishing in the Fraser River. However, surface water quality is not expected to change as a result of the Project and no COPCs were identified in surface water from the Fraser River.

No

Dermal contact with surface water

No





31


Ingestion of fish

People may be exposed to constituents in fish harvested from the Fraser River through ingestion. However, sediment and surface water quality are not expected to change as a result of the Project and fish tissue data from the Fraser River were not screened for selection of COPCs.

Disturbance of bottom sediments has the potential to facilitate the release of trace metal and organic constituents such as PAHs, metals, and dioxins and furans to the overlying water column, which can then impact fish tissue quality. This can occur during:

• Construction: capital dredging of the Dredge Area, in-river ground stabilization and pile works, site preparation, removal of existing marine infrastructure, and construction of off-shore facilities, shoreline enhancement

• Operation: maintenance dredging, berthing and departure of vessels

• Decommissioning: removal of off-shore facilities

However, the sediment characterization study undertaken for the Project suggests that the Project site does not represent a contaminant source for metals or dioxins and furans, but rather is reflective of ambient conditions within the river (see Water Quality Section 4.6.2.2.2; Appendix 4.6-2). As such, the potential for mobilization of these constituents to the water column was not assessed further.

Despite the high sediment load in the river, PAHs were not detected in the water column at the Project site. Low or undetectable PAH concentrations in the water column are likely, in part, attributable to the hydrophobic nature of PAHs and their affinity to bind to organic matter, particle surfaces, or biological lipids rather than desorbing to the water column. Their relative hydrophobicity and the well-mixed river conditions within the LAA suggest that PAHs will not desorb from disturbed sediment to the extent that river concentrations within the LAA will increase above water quality objectives or guidelines as a result of the Project activities listed above. Baseline sediment PAH concentrations from the proposed area of the dredge pocket were used to predict total surface water concentrations that may be expected during dredging for 50, 100, and 200 mg/L total suspended solid scenarios. Predicted surface water concentrations of PAHs under these scenarios were determined to be less than the applicable guidelines protective of human health (see Water Quality Section 4.6; Table 4.6-11).

Based on the above, increased total suspended solids caused by Project activities is not expected to impact fish tissue quality.

No





32


Ingestion of berries

Airborne constituents may deposit onto berries. Berries may also take up constituents from soil. People may subsequently be exposed to constituents in berries through ingestion. There are no screening guidelines that can be applied directly to vegetation. Therefore, vegetation COPCs were identified based on the soil data. No COPCs were identified in soil; therefore, no COPCs were retained for vegetation.

No

Ingestion of game

People may be exposed to constituents in game harvested from the LAA or RAA. However, COPCs were not identified in soil, fish or berries (discussed above) and therefore no COPCs were retained for game.

No

Ingestion of potable water

People may be exposed to constituents in groundwater through ingestion (as drinking water) and dermal contact (e.g., washing, bathing). However, an interaction between the Project and groundwater was not identified through the VC selection process; therefore, this pathway was not evaluated further.

No

Dermal contact with potable water

No

Notes: COPC = constituent of potential concern; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area.

8.1.4.4.1.1.4 Summary of Problem Formulation

Based on the results of the problem formulation, there are no COPCs in soil, sediment, surface water, or country

foods (i.e., fish tissue, berries or game) and therefore no operable exposure pathways for receptors. A human

health multimedia risk assessment was not completed as part of the Human Health assessment.

8.1.4.4.2 Human Health Inhalation Risk Assessment

The objective of the human health inhalation risk assessment is to evaluate constituents potentially emitted from

the Project that may pose an adverse health effect people following short-term or acute exposure (i.e., 1-hour or

24-hour) and long-term or chronic exposure.



Air quality effects on human health were evaluated on a regional basis. The assessment area for the human health

inhalation risk assessment was based on the air quality modelling domain. Human health receptor locations were

selected within the LAA and RAA based on identified land uses (e.g., camping sites, communities, identified

Aboriginal residential and cultural areas) and proximity to the Project. Receptor locations included in the human

health inhalation risk assessment are summarized in Table 8.1-8 and shown in Figure 8.1-1.





33

Metro Vancouver requested that air quality modelling be conducted at an additional 1032 sensitive receptor

locations throughout the LAA and RAA, which are generally further away from the Project than the initial 58

locations identified. As the result of the input from Metro Vancouver, a total of 1090 locations were modelled for

air quality. The 1090 receptor locations are shown in Air Quality section (Section 4.4.1, Appendix 4.4.1-4). The

maximum discrete receptor location represents the maximum concentration of the 1090 locations.

The acute inhalation assessment also considered the maximum point of impingement (MPOI), which is the

maximum concentration predicted within the RAA, outside of developed Project areas where public access is not

restricted, and where the ambient air quality objectives apply (see Air Quality assessment Figure A-1 in

Section 4.4). The MPOI is considered to be a hypothetical “worst case” location and it did not overlap with any of

the receptor locations. As a result, use or access by the public to the MPOI is considered to be on an infrequent

basis.

The human health inhalation risk assessment evaluated potential risks to community residents, Aboriginal

residents and recreational users of various ages (infants, toddlers, children, teens, and adults) who may visit the

locations identified above and may in future be exposed to COPCs resulting from the Project.


The constituents considered in the human health inhalation risk assessment are those identified by the Air

Quality discipline to be emitted by the Project and included constituents in the following groups: acid gases

(e.g., sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide), particulate matter, metals, PAHs and VOCs. The constituents evaluated

in the human health inhalation risk assessment are listed in Appendix 8.1-4. Exposure to particulate matter is

evaluated separately in Section 8.1.4.4.3. Hazardous air pollutants, including hydrogen sulphide, methyl

chloroform, methylene chloride, propyl mercaptan and tetrachloroethylene, are not emitted by the Project.

Therefore, these parameters were not included in the air dispersion model and by extension, were not evaluated

in the human health inhalation risk assessment.1

For each constituent, 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual concentrations were predicted at the receptor locations.

Predicted concentrations were compared to the most conservative (i.e., lowest) of available 1-hour, 24-hour, and

annual health-based thresholds (Appendix 8.1-4), preferentially obtained from the following agencies:

Metro Vancouver;

British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy;

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment;

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;

United States Environmental Protection Agency; and

World Health Organization.

1 The AIR was developed before emission source data and emissions inventory were available for the Project. Therefore, the contaminant groups listed in the AIR (i.e., DPM, VOCs, metals, PAHs and HAPs) are general chemical groupings that are typically associated with LNG processing facilities and encompasses activities such as flaring, incineration, heating and venting. Maximum off-site predictions were provided for chemicals that are emitted by the Project based on the more detailed information that was made available throughout the application preparation (i.e. the final design is a closed loop system with no flaring or venting. Additionally, no processing of LNG occurs at the Project).





34

The lowest health-based threshold with supporting information was generally selected for use in the screening

process. Consideration was also given to relevant species (i.e., human data versus animal data), study endpoint,

quality, and date of the study.

Where a health-based screening threshold was not available from the agencies listed above, the lowest

available health-based thresholds from the following agencies were used:

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks;

California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; and

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Priority was given to health-based screening levels that had supporting documentation.

For diesel particulate matter (DPM), recent guidance provided by Health Canada (2016) was also consulted in

addition to the above agencies.

The available 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual health-based thresholds and the basis of these thresholds are

presented in Appendix 8.1-4. For annual thresholds, risk levels for which the screening levels/guidelines were

derived were standardized to risk levels considered acceptable by (Health Canada 2012) and (BC ENV 2018a).

For non-carcinogens, this involved adjusting the screening concentration to correspond with a HQ of 1.0, and for

carcinogens, this involved adjusting to correspond with a risk level of 1 x 10-5 (i.e., 1 in 100,000). Further

information on the approach used to develop the screening thresholds for each of the agencies is provided in

Appendix 8.1-4.

Constituent concentrations based on 1-hour, 24-hour and annual averaging periods for the Baseline, Application

and Project Only Cases were predicted for receptor locations during the lifetime of the Project. The Baseline and

Application Cases include background estimates, while the Project Only Case excludes background estimates.

The Project Only Case therefore provides an estimate of the Project’s contribution by itself. The predicted

maximum 1-hour, 24-hour and annual concentrations of constituents in air were compared to selected thresholds

to determine whether further assessment was required. A constituent was identified as a COPC and retained for

further evaluation if the predicted concentration exceeded the selected health-based screening value at any human

receptor location under any of the assessment cases.

Predicted maximum 1-hour, 24-hour and annual concentrations were compared to the selected thresholds in

Appendix 8.1-4. Predicted 24-hour concentrations were below the selected screening values; therefore, no COPCs

were identified for the 24-hour averaging time. Constituents identified as carcinogens were evaluated for both

carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic endpoints for the annual scenario. In some cases, constituents exceeded one

of the two thresholds but not both. For example, predicted maximum concentrations of cadmium exceeded the

non-carcinogenic screening threshold, but not the carcinogenic screening threshold. Predicted maximum

concentrations of chromium exceeded the carcinogenic screening threshold, but not the non-carcinogenic

screening threshold. A summary of the COPCs retained for the human health inhalation risk assessment are

presented in Table 8.1-10.





35

Table 8.1-10: Constituents of Potential Concern Retained for the Human Health Inhalation Risk Assessment

Constituent of Potential Concern

Baseline Case Application Case Project Only Case

1-Hour

Nitrogen dioxide – Dredger Scenario

All receptor locations evaluated


MPOI

Nitrogen dioxide – Normal Operation Scenario



MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 1, TI'uqtinus

Diesel particulate matter None

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor, Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 2, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Triangle Beach, Deas Park 1, Deas Park 2, Tilbury Ice, Watermania, Daniel Woodward Elementary, Richmond Jewish Day School, Kingswood Elementary, Nearest Residence to Facility Site

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor, Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Deas Park 2, Tilbury Ice, Watermania, Daniel Woodward Elementary, Nearest Residence to

Facility Site

Benzo(a)pyrene None

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus

Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene None

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus, Deas Park 2, Nearest Residence to Facility Site

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus, Deas Park 2, Nearest Residence to Facility Site

2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde None

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke West 1, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke West 1, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus

Crotonaldehyde None MPOI MPOI

Annual

Nitrogen dioxide All receptor locations evaluated


None

Cadmium All receptor locations evaluated


None

Chromium All receptor locations evaluated


None

Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; n/a = not applicable.





36


People may be exposed to constituents in air through inhalation while carrying out activities at the receptor

locations. The acute and chronic inhalation exposure pathways were evaluated in the human health inhalation risk

assessment.


Based on the results of the problem formulation, people may be exposed to COPCs identified in air via inhalation

and a human health inhalation risk assessment was completed as part of the Human Health assessment. An acute

inhalation assessment was completed for nitrogen dioxide, DPM, benzo(a)pyrene, cylcopenta(c,d)pyrene, 2,5-

dimethylbenzaldehyde and crotonaldehyde. A chronic inhalation assessment was completed for nitrogen dioxide,

cadmium and chromium.

8.1.4.4.2.2 Acute Inhalation Assessment

8.1.4.4.2.2.1 Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment is the process of estimating the exposure of a person to a constituent through a specific

exposure scenario. The exposure concentrations used in the acute inhalation assessment are the maximum

predicted concentrations presented in Appendix 8.1-4. Prediction methods are outlined in the Air Quality

assessment (Section 4.4).

The exposure time for a receptor at each receptor location is assumed to be the same as the averaging times of

the acute inhalation assessment (i.e., 1-hour and 24-hour).

8.1.4.4.2.2.2 Toxicity Assessment


of constituents that can be received by people without adverse health effects. For acute inhalation exposures,

toxicity assessment involved identification of the health-based regulatory exposure limits or toxicity benchmarks

are consistent with the exposure averaging time for the evaluation of acute risks. The acute inhalation thresholds

used in the risk characterization were selected as outlined in Appendix 8.1-4. The toxicological basis of the

selected thresholds is also presented in Appendix 8.1-4.

8.1.4.4.2.2.3 Risk Characterization and Determination of Residual Effects

Hazard quotients for Baseline Case, Application Case and Project Only Case were calculated for parameters

identified as COPCs in the 1-hour and 24-hour acute inhalation assessment by comparing the maximum predicted

concentrations with toxicity benchmarks, as follows:

𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑄𝑢𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐶 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑖𝑟 (𝜇𝑔/𝑚3)

𝐴𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝐼𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 (𝜇𝑔/𝑚3)





37

1-Hour Averaging Time

Baseline Case, Application Case and Project Only Case HQs were calculated at receptor locations where the

predicted maximum air concentration exceeded the screening threshold. As discussed in Table 8.1-5, the

acceptable risk threshold for inhalation exposure is one (Health Canada 2017d). To provide additional context at

the request of Fraser Health Authority (2018), HQs for exposure to predicted average 1-hour concentrations were

also calculated for receptor locations where the predicted maximum 1-hour concentration resulted in a HQ above

1.0. . The residual effects analysis was completed for exposure to the maximum 1-hour concentrations only.

The HQs for each COPC identified for acute inhalation assessment are discussed below.

Nitrogen Dioxide

The nitrogen dioxide HQs from exposure to maximum air concentrations for the Dredger and Normal Operation

Scenarios are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and summarized in Table 8.1-11.

Baseline Case and Application Case HQs exceeded one at each of the 58 human health receptor locations

evaluated in both the Dredger and Normal Operation Scenarios. Due to the large number of receptor

locations, the range of HQs for the 58 receptor locations are shown in Table 8.1-11.

Under the Dredger Scenario, the Project Only Case HQs exceeded one at the MPOI only.

Under the Normal Operation Scenario, the Project Only Case HQs exceeded one at the MPOI, Maximum

Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus.

The nitrogen dioxide HQs from exposure to average air concentrations for the Normal Operation Scenario are

provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and summarized in Table 8.1-11.

Baseline Case and Application HQs exceeded one at each of the 58 human health receptor locations

evaluated in both the Dredger and Normal Operation Scenarios. Due to the large number of receptor

locations, the range of HQs for the 58 receptor locations are shown in Table 8.1-11.





38

Table 8.1-11: Hazard Quotients for Nitrogen Dioxide – 1-Hour

Receptor Location

Dredger Scenario Normal Operation Scenario

Baseline Case

Application Case

Project Only Case

Baseline Case

Application Case

Project Only Case

Maximum 1-Hour

MPOI 1.2 5.2 4.0 1.2 5.4 4.2

Maximum Discrete Receptor location

1.1 2.0 0.90 1.1 2.6 1.5

Range for 58 Human Health

Receptors 1.1a 1.1 – 2.0

0.00064 – 0.90

1.1a 1.1 - 2.6 0.012 – 1.5

Average 1-Hour

MPOI 1.1a 1.1a 0.017 1.1 1.1 0.029


1.1a 1.1a 0.0057 1.1 1.1 0.011

Range for 58 Human Health Receptors

1.1a 1.1a 0.000017 –

0.0057 1.1a 1.1a

0.0064 – 0.010

Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; n/a = not applicable, average 1-hour predictions were not available for the Dredger Scenario. a. Hazard quotient is 1.1 at each human health receptor location evaluated.Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one.

Diesel Particulate Matter

The DPM HQs from exposure to maximum air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and summarized in

Table 8.1-12. The air quality predictions for the Baseline and Application Cases include regional background

estimates, which are determined from regional ambient air quality monitoring data (Section 4.4.1, Appendix 4.4.1-

2) representing the contribution from existing natural and regional anthropogenic emission sources. Regional

background estimates are different than Baseline Case predictions in that Baseline Case includes regional

background, as well as emission sources at the adjacent Tilbury LNG Plant, including predicted emissions from

the approved expansion that is currently under construction. However, there are no combustion emissions from

the adjacent LNG Plant and therefore Baseline Case predictions for DPM are the same as the regional background

concentrations.

Application Case and Project Only Case HQs exceeded one at each of the receptor locations listed in Table

8.1-12 except at Deas Park 1, Richmond Jewish Day School and Kingswood Elementary. The HQs at the

remaining human health receptor locations were below one.

The DPM HQs from exposure to average air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and summarized in

Table 8.1-12.

Application and Project Only Case HQs were below one at each of the human health receptor locations

evaluated.





39

Table 8.1-12: Hazard Quotients for Diesel Particulate Matter – 1-Hour

Receptor Location Baseline Case Application Case Project Only Case

Maximum 1-Hour

MPOI 0.34 9.6 9.3


0.34 4.6 4.2

Bike Route 0.34 1.5 1.2

Boat Launch 0.34 1.6 1.3

Dyke East 0.34 2.9 2.5

Dyke West 1 0.34 3.1 2.8

Dyke West 2 0.34 2.6 2.3

Dyke North 1 0.34 4.5 4.2

Dyke North 2 0.34 2.9 2.6

Farm 1 0.34 1.6 1.3

Farm 2 0.34 1.3 0.92

Farm 3 0.34 1.6 1.2

TI'uqtinus 0.34 3.8 3.5

Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park

0.34 1.6 1.3

Triangle Beach 0.34 1.3 0.94

Deas Park 1 0.34 1.0 0.70

Deas Park 2 0.34 2.4 2.0

Tilbury Ice 0.34 1.7 1.3

Watermania 0.34 1.8 1.5

Daniel Woodward Elementary

0.34 1.4 1.0

Richmond Jewish Day School

0.34 1.0 0.67

Kingswood Elementary 0.34 1.0 0.71

Nearest Residence to Facility Site

0.34 2.0 1.7

Average 1-Hour1

MPOI n/a 0.45 0.11


n/a 0.38 0.046

Bike Route n/a 0.35 0.019

Boat Launch n/a 0.34 0.0041

Dyke East n/a 0.38 0.043

Dyke West 1 n/a 0.38 0.046

Dyke West 2 n/a 0.36 0.025

Dyke North 1 n/a 0.38 0.042

Dyke North 2 n/a 0.36 0.020

Farm 1 n/a 0.34 0.0041

Farm 2 n/a 0.34 n/a

Farm 3 n/a 0.35 0.011

TI'uqtinus n/a 0.36 0.027





40



n/a 0.34 0.0041

Triangle Beach n/a 0.34 n/a

Deas Park 2 n/a 0.34 0.0085

Tilbury Ice n/a 0.35 0.018

Watermania n/a 0.36 0.024


n/a 0.35 n/a


n/a 0.35 0.015

Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement, n/a = not applicable; risks from exposure to the maximum predicted 1-hour concentration were acceptable; therefore, the HQ for average 1-hour scenario was not calculated. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one.

Benzo(a)pyrene

The benzo(a)pyrene HQs from exposure to maximum air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and

summarized in Table 8.1-13.

Application Case and Project Only Case HQs exceeded one at MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location,

Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2 and TI'uqtinus. The HQs at the remaining

human health receptor locations were below one.

Baseline Case HQs were below one at each receptor location evaluated.

The benzo(a)pyrene HQs from exposure to average air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and



evaluated.

Table 8.1-13: Hazard Quotients for Benzo(a)pyrene – 1-Hour


Maximum 1-Hour

MPOI 0.010 4.5 4.5


0.0030 2.1 2.1

Dyke East 0.0020 1.2 1.2

Dyke West 1 0.0015 1.4 1.4

Dyke West 2 0.0012 1.1 1.1

Dyke North 1 0.00087 2.1 2.1

Dyke North 2 0.0016 1.3 1.3

TI'uqtinus 0.0015 1.7 1.7

Average 1-Hour





41


MPOI n/a 0.053 0.053


n/a 0.021 0.021

Dyke East n/a 0.020 0.020

Dyke West 1 n/a 0.021 0.021

Dyke West 2 n/a 0.012 0.012

Dyke North 1 n/a 0.020 0.020

Dyke North 2 n/a 0.0093 0.0093

TI'uqtinus n/a 0.013 0.013

Notes: Baseline Case only includes emissions from Fortis Facility, ambient background set at zero. Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; n/a = not applicable; risks from exposure to the maximum predicted 1-hour concentration were acceptable; therefore, the HQ for average 1-hour scenario was not calculated. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one.

Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene

The cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene HQs from exposure to maximum air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and



Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus and Deas Park 2. The HQs

at the remaining human health receptor locations were below one.

Baseline Case HQs were not calculated because predicted Baseline Case concentrations were zero.

Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional

background estimates are not available.

The cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene HQs from exposure to average air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and



evaluated.

Table 8.1-14: Hazard Quotients for Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene – 1-Hour


Maximum 1-Hour

MPOI NC 5.6 5.6


NC 2.6 2.6

Dyke East NC 1.5 1.5

Dyke West 1 NC 1.7 1.7


Dyke North 1 NC 2.6 2.6





42



TI'uqtinus NC 2.1 2.1

Deas Park 2 NC 1.2 1.2

Average 1-Hour

MPOI NC 0.066 0.066


NC 0.027 0.027

Dyke East NC 0.025 0.025

Dyke West 1 NC 0.027 0.027

Dyke West 2 NC 0.014 0.014




Deas Park 2 NC 0.0050 0.0050

Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; NC = not calculated because cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional background estimates are not available. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one.

2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde

The 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde HQs from exposure to maximum air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5

and summarized in Table 8.1-15.


Dyke West 1, Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus. The HQs at the remaining human health receptor locations were

below one.

Baseline Case HQs were not calculated because predicted Baseline Case concentrations were zero. 2,5-

Dimethylbenzaldehyde is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional


The 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde HQs from exposure to average air concentrations are provided in Appendix 8.1-5

and summarized in Table 8.1-15.


evaluated.





43

Table 8.1-15: Hazard Quotients for 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde – 1-Hour


Maximum 1-Hour

MPOI NC 3.6 3.6


NC 1.6 1.6




Average 1-Hour

MPOI NC 0.042 0.042


NC 0.017 0.017

Dyke West 1 NC 0.017 0.017



Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; NC = not calculated because 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional background estimates are not available. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one.

Crotonaldehyde

The crotonaldehyde HQs from exposure to maximum air concentrations for are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and


Application Case and Project Only Case HQs exceeded one at the MPOI.

Baseline Case HQs were not calculated because predicted Baseline Case concentrations were zero.

Crotonaldehyde is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional


The crotonaldehyde HQs from exposure to average air concentrations for are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and



evaluated.

Table 8.1-16: Hazard Quotients for Crotonaldehyde – 1-Hour


Maximum 1-Hour

MPOI NC 1.6 1.6

Average 1-Hour

MPOI NC 0.019 0.019

Notes: MPOI = maximum point of impingement; NC = not calculated because crotonaldehyde is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional background estimates are not available. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one.





44

When constituents act on the same toxicological endpoints, the HQs are summed to obtain a cumulative risk

estimate. The health-based thresholds for crotonaldehyde and benzo(a)pyrene are based on eye irritation and

lung cancer respectively. Supporting toxicity information for the derivation of the threshold (e.g., identification of

the toxicological endpoint upon which the threshold was based) was not available for nitrogen dioxide,

cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde. Although the supporting toxicological information was not

available, the thresholds for these substances were used to conduct the assessment as they were identified by

the regulatory authorities who derived the thresholds to be health-based. The inclusion of these health-based

thresholds without supporting documentation in the risk assessment is a conservative approach because

otherwise these substances could not be evaluated. As the toxicological endpoint could not be identified for the

substances noted above and crotonaldehyde and benzo(a)pyrene act on different toxicological endpoints, HQs

were not summed and COPCs were evaluated on an individual basis.

For the acute 1-hour inhalation assessment, HQs were calculated based on exposure to both the maximum

predicted air concentration and the average predicted air concentration at the request of Fraser Health Authority

(2018). Fraser Health Authority (2018) suggested that central tendency estimates (e.g., mean values) provide a

more realistic local/regional health impact assessment and could provide context to the maximum 1-hour

predictions which are based on multiple conservative assumptions and which would generally occur for very short

durations. The HQs calculated using the average predicted air concentrations were below the threshold of 1.0 for

each of the COPCs and receptor locations evaluated. The average 1-hour HQs were provided as context to those

based on maximum. The residual effects analysis was completed for exposure to the maximum 1-hour

concentrations only.

24-Hour Averaging Time

No COPCs were identified for the 24-hour averaging time.

8.1.4.4.2.2.4 Residual Effects Analysis

For receptor locations where HQs exceeded one in the Application or Project Only Cases, the acceptable level

defined by Health Canada (2012, 2017d), additional analysis was completed to determine the magnitude of the

effect. The following approach was used on a case-by-case basis to determine overall risk (i.e., negligible, low,

moderate, or high):

Comparison of the maximum, 95th percentile and 75th percentile air concentrations to inhalation thresholds to

provide additional context to predicted risk;

Comparison of Application Case and Project Only Case HQs to Baseline Case HQs;

Determine the frequency of exceedances over the course of the year;

Determine the probability of an exceedance occurring over the course of the year;

Evaluation of the conservatism in the air modelling approach used to predict future concentrations; and

Evaluation of the conservatism in the inhalation thresholds for that constituent.





45

The predicted 1-hour maximum, 95th percentile and 75th percentile air concentrations and frequency of

exceedances for COPCs with HQs greater than one are presented in Table 8.1-18. Under some scenarios,

nitrogen dioxide hazard quotients exceeded one at each of the 58 human health receptor locations evaluated

(Appendix 8.1-5). In such cases, the location with the highest concentration out of the 58 human health receptor

locations is shown in Table 8.1-18. Results of the residual effects assessment for the acute inhalation assessment

are presented in Table 8.1-19 to Table 8.1-25.

The residual effect analysis also included an evaluation of the probability of air quality exceeding a threshold in a

given year, which takes into account the hours of vessel berthing and the frequency of hourly exceedances under

the Application Case. Hourly air quality predictions for the Application Case were modelled using the combination

of emission activities that could occur in an hour that results in the highest level of emissions. The activities that

resulted in the maximum hourly emissions (Scenario H1 in Appendix 4.4.1-6) include LNG carrier berthing, tug

boats, security vessels and fugitive losses. However, this combination of activities will not occur continuously;

docking and departing by both bunkering vessels and LNG carriers occurs for a maximum of 1 hour for each vessel

call. Based on a 137 carrier and bunker vessels annually, this maximum hourly emission scenario will occur for

274 hours per year. Additionally, these 274 hours will very rarely align with the meteorological conditions that result

in the highest ambient concentration predictions. The probability of an exceedance occurring at a human heath

receptor was calculated using the following equation:

𝑃 =𝑎

𝐻×

𝑒

𝐻

Where:

P = probability of an exceedance (percent of time over a year);

a = total number of hours in the highest hourly emission scenario, berthing/departing of bunkering barges

and LNG carriers, occurs over a year (274 hours per year);

e = maximum number of hourly meteorological conditions that resulted in human health threshold

exceedances at human heath receptors for each parameter (detailed in the table below); and,

H = total number of hours modelled (8760 hours per year).

The summary of the exceedance probability is provided in Table 8.1-17.

Table 8.1-17: Exceedance Probabilities for Application Case

COPC Carried Forward for Determination of Significance

Maximum Number of Hourly Exceedances in a Year

Receptor Location Probability of Exceedance

Nitrogen Dioxide1 – Dredger Scenario

87602 All Human Health Receptor

Locations 3.1%

Nitrogen Dioxide1 – Normal Operation Scenario

87602 All Human Health Receptor

Locations 3.1%

Diesel particulate matter

249 MPOI 0.089%

116 Maximum Discrete Receptor

location, Dyke North 1 0.041%

175 Dyke East 0.063%

Benzo(a)pyrene 36 MPOI 0.013%

8 Dyke West 1, TI'uqtinus 0.0029%





46

COPC Carried Forward for Determination of Significance

Maximum Number of Hourly Exceedances in a Year

Receptor Location Probability of Exceedance


47 MPOI 0.017%


location, Dyke West 1, Dyke North 1 0.0050%


28 MPOI 0.010%


locations, Dyke North 1 0.0018%

Crotonaldehyde 2 MPOI 0.00071%

Notes: % = percent; COPC = constituent of potential concern. 1. 1-hour nitrogen dioxide predictions were based on the ambient ratio method for converting nitrogen oxides to nitrogen dioxide. 2. 8760 hourly exceedances for 1-hour nitrogen dioxide were also observed at all human health receptors in the Baseline Case (i.e., existing conditions). The comparison of Baseline and Application Case exceedances for 1-hour nitrogen dioxide under the Dredger and Normal Operation Scenarios are discussed further in Table 8.1-19 and Table 8.1-20, respectively.

Risk assessments are typically conducted using conservative assumptions to avoid underestimating risks.

Although HQs for an average 1-hour scenario are presented Table 8.1-11 to Table 8.1-16, these data are intended

to provide context to the risk estimates based on maximum 1-hour concentration but were not used in the residual

effects assessment. The residual effects evaluation for the acute (1-hour) inhalation risk assessment was

completed assuming people are exposed to the highest concentration estimated from air quality modelling. The

constituents with maximum concentrations exceeding an air quality threshold were then carried forward for further

evaluation. The results presented in Table 8.1-18 show the maximum exposure concentrations as well as upper

estimates of exposure (95th and 75th percentiles). The Project Only Case reflects the Project’s overall contribution

by itself, without regional background contributions. Although the frequency of exceedances shown in Table 8.1-

18 were estimated to be as high as 8760, these frequencies are based on multiple conservative assumptions that

would need to occur at the same time. For additional context around the frequency of exceedances, the probability

of all activities occurring that lead to this prediction frequency has also been calculated and is low (see Table 8.1-

17).





47

Table 8.1-18: Predicted 1-Hour Concentrations and Frequency of Exceedances

COPC Receptor Location

Threshold (µg/m3)

Application Case Project Only Case

Max. Conc.

(µg/m3)

95th p Conc.

(µg/m3)

75th p Conc. (µg/m3)

Freq. of Exc.

Max. Conc.

(µg/m3)

95th p Conc.

(µg/m3)


Freq. of Exc.

Nitrogen dioxide – Dredger Scenario

MPOI 79 407 96 88 8760a 319 2.1 0.059 8760


79 160 90 88 8760a 71 1.2 0.057 0

Dyke West 11 79 160 89 88 8760a 71 1.2 0.057 0

Nitrogen dioxide – Normal Operation Scenario

MPOI 79 423 109 88 8760 335 20 0.096 8760


79 207 95 88 8760 118 6.9 0.064 1

Dyke North 12 79 207 95 88 8760 118 6.7 0.020 1

TI'uqtinus2 79 175 90 88 8760 87 2.3 0.010 1

Diesel particulate matter (DPM)

MPOI 10 96 7.1 3.9 249 93 3.7 0.50 249


10 45 6.2 3.4 116 42 2.8 0.040 116

Bike Route 10 15 4.2 3.4 12 12 0.87 0.060 12

Boat Launch 10 16 3.5 3.4 1 13 0.15 0.00047 1

Dyke East 10 29 6.0 3.4 175 25 2.6 0.042 175

Dyke West 1 10 31 6.3 3.4 153 28 2.9 0.087 153

Dyke West 2 10 26 4.3 3.4 79 23 0.98 0.0041 79

Dyke North 1 10 45 6.2 3.4 116 42 2.8 0.040 116

Dyke North 2 10 29 4.1 3.4 53 26 0.72 0.0023 53

Farm 1 10 16 3.5 3.4 1 13 0.15 0.00047 1

Farm 2 10 13 3.5 3.4 1 9.2 0.18 0.00060 1

Farm 3 10 16 3.8 3.4 7 12 0.44 0.0018 7

TI'uqtinus 10 38 4.4 3.4 85 35 1.1 0.0074 85


10 16 3.5 3.4 1 13 0.15 0.00047 1

Triangle Beach 10 13 3.5 3.4 12 9.4 0.18 0.00082 12

Deas Park 2 10 24 3.6 3.4 4 20 0.34 0.00090 4





48


Threshold (µg/m3)


Max. Conc.

(µg/m3)

95th p Conc.

(µg/m3)


Freq. of Exc.

Max. Conc.

(µg/m3)

95th p Conc.

(µg/m3)


Freq. of Exc.

Tilbury Ice 10 17 3.7 3.4 11 13 0.90 0.041 11

Watermania 10 18 4.3 3.4 31 15 1.4 0.014 31


10 14 4.8 3.4 1 10 0.86 0.0061 1


10 20 4.1 3.4 9 17 0.75 0.0042 9

Benzo(a)pyrene

MPOI 0.000125 0.00057 0.000021 0.0000020 36 0.00057 0.000021 0.0000020 36


0.000125 0.00026 0.000017 0.00000019 6 0.00026 0.000017 0.00000019 6

Dyke East 0.000125 0.00015 0.000015 0.00000021 4 0.00015 0.000015 0.00000021 4

Dyke West 1 0.000125 0.00017 0.000017 0.00000040 8 0.00017 0.000017 0.00000040 8

Dyke West 2 0.000125 0.00014 0.00017 0.0000004 2 0.00014 0.0000054 0.000000044 2

Dyke North 1 0.000125 0.00026 0.0000054 0.000000044 6 0.00026 0.000017 0.00000019 6

Dyke North 2 0.000125 0.00016 0.0000035 0.000000018 1 0.00016 0.0000035 0.000000018 1

TI'uqtinus 0.000125 0.00021 0.0000056 0.000000039 8 0.00021 0.0000025 0.000000011 8


MPOI 0.000125 0.00071 0.000026 0.0000025 47 0.00071 0.000026 0.0000025 47


0.000125 0.00032 0.000021 0.00000024 14 0.00032 0.000021 0.00000024 14

Dyke East 0.000125 0.00019 0.000019 0.00000026 9 0.00019 0.000019 0.00000026 9

Dyke West 1 0.000125 0.00021 0.000021 0.00000049 14 0.00021 0.000021 0.00000049 14

Dyke West 2 0.000125 0.00017 0.0000068 0.000000025 6 0.00017 0.0000068 0.000000025 6

Dyke North 1 0.000125 0.00032 0.000021 0.00000024 14 0.00032 0.000021 0.00000024 14

Dyke North 2 0.000125 0.00020 0.0000043 0.000000015 2 0.00020 0.0000043 0.000000015 2

TI'uqtinus 0.000125 0.00026 0.0000069 0.000000045 13 0.00026 0.0000069 0.000000045 13

Deas Park 2 0.000125 0.00015 0.0000023 0.0000000059 1 0.00015 0.0000023 0.0000000059 1





49


Threshold (µg/m3)


Max. Conc.

(µg/m3)

95th p Conc.

(µg/m3)


Freq. of Exc.

Max. Conc.

(µg/m3)

95th p Conc.

(µg/m3)


Freq. of Exc.


MPOI 1.2 4.3 0.16 0.016 28 4.3 0.16 0.016 28


1.2 2.0 0.13 0.0015 5 2.0 0.13 0.0015 5

Dyke West 1 1.2 1.3 0.13 0.0030 3 1.3 0.13 0.0030 3

Dyke North 1 1.2 2.0 0.13 0.0015 5 2.0 0.13 0.0015 5

TI'uqtinus 1.2 1.6 0.043 0.00028 3 1.6 0.043 0.00028 3

Crotonaldehyde MPOI 8.6 14 0.53 0.051 2 14 0.53 0.051 2

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; Conc. = concentration; COPC = constituent of potential concern; Freq. of Exc. = frequency of exceedances (number of exceedances in a year); Max = maximum; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; p = percentile. 1. Application Case and Project Only Case hazard quotients exceeded one at each of the 58 human health receptor locations evaluated (Appendix 8.1-5). The location with the highest concentration is shown. 2. Application Case hazard quotients exceeded one at each of the 58 human health receptor locations evaluated (Appendix 8.1-5). The location with the highest concentration is shown. Project Only Case hazard quotients exceeded one at the MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus only; therefore, statistical summaries for TI'uqtinus were also provided for nitrogen dioxide in the Normal Operation scenario. a. Dredger emissions were modelled continuously over a calendar year to capture all meteorological conditions. Based on the air dispersion model results, the dredging scenario predictions exceeded (1-hour) screening criteria under all modelled meteorological conditions (i.e., expressed as 8760 hours). However, dredging will only occur for at most two weeks out the year (336 hours) and the effects from dredging are reversible once dredging ceases. Bold = predicted concentration greater than screening threshold.





50

Table 8.1-19: Residual Effects Analysis – Nitrogen Dioxide – Dredger Scenario



Magnitude

Comparison of maximum, 95th percentile and 75th percentile concentrations to acute thresholds

Application Case

MPOI: The predicted maximum (407 µg/m3), 95th percentile (96 µg/m3) and 75th percentile (88 µg/m3) concentrations exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: The predicted maximum (160 µg/m3), 95th percentile (90 µg/m3) and 75th percentile (88 µg/m3) concentrations exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3.

Dyke 1 West1: The predicted maximum (160 µg/m3), 95th percentile (89 µg/m3) and 75th percentile (88 µg/m3) concentrations exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3.

Project Only Case

MPOI: The predicted maximum (319 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold. There were no exceedances at the other receptor locations evaluated.

Frequency and probability of exceedances

Application Case

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke 1 West1: There were 8760 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling2. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 3.1%.

Project Only Case

MPOI: There were 8760 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling2.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke 1 West1: There were zero exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Context Comparison of Application Case and Project Only Case HQs to Baseline Case

MPOI: Baseline Case HQ was 1.2 and increased to 5.2 and 4.0 in the Application Case and Project Only Case, respectively.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke 1 West1: Baseline Case HQ was 1.1 and increased to 2.0 in the Application Case and decreased to 0.90 in the Project Only Case.

Prediction confidence and uncertainty

Conservatism and uncertainty in air predictions

The emission sources of nitrogen dioxide are from the dredger. No LNG transport will occur during dredging and the dredger is only expected to operate for 2 weeks. Dredger emissions were modelled continuously over a calendar year to capture all meteorological conditions.2 The Dredger Scenario also includes emissions from the security vessel, however this vessel is only expected to operate 25 days per year. The peak hourly emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for nitrogen dioxide. The peak hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Therefore, the predicted nitrogen dioxide concentrations are considered conservative.





51



Conservatism in the 1-hour threshold

The CCME provides a threshold of 79 µg/m3 for nitrogen dioxide as a Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS). The CAAQS is the proposed screening value for 2025. The metric is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the nitrogen dioxide daily maximum 1-hour average concentration. Supporting documentation was not available for the CCME CAAQS, but the value was selected because it was more conservative than the Metro Vancouver (200 µg/m3), BC ENV (113 µg/m3), US National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (190 µg/m3) and WHO (200 µg/m3) thresholds. The US EPA (2016) has recently published a review for oxides of nitrogen. Several recent studies have been incorporated into the comprehensive evaluation of health effects related to nitrogen dioxide exposure, with effects ranging from respiratory effects (e.g., asthma exacerbation) to cardiovascular effects (e.g., myocardial infarction). The 1-hour US NAAQS of 190 µg/m3 is protective against short-term nitrogen dioxide exposures in sensitive populations, such as those with asthma or those who spend time near major roadways. The maximum nitrogen dioxide concentration in the Application and Project Only Cases exceeded the US NAAQS at the MPOI only.

Determination of residual effect

At locations other than the MPOI, the nitrogen dioxide HQs for the Project Only Case were below one and HQs for the Baseline Case were 1.1, indicating the Project contributes little to the overall risk. The HQ at the MPOI for the Project Only Case (4.0) was greater than the Baseline Case (1.2). The MPOI is a hypothetical location outside the Project area at the fenceline and does not overlap with any of the receptor locations evaluated. Therefore, use or access by the public is considered to be on an infrequent basis at the MPOI. Furthermore, the CCME CAAQS is the most conservative screening threshold for nitrogen dioxide. The residual effect for exposure to nitrogen dioxide in the Dredger Scenario is considered to be negligible because it screened in as a COPC based on a conservative threshold from CCME, and the probability of an exceedance occurring is low (3.1% or lower).

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; BC ENV = British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy; CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard; CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; HQ = hazard quotient; LNG = liquified natural gas; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; US EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency; WHO = World Health Organization. 1. Application Case and Project Only Case hazard quotients exceeded one at each of the 58 human health receptor locations evaluated (Appendix 8.1-5). The location with the highest concentration is shown. 2. Dredger emissions were modelled continuously over a calendar year to capture all meteorological conditions. Based on the air dispersion model results, the dredging scenario predictions exceeded (1-hour) screening criteria under all modelled meteorological conditions (i.e., expressed as 8760 hours). However, dredging will only occur for at most two weeks out the year (336 hours) and the effects from dredging are reversible once dredging ceases.





52

Table 8.1-20: Residual Effects Analysis – Nitrogen Dioxide – Normal Operation Scenario



Magnitude


Application Case

MPOI: The predicted maximum (423 µg/m3), 95th percentile (109 µg/m3) and 75th percentile (88 µg/m3) concentrations exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 11: The predicted maximum (207 µg/m3), 95th percentile (95 µg/m3) and 75th percentile (88 µg/m3) concentrations exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3.

Tl’uqtinus: The predicted maximum (175 µg/m3), 95th percentile (90 µg/m3) and 75th percentile (88 µg/m3) concentrations exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3.

Project Only Case

MPOI: The predicted maximum (335 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 11: The predicted maximum (118 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Tl’uqtinus: The predicted maximum (87 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 79 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.


Application Case

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 11 and Tl’uqtinus: There were 8760 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 3.1%.

Project Only Case

MPOI: There were 8760 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 1, Tl’uqtinus1: There was 1 exceedance of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.



Maximum Discrete Receptor location and Dyke North 11: Baseline Case HQ was 1.1 and increased to 2.6 and 1.5 in the Application Case and the Project Only Case, respectively.

Tl’uqtinus: Baseline Case HQ was 1.1 and increased to 2.2 in the Application Case and remained the same at 1.1 in the Project Only Case.



The emission sources of nitrogen dioxide are from the LNG carrier, tugs and security vessel. The 1-hour predictions were modelled based on the maximum vessel size for all carriers. However, the average LNG carrier size is expected to be lower. The 1-hour and 24-hour predictions were based on diesel powered LNG carriers, only 10% of visiting vessels are expected to be diesel powered, with the remaining 90% powered by LNG which would have lower nitrogen oxide emission rates. Furthermore, the peak hourly emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for nitrogen dioxide. The peak hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Therefore, the predicted nitrogen dioxide concentrations are considered conservative.





53




The CCME provides a threshold of 79 µg/m3 for nitrogen dioxide as a Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS). The CAAQS is the proposed screening value for 2025. The metric is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the nitrogen dioxide daily maximum 1-hour average concentration. Supporting documentation was not available for the CCME CAAQS, but the value was selected because it was more conservative than the Metro Vancouver (200 µg/m3), BC ENV (113 µg/m3), US National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (190 µg/m3) and WHO (200 µg/m3) thresholds. The US EPA (2016) has recently published a review for oxides of nitrogen. Several recent studies have been incorporated into the comprehensive evaluation of health effects related to nitrogen dioxide exposure, with effects ranging from respiratory effects (e.g., asthma exacerbation) to cardiovascular effects (e.g., myocardial infarction). The 1-hour US NAAQS of 190 µg/m3 is protective against short-term nitrogen dioxide exposures in sensitive populations, such as those with asthma or those who spend time near major roadways. The maximum nitrogen dioxide concentration in the Application and Project Only Cases exceeded the US NAAQS at the MPOI only.


At most receptor locations, the nitrogen dioxide HQs for the Project Only Case were below one and HQs for the Baseline Case marginally exceeded one, indicating the Project contributes little to the overall risk. Project Only Case HQs at the MPOI (4.1), the Maximum Discrete Receptor location (1.5), Dyke North 1 (1.5) and TI'uqtinus (1.1) exceeded one. The MPOI is a hypothetical location outside the Project area at the fenceline and does not overlap with any of the receptor locations evaluated. Therefore, use or access by the public is considered to be on an infrequent basis at the MPOI. The HQs at Dyke North 1 (1.5) and the Maximum Discrete Receptor location (1.5) were slightly higher for the Project Only Case than the Baseline Case (1.1). The HQ at TI'uqtinus was the same between the Project Only Case and Baseline Case, indicating the Project contributes little to the overall nitrogen dioxide risk at this location. Furthermore, the CCME CAAQS is the most conservative screening threshold for nitrogen dioxide. The residual effect for exposure to nitrogen dioxide in the Normal Operation Scenario is considered to be low because it screened in as a COPC based on a conservative threshold from CCME, and the probability of an exceedance occurring is low (3.1% or lower).

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; BC ENV = British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy; CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard; CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; HQ = hazard quotient; LNG = liquified natural gas; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; US EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency; WHO = World Health Organization. 1. Application Case hazard quotients exceeded one at each of the 58 human health receptor locations evaluated (Appendix 8.1-5). The location with the highest concentration is shown. Project Only Case hazard quotients exceeded one at the MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus only; therefore, statistical summaries for TI'uqtinus were also provided for nitrogen dioxide in the Normal Operation scenario.





54

Table 8.1-21: Residual Effects Analysis – Diesel Particulate Matter – Normal Operation Scenario



Magnitude


Application Case


Maximum Discrete Receptor location: The predicted maximum (45 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 10 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke North 11: The predicted maximum (45 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 10 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold. Maximum concentrations at other human health receptor locations ranged from 13 to 38 µg/m3 and also exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 10 µg/m3.

Project Only Case


Maximum Discrete Receptor location: The predicted maximum (42 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 10 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke North 12: The predicted maximum (42 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 10 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold. Maximum concentrations at other human health receptor locations ranged from 12 to 35 µg/m3 and also exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 10 µg/m3.


Application Case and Project Only Case

MPOI: There were 249 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 0.089%.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: There were 116 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 0.041%.

Dyke North 1: There were 116 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 0.041%.

Dyke East3: There were 175 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 0.063%. The frequency of exceedances at other human health receptor locations ranged from 1 to 153 and the probability of exceedances is expected to be less than 0.063%.


DPM is not emitted by the Fortis facility in the Baseline Case. Therefore, the predicted DPM concentration in the Baseline Case is the same as regional background. The HQs are summarized as follows:


Maximum Discrete Receptor location: Baseline Case HQ was 0.010 and increased to 4.6 and 4.2 in the Application Case and Project Only Case, respectively.

Dyke North 11: Baseline Case HQ was 0.010 and increased to 4.5 and 4.2 in the Application Case and Project Only Case, respectively.

HQs at other human health receptor locations in the Application Case ranged from 1.3 to 3.8. HQs at other human health receptor locations in the Project Only Case were slightly lower and ranged from 1.2 to 3.5.





55





The emission sources of DPM are from the LNG carrier, tugs and security vessel. The 1-hour predictions were modelled based on the maximum vessel size for all carriers. However, the average LNG carrier size is expected to be lower. The 1-hour predictions were based on diesel powered LNG carriers; however, only 10% of visiting vessels are expected to be diesel powered, with the remaining 90% powered by LNG which would have lower DPM emission rates. Furthermore, the peak hourly emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for DPM. The peak hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Therefore, the predicted DPM concentrations are considered conservative.


Health Canada provides a threshold of 10 µg/m3 for DPM, which is based on respiratory effects in healthy subjects. To derive a screening value, uncertainty factors for intraspecies variability and use of a lowest observed adverse effect level (versus a no observed adverse effect level) were applied. The threshold is protective of the general population, including sensitive individuals, exposed to DPM for up to 2 hours.


The HQs for the Project Only Case exceeded one at the MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location and several human health receptor locations (Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Tilbury Ice, Watermania and Nearest Residence to Facility Site). Overall, Project Only Case HQs were slightly lower than Application Case. The HQ was highest at the MPOI (9.3). The MPOI is a hypothetical location outside the Project area at the fenceline and does not overlap with any of the receptor locations evaluated. Therefore, use or access by the public is considered to be on an infrequent basis at the MPOI. HQs at other receptor locations were below 5. The DPM concentrations were predicted using conservative assumptions and compared to a conservative screening threshold based on a 2-hour exposure that may overestimate risks. The residual effect for exposure to DPM is considered to be low because upper estimates of exposure (95th and 75th percentiles) were well below the screening value at each of the receptor locations evaluated and the probability of an exceedance occurring is low (0.089% or lower).

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; HQ = hazard quotient; LNG = liquified natural gas; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement. 1. Application Case hazard quotients exceeded one at several receptor locations (Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 2, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Triangle Beach, Deas Park 2, Tilbury Ice, Watermania, Daniel Woodward Elementary, Nearest Residence to Facility Site) (Appendix 8.1-5). The location with the highest concentration and HQ are shown. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations at each of the other receptor locations are presented in Table 8.1-18. 2. Project Only Case hazard quotients exceeded one at several receptor locations (Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Tilbury Ice, Watermania, Nearest Residence to Facility Site) (Appendix 8.1-5). The location with the highest concentration and HQ are shown. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations at each of the other receptor locations are presented in Table 8.1-18. 3. There were hourly exceedances at several receptor locations (Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 2, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Triangle Beach, Deas Park 2, Tilbury Ice, Watermania, Daniel Woodward Elementary, Nearest Residence to Facility Site). The location with the highest frequency of exceedance is shown. The frequency of exceedances at each of the other receptor locations are presented in Table 8.1-18.





56

Table 8.1-22: Residual Effects Analysis – Benzo(a)pyrene – Normal Operation Scenario



Magnitude



MPOI: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00057 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00026 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke East: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00015 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke West 1: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00017 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke West 2: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00014 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold

Dyke North 1: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00026 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke North 2: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00016 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Tl’uqtinus: The predicted maximum concentration (0.00021 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.




Maximum Discrete Receptor location: There were 6 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Dyke East: There were 4 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Dyke West 1: There were 8 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 0.0029%.

Dyke West 2: There were 2 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Dyke North 1: There were 6 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Dyke North 2: There was 1 hourly exceedance of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Tl’uqtinus: There were 8 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 0.0029%.





57




MPOI: Baseline Case HQ was 0.010 and increased to 4.5 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: Baseline Case HQ was 0.0030 and increased to 2.1 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.

Dyke East: Baseline Case HQ was 0.0020 and increased to 1.2 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.

Dyke West 1: Baseline Case HQ was 0.0015 and increased to 1.4 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.

Dyke West 2: Baseline Case HQ was 0.0012 and increased to 1.1 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.

Dyke North 1: Baseline Case HQ was 0.00087and increased to 2.1 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.

Dyke North 2: Baseline Case HQ was 0.0016 and increased to 1.3 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.

TI'uqtinus: Baseline Case HQ was 0.0015 and increased to 1.7 in both the Application Case and the Project Only Case.



The emission sources of benzo(a)pyrene are the LNG carriers, tugs and security vessels. It is assumed that diesel fueled LNG carriers are at the maximum vessel size; however, the average capacity, as well as actual emissions would be lower than the maximum vessel size. Loading emissions are conservatively calculated based on the maximum loading durations for LNG carrier class and LNG bunker class, but the loading times would be shorter for smaller vessels. Furthermore, the peak hourly emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for benzo(a)pyrene. The peak hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Therefore, the predicted benzo(a)pyrene concentrations are considered conservative.


The OMOE provides a threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3 for benzo(a)pyrene as a surrogate for total PAHs. The 1-hour value was calculated by dividing the half-hour averaging value (0.00015 µg/m3) by the OMOE conversion factor of 1.2 (OMOE 2011a). The value is based on carcinogenicity associated with exposure to PAH compounds (OMOE 2011b). The 1-hour threshold is considered conservative as carcinogenic risk is typically evaluated as a chronic exposure. Benzo(a)pyrene was not retained as a COPC for the chronic inhalation assessment as chronic predictions did not exceed environmental quality screening criteria.


The Project Only Case HQs were generally below one at the receptor locations evaluated (0.046 to 0.99) and risks were negligible. Exceptions include the MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2 and TI'uqtinus. The MPOI is a hypothetical location outside the Project area at the fenceline and does not overlap with any of the receptor locations evaluated. Therefore, use or access by the public is considered to be on an infrequent basis at the MPOI. The frequency of exceedances at the other locations were low, ranging from 1 to 8 hourly exceedances over a year. Benzo(a)pyrene was identified as a COPC based on exceedance of a conservative screening value from OMOE that was based on carcinogenic effects. Carcinogenic risk is typically evaluated as a chronic exposure; however, benzo(a)pyrene was not identified as a COPC for the chronic inhalation assessment. The residual effect for exposure to benzo(a)pyrene is considered low because it screened in as a COPC based on a conservative threshold from OMOE and the probability of an exceedance occurring is low (0.013% or lower) .

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; COPC = constituent of potential concern; HQ = hazard quotient; LNG = liquified natural gas; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; OMOE = Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.





58

Table 8.1-23: Residual Effects Analysis – Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene – Normal Operation Scenario



Magnitude



MPOI: The predicted maximum (0.00071 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: The predicted maximum (0.00032 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke East: The predicted maximum (0.00019 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Dyke 1 West: The predicted maximum (0.00021 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.


Dyke 1 North: The predicted maximum (0.00032 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.


Tl’uqtinus: The predicted maximum (0.00026 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Deas Park 2: The predicted maximum (0.00015 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 0.000125 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.





Dyke East: There were 9 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Dyke West 1: There were 14 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling. The probability of the exceedances occurring is 0.0050%.



Dyke North 2: There were 2 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Tl’uqtinus: There were 13 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.

Deas Park 2: There was 1 hourly exceedance of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.





59




HQs for the Baseline Case were not calculated because predicted air concentrations were zero. Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional background estimates were not available.


MPOI: HQs were 5.6.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: HQs were 2.6.

Dyke East: HQs were 1.5.

Dyke West 1: HQs were 1.7.


Dyke North 1: HQs were 2.6.


TI'uqtinus: HQs were 2.1.

Deas Park 2: HQs were 1.2.



The emission sources of cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene are the LNG carriers, tugs and security vessels. It is assumed that diesel fueled LNG carriers are at the maximum vessel size; however, the average capacity, as well as actual emissions would be lower than the maximum vessel size. Loading emissions are conservatively calculated based on the maximum loading durations for LNG carrier class and LNG bunker class, but the loading times would be shorter for smaller vessels. Furthermore, the peak hourly emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene. The peak hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Therefore, the predicted cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene concentrations are considered conservative.


An air threshold was not available for cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene from any of the jurisdictions. Therefore, the benzo(a)pyrene screening value was used as a surrogate. As discussed in Table 8.1-22, the benzo(a)pyrene screening value is conservative because it is based on carcinogenic effects.


The Project Only Case HQs were generally below one at the receptor locations evaluated (0.057 to 0.91) and risks were negligible. Exceptions include the MPOI, the Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus and Deas Park 2. The MPOI is a hypothetical location outside the Project area at the fenceline and does not overlap with any of the receptor locations evaluated. Therefore, use or access by the public is considered to be on an infrequent basis at the MPOI. The HQ for the Project Only Case at Deas Park 2 was marginally above one. Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene was identified as a COPC based on exceedance of a conservative screening value from OMOE that was based on carcinogenic effects. Carcinogenic risk is typically evaluated as a chronic exposure; however, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene was not identified as a COPC for the chronic inhalation assessment. The residual effect for exposure to cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene is considered low because it screened in as a COPC based on a conservative threshold from OMOE (e.g., based on a carcinogenic endpoint which is not typical for acute thresholds) and the probability of an exceedance occurring is low (0.017% or lower).

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; COPC = constituent of potential concern; HQ = hazard quotient; LNG = liquified natural gas; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; OMOE = Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.





60

Table 8.1-24: Residual Effects Analysis – 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde – Normal Operation Scenario



Magnitude



MPOI: The predicted maximum (4.3 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 1.2 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: The predicted maximum (2.0 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 1.2 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.



Tl’uqtinus: The predicted maximum (1.6 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 1.2 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.







Tl’uqtinus: There were 3 hourly exceedances of the threshold, based on a year of modelling.


HQs for the Baseline Case were not calculated because predicted air concentrations were zero. 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional background estimates were not available.


MPOI: HQs were 3.6.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: HQs were 1.6.



TI'uqtinus: HQs were 1.4.



The emission sources of 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde are the LNG carriers, tugs and security vessels. It is assumed that diesel fueled LNG carriers are at the maximum vessel size; however, the average capacity, as well as actual emissions would be lower than the maximum vessel size. Loading emissions are conservatively calculated based on the maximum loading durations for LNG carrier class and LNG bunker class, but the loading times would be shorter for smaller vessels. Furthermore, the peak hourly emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde. The peak hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Therefore, the predicted 2,5dimethylbenzaldehyde concentrations are considered conservative.





61




The OMOE provides a threshold of 1.2 µg/m3 for 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde. The 1-hour screening value was calculated by dividing the half-hour averaging value (1.5 µg/m3) by the OMOE conversion factor of 1.2 (OMOE 2011a). No supporting documentation is available, but the value is based on a health endpoint. Due to the lack of supporting documentation, the conservatism incorporated into the derivation of the acute threshold is unknown. The TCEQ provides an interim threshold for 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde, which is less conservative (90 µg/m3). There is also no supporting documentation from TCEQ, but the value is based on a health endpoint. Predicted concentrations do not exceed the TCEQ threshold.


The Project Only Case HQs were generally below one at the receptor locations evaluated (0.037 to 0.98) and risks were negligible. Exceptions include the MPOI (3.6), the Maximum Discrete Receptor location (1.6), Dyke West 1 (1.1), Dyke North 1 (1.6) and TI'uqtinus (1.4). The MPOI is a hypothetical location outside the Project area at the fenceline and does not overlap with any of the receptor locations evaluated. Therefore, use or access by the public is considered to be on an infrequent basis at the MPOI. The frequency of exceedances at the other locations were low, ranging from 3 to 5 hourly exceedances over a year. 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde was identified as a COPC based on exceedance of a screening value from OMOE, which was based on a health endpoint; however, no supporting documentation was available on its derivation. The OMOE value was selected because it was more conservative (i.e., lower) than the TCEQ screening value, which was also based on a health endpoint without supporting documentation on its derivation. Predicted concentrations do not exceed the TCEQ threshold. The residual effect for exposure to 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde is considered to be low because the probability of an exceedance occurring is low (0.010% or lower) .

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; COPC = constituent of potential concern; HQ = hazard quotient; LNG = liquified natural gas; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; OMOE = Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; TCEQ = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Table 8.1-25: Residual Effects Analysis – Crotonaldehyde – Normal Operation Scenario



Magnitude



MPOI: The predicted maximum (14 µg/m3) exceeded the 1-hour threshold of 8.6 µg/m3. The predicted 95th and 75th percentile concentrations were below the threshold.





An HQ for the Baseline Case was not calculated because predicted air concentrations were zero. Crotonaldehyde is not expected to be emitted from existing facilities in the Baseline Case and regional background estimates were not available.


MPOI: HQs were 1.6.





62





The emission sources of crotonaldehyde are the LNG carriers, tugs and security vessels. It is assumed that diesel fueled LNG carriers are at the maximum vessel size; however, the average capacity, as well as actual emissions would be lower than the maximum vessel size. Loading emissions are conservatively calculated based on the maximum loading durations for LNG carrier class and LNG bunker class, but the loading times would be shorter for smaller vessels. Furthermore, the peak hourly emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for crotonaldehyde. The peak hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Therefore, the predicted crotonaldehyde concentrations are considered conservative.


The TCEQ provides a threshold of 8.6 µg/m3 as an Effects Screening Level (ESL). The ESL for crotonaldehyde is based on a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 1.6 mg/m3 for intermittent minor eye irritation in occupationally exposed workers exposed to an average crotonaldehyde concentration of 1.6 mg/m3 (TCEQ 2016). A no observed adverse effect level was not available for this study as it only assessed a single exposure concentration and critical effects were identified at this concentration. Since minor eye sensory irritation is a concentration-dependent effect, the LOAEL was not adjusted for duration. TCEQ applied uncertainty factors for interspecies variability (3), use of a LOAEL (3), and data deficiencies (6) were applied to derive the ESL. The resulting value was adjusted to a HQ of 0.3, resulting in an ESL of 8.6 µg/m3. TCEQ derives ESLs based on a HQ of 0.3 to account for cumulative exposure (e.g., multiple pathways of exposure). For the human health inhalation risk assessment, concentrations in air are compared to thresholds specific to the inhalation pathway for the purpose of calculating a hazard quotient, and no apportionment is required to account for intake from other media. TCEQ also calculated an acute 1-hour reference value based on a HQ of one; the predicted concentrations do not exceed this threshold (29 µg/m3); therefore, retaining crotonaldehyde as a COPC is considered conservative.


Predicted concentrations of crotonaldehyde exceeded at the MPOI only. The MPOI is a hypothetical location outside the Project area at the fenceline and does not overlap with any of the receptor locations evaluated. Therefore, use or access by the public is considered to be on an infrequent basis at the MPOI. Furthermore, the selected screening value, which was also used as the TRV, was based on a HQ of 0.3. TCEQ derives ESLs based on a HQ of 0.3 to account for cumulative exposure (e.g., multiple pathways of exposure). Predicted concentrations do not exceed the TCEQ screening threshold based on a HQ of one (e.g., specific to the air exposure pathway only). The residual effect for exposure to crotonaldehyde is considered to be negligible because it screened in as a COPC based on a conservative threshold from TCEQ based on a HQ of 0.3 and the probability of an exceedance occurring is low (0.00071% or lower).

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; mg/m3 = milligram per cubic metre; ESL = Effects Screening Level; HQ = hazard quotient; LNG = liquified natural gas; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level; mg/m3 = milligram per cubic metre; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; OMOE = Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; TCEQ = Texas Commission of Environmental Quality.

8.1.4.4.2.3 Chronic Inhalation Assessment

8.1.4.4.2.3.1 Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment is the process of estimating the exposure of a person to a constituent through a specific

exposure scenario. The exposure concentrations used in the chronic inhalation assessment are the maximum

predicted concentrations presented in Appendix 8.1-4. Prediction methods are outlined in the Air Quality

assessment (Section 4.4).





63

For the chronic inhalation assessment, exposure assessment also involves characterizing receptor inhalation rates

and estimating the amount of time that people might spend at a receptor location where they may be exposed to

COPCs in air. Receptor inhalation rates were obtained from (Health Canada 2012) and are presented in Table

8.1-26. The exposure times for community residents, Aboriginal residents and recreational users are defined in

Table 8.1-27. Exposure times were obtained from (Health Canada 2012) unless otherwise noted. For the

recreational user.

Table 8.1-26: Receptor Inhalation Rates

Receptor Life Stage Inhalation Rate (m3/day)

Infant 2.2

Toddler 8.3

Child 14.5

Teen 15.6

Adult 16.6 Notes: m3/day = cubic metre per day.

Table 8.1-27: Receptor Exposure Times

Receptor Characteristic Resident

(Community and Aboriginal) Recreational User

Hours per day exposed (hours) 24 10 (assumed)

Days per week exposed (days) 7 2 (assumed)

Weeks per year exposed (weeks) 52 52

Total years exposed (years)

Infant: 0.5

Toddler: 4.5

Child: 7

Teen: 8

Adult: 60

Infant: 0.5

Toddler: 4.5

Child: 7

Teen: 8

Adult: 60

Life expectancy (years) 80 80

8.1.4.4.2.3.2 Toxicity Assessment


of constituents that can be received by people without adverse health effects. For chronic inhalation exposures,

toxicity assessment involved classification of COPCs based on their carcinogenic potential and identification of

reference concentrations, which are concentrations of constituents that people can be exposed to without adverse

health effects.

Classification of Carcinogenic Potential

Health Canada (2010b), and US EPA (2018b) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2018) have

developed classification systems on the carcinogenic properties of constituents. The classification systems from

each of the agencies is provided in Table 8.1-28.





64

Table 8.1-28: Carcinogenic Classification System

Health Canada US EPA IARC Description

Group I Group A Group 1 Human carcinogen

Group II

Group B

Group 2A

Probable human carcinogen

Group B1 Limited human evidence available

Group B2 Inadequate human evidence, sufficient animal evidence

Group III Group C Group 2B Possible human carcinogen

Group IV Group D Group 3 Unclassifiable as to human carcinogenicity/ Unlikely to be a carcinogen (Health Canada only)

Group V Group E Group 4 Probably not carcinogenic to humans

Group VI Does not apply Does not apply Unclassifiable as to human carcinogenicity

The carcinogenic classification of COPCs is summarized in Table 8.1-29. Parameters classified as Group I/II

(Health Canada), Group A/B1/B2 (US EPA) or Group 1/2A (IARC), and for which acceptable carcinogenic toxicity

reference values (TRVs) were available were assessed as carcinogens in the chronic inhalation assessment. The

source data that was used by the Air Quality team to speciate metals out of diesel combustion does not speciate

between trivalent and hexavalent chromium. The forms of chromium emitted by the Project could be trivalent or

hexavalent or a combination of both. Because it is unknown what percentage may be present in the trivalent versus

the hexavalent form; it was assumed that 100% of the chromium emitted is in the more toxic, hexavalent chromium

form in the chronic inhalation assessment. Although predicted maximum concentrations of cadmium did not

exceed the carcinogenic screening threshold and predicted maximum concentrations of chromium did not exceed

the non-carcinogenic screening threshold, cadmium and hexavalent chromium were considered carcinogens and

evaluated as both non-carcinogens and carcinogens as per Health Canada guidance (Health Canada 2010b).

Table 8.1-29: Carcinogenic Classifications


Health Canada (2010b)

US EPA (2018b)

IARC (2018)

Classified as a Carcinogen?

Nitrogen dioxide NC NC NC No

Cadmium II B1 1 Yes

Chromium (hexavalent) I A 1 Yes

Notes: NC = not classified; IARC = International Agency for Research on Cancer; US EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Toxicity Reference Values

For threshold acting constituents, a reference concentration represents an estimated daily intake to which people

can be exposed to every day over a lifetime without experiencing a significant or adverse health impact. Reference

concentrations are expressed in units of mg contaminant per cubic metre of air (mg/m3). For non-threshold acting

constituents the inhalation unit risk is defined as a plausible upper bound probability of an individual developing

cancer as a result of a lifetime exposure to a potential carcinogen.

Toxicity reference values (TRVs) (reference concentrations and inhalation unit risks) from the Health Canada

(2010b) and US EPA (2018b) were considered, as the Project is under joint federal and provincial review (the US

EPA is the preferred source of TRVs under the provincial legislation [BC ENV 2017b]). In the absence of Health





65

Canada and US EPA TRVs, reference concentrations and inhalation unit risks were selected from the other

sources listed in BC ENV (2017b). Health Canada (2010b) does not provide reference concentrations for cadmium

or chromium. Therefore, TRVs were selected from ATSDR (2012) and US EPA (1998), respectively. Reference

concentrations are not available for nitrogen dioxide. Therefore, the CCME screening value was used as a

surrogate for the TRV. Exposure to nitrogen dioxide is associated primarily with respiratory effects but has also

been linked to cardiovascular and reproductive effects (CCME 2017).

Both Health Canada (2010b) and US EPA (1987, 1998) provide inhalation unit risks for cadmium and hexavalent

chromium. Health Canada inhalation unit risks are more conservative than those from US EPA, at 0.0098 µg/m3

for cadmium and 0.076 µg/m3 for hexavalent chromium (Table 8.1-30). However, the US EPA inhalation unit risks

were selected preferentially over Health Canada to be consistent with the air screening thresholds used to identify

COPCs in the chronic inhalation assessment. Use of the more conservative inhalation unit risks from Health

Canada would not change the conclusions of the chronic inhalation risk assessment.

The TRVs selected for the chronic inhalation assessment are presented in Table 8.1-29. Details on their

toxicological basis and derivation are presented in Appendix 8.1-4.

Table 8.1-30: Toxicity Reference Values


Reference Concentration

(µg/m3) Source

Inhalation Unit Risk

(µg/m3)-1 Source

Nitrogen dioxide 23 CCME (2017) n/a n/a

Cadmium 0.01 ATSDR (2012) 0.0018 US EPA (1987)

Chromium (hexavalent)1 0.1 US EPA (1998) 0.012 US EPA (1998) Notes: µg/mg3 = microgram per cubic metre; ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; n/a = not applicable – COPC not evaluated as a carcinogen; US EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1. The form of chromium (i.e., trivalent versus hexavalent forms) that may be emitted from the Project and is present in the regional background estimates is not known, present in the trivalent versus the hexavalent form; therefore, it was assumed that the chromium is present in the more toxic, hexavalent chromium form in the chronic inhalation assessment.

8.1.4.4.2.3.3 Risk Characterization and Determination of Residual Effects

Hazard quotients for Baseline Case, Application Case and Project Only Case were calculated for parameters

identified as COPCs in the chronic inhalation assessment by comparing the maximum predicted concentrations

with toxicity benchmarks, as follows:

𝐻𝑄 =𝐶𝐴𝑖𝑟 × 𝐷1 × 𝐷2 × 𝐷3

𝑅𝑓𝐶

Where:

HQ = hazard quotient (unitless)

CAir = predicted COPC concentration in air (μg/m3)

D1 = exposure time out of 24 hours (hours)

D2 = exposure frequency out of 7 days (days)

D3 = exposure duration out of 52 weeks (weeks)

RfC = reference concentration (μg/m3)





66

Incremental lifetime cancer risks (ILCR) for Baseline Case, Application Case and Project Only Case were

calculated for parameters identified as carcinogenic COPCs in the chronic inhalation assessment by comparing

the maximum predicted concentrations with toxicity benchmarks, as follows:

𝐼𝐿𝐶𝑅 =𝐶𝐴𝑖𝑟 × 𝐷1 × 𝐷2 × 𝐷3 × 𝐷4 × 𝐼𝑈𝑅

𝐿𝐸

Where:

ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk (unitless)

CAir = predicted COPC concentration in air (μg/m3)

D1 = exposure time out of 24 hours (hours)

D2 = exposure frequency out of 7 days (days)

D3 = exposure duration out of 52 weeks (weeks)

D4 = total years exposed (years)

LE = life expectancy (years)

RfC = reference concentration (μg/m3)

Hazard quotients were calculated for a central tendency scenario (e.g., average 1-hour concentrations) in addition

to the maximum scenario as part of the acute inhalation assessment.Central tendencies could not be calculated

for the chronic inhalation assessment, as only one year of data were modelled. There is only one single annual

concentration for each of the receptor location assessed; therefore, summary statistics cannot be calculated.

Baseline Case, Application Case and Project Only Case HQs and ILCRs were calculated at receptor locations

where the predicted maximum air concentration exceeded the screening threshold. As discussed in Table 8.1-5,

the acceptable risk threshold for inhalation exposure is one for non-carcinogens and 1x10-5 for carcinogens (Health

Canada 2017d). The HQs and ILCRs for each COPC identified for the chronic inhalation assessment are

discussed below.

Nitrogen Dioxide

The nitrogen dioxide HQs are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and summarized for the resident receptor in

Table 8.1-31.

Baseline Case HQs exceeded one at the MPOI, the Maximum Discrete Receptor location and Dyke West 1.

Application Case HQs exceeded one at the MPOI, the Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Bike Route,

Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2 and Dyke North 1.

Project Only Case HQs were below one.

HQs at the remaining human health receptor locations were below one.





67

The nitrogen dioxide HQs for the recreational user were below one and not shown in Table 8.1-31.

HQs ranged from 0.12 to 0.13 (Baseline Case), 0.12 to 0.14 (Application Case) and 0.000040 to 0.012

(Project Only Case).

Table 8.1-31: Hazard Quotients for Nitrogen Dioxide – Chronic Inhalation Assessment

Receptor Location Resident (Community and Aboriginal)


MPOI 1.1 1.2 0.10


1.1 1.1 0.045

Bike Route 1.0 1.1 0.017

Dyke East 1.0 1.1 0.041

Dyke West 1 1.1 1.1 0.045

Dyke West 2 1.0 1.1 0.025

Dyke North 1 1.0 1.1 0.040 Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one.

Cadmium

The cadmium ILCRs are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and summarized for the resident receptor in Table 8.1-32.

ILCRs marginally exceeded 1x10-5 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline and Application Cases.

Due to the large number of receptor locations, the range of ILCRs for the 58 receptor locations are shown in

Table 8.1-32.

Baseline Case (present day, including background) ILCRs were the same as Application Case (Project plus

Baseline Case, including background) ILCRs (1.1x10-5), indicating that current conditions are driving the

elevated ILCRs, rather than the Project.

The cadmium HQs were below one for the residential receptor and are not shown in Table 8.1-32.

HQs were 0.63 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline Case.

HQs ranged from 0.63 to 0.64 in the Application Case.

HQs ranged from 0.000011 to 0.0032 in the Project Only Case.

The cadmium HQs were below one and ILCRs were below 1x10-5 for the recreational user. These risk estimates

were below thresholds and are not shown in Table 8.1-32.

HQs were 0.075 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline Case.





68

HQs ranged from 0.075 to 0.076 in the Application Case.


ILCRs were 1.4x10-6 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline and Application Cases.

ILCRs ranged from 2.3x10-11 to 6.8x10-9 in the Project Only Case.

Table 8.1-32: Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks for Cadmium – Chronic Inhalation Assessment



MPOI 1.1x10-5 1.1x10-5 5.7x10-8


1.1x10-5 1.1x10-5 2.5x10-8

Range for Human Health Receptors

1.1x10-5a 1.1x10-5a 1.9x10-10 – 2.5x10-8

Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement. a. Incremental lifetime cancer risk is 1.1x10-5 at each human health receptor location evaluated. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one or incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-5.

Chromium

The chromium ILCRs are provided in Appendix 8.1-5 and summarized for the resident receptor in Table 8.1-33.

ILCRs exceeded 1x10-5 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline and Application Cases. Due to

the large number of receptor locations, the range of ILCRs for the 58 receptor locations are shown in Table

8.1-33.

Baseline Case (current conditions, including background) ILCRs were the same as Application Case (Project plus

Baseline Case, including background) ILCRs (2.4x10-5), indicating that current conditions are driving the elevated

ILCRs, rather than the Project. The risk calculations were conducted based on the assumption that the chromium

emitted from the Project and that is present as part of the regional background estimates is in the form of

hexavalent chromium.

The chromium HQs were below one for the residential receptor and are not shown in Table 8.1-33.

HQs were 0.020 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline and Application Cases.






69

The chromium HQs were below one and ILCRs were below 1x10-5 for the recreational user. These risk estimates

were below thresholds and are not shown in Table 8.1-33.

HQs were 0.0024 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline and Application Cases.


ILCRs were 2.9x10-6 at each receptor location evaluated in the Baseline and Application Cases.

ILCRs ranged from 2.5x10-11 to 7.6x10-9 in the Project Only Case.

Table 8.1-33: Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks for Chromium1 – Chronic Inhalation Assessment



MPOI 2.4x10-5 2.4x10-5 6.4x10-8


2.4x10-5 2.4x10-5 2.8x10-8


2.4x10-5a 2.4x10-5a 2.1x10-10 – 2.8x10-8

Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement. 1. The form of chromium (i.e., trivalent versus hexavalent forms) that may be emitted from the Project and is present in the regional background estimates is not known; therefore, it was assumed that the chromium is present in the more toxic, hexavalent chromium form in the chronic inhalation assessment. a. Incremental lifetime cancer risk is 2.4x10-5 at each human health receptor location evaluated. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one or incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-5.

When constituents act on the same toxicological endpoints, the HQs and/or ILCRs are summed to obtain a

cumulative risk estimate. Supporting toxicity information was not available for nitrogen dioxide. The toxicological

basis for the carcinogenic endpoint for cadmium and chromium is lung cancer. Therefore, the ILCRs for a resident

exposed to cadmium and chromium were summed. The total ILCRs are presented in Table 8.1-34.

Table 8.1-34: Sum of Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks for Cadmium and Chromium – Chronic Inhalation Assessment



MPOI 3.6x10-5 3.6x10-5 1.2x10-7


3.6x10-5 3.6x10-5 5.2x10-8


3.6x10-5a 3.6x10-5a 4.0x10-10 – 5.2x10-8

Notes: Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement. a. Incremental lifetime cancer risk is 3.6x10-5 at each human health receptor location evaluated. Bold = exceeds hazard quotient of one or incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1.1x10-5.





70

8.1.4.4.2.3.4 Residual Effects Analysis

For receptor locations where HQs exceeded one or ILCRs exceeded 1 x 10-5 in the Application or Project Only

Cases, the acceptable levels defined by Health Canada (2012), additional analysis was completed to determine

the magnitude of the effect. The following approach was used on a case-by-case basis to determine overall risk

(i.e., negligible, low, moderate, or high):

Comparison of the maximum air concentrations to inhalation thresholds to provide additional context to

predicted risk;

Comparison of Application Case and Project Only Case risk estimates to Baseline Case risk estimates;

Evaluation of the conservatism in the air modelling approach used to predict future concentrations; and,

Evaluation of the conservatism in the inhalation TRVs for that constituent.

For the chronic inhalation assessment, only one year of data were modelled. Therefore, there is only one single

annual concentration for each of the receptor location assessed and summary statistics (95 th and 75th percentile

air concentrations and frequency of exceedance of chronic screening thresholds) could not be calculated. Results

of the residual effects evaluation for the chronic inhalation assessment are presented in Table 8.1-35 to Table 8.1-

37.

Table 8.1-35: Residual Effects Analysis – Nitrogen Dioxide (Annual) – Normal Operation Scenario



Magnitude Comparison of maximum concentration to chronic thresholds

Application Case

Predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at the MPOI (27 µg/m3), Maximum Discrete Receptor location (25 µg/m3) and 58 human health receptor locations (range 23 to 25 µg/m3) exceeded the screening threshold of 23 µg/m3. Predicted concentrations exceeded the threshold by 1% to 14%.

Project Only Case

Predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide did not exceed the chronic threshold at the receptor locations evaluated.


MPOI: At the MPOI, the Baseline Case HQ was 1.1 and increased to 1.2 in the Application Case. The Project Only Case HQ was 0.10.

Maximum Discrete Receptor location: At the Maximum Discrete Receptor location, the Baseline Case HQ was 1.1 and remained the same at 1.1 in the Application Case. The Project Only Case HQ was 0.045.

Bike Route: At the Bike Route, the Baseline Case HQ was 1.0 and increased to 1.1 in the Application Case. The Project Only Case HQ was 0.017.

Dyke East: At Dyke East, the Baseline Case HQ was 1.0 and increased to 1.1 in the Application Case. The Project Only Case HQ was 0.041.

Dyke West 1: At Dyke West 1, the Baseline Case HQ was 1.1 and remained the same at 1.1 in the Application Case. The Project Only Case HQ was 0.045.

Dyke West 2: At Dyke West 2, the Baseline Case HQ was 1.0 and increased to 1.1 in the Application Case. The Project Only Case HQ was 0.025.

Dyke North 1: At Dyke North 1, the Baseline Case HQ was 1.0 and increased to 1.1 in the Application Case. The Project Only Case HQ was 0.040.





71





The emission sources of nitrogen dioxide are diesel fuel LNG vessels, tugs, security vessel and the dredger. It is assumed that diesel fueled LNG carriers are at the maximum vessel size; however, the average capacity, as well as actual emissions would be lower than the maximum vessel size. Loading emissions are conservatively calculated based on the maximum loading durations for LNG carrier class and LNG bunker class, but the LNG vessel capacities range between 2,000 and 100,000 m³ and the loading emissions would vary. The annual emission for LNG carriers is based on the maximum size of the carrier class. However, the actual size, and thus, engine size and the emissions, is expected to vary.

Conservatism in the chronic threshold

The chronic screening threshold (23 µg/m3) is a Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) obtained from CCME. The CAAQS is the proposed screening value for 2025 and the metric is the average over a single calendar year of all 1-hour average concentrations. When concentrations exceed the chronic threshold, the goal is to reduce ambient concentrations to below the CAAQS by 2025. There is no supporting documentation for how the nitrogen dioxide CAAQS was derived, but the value is more conservative than the Metro Vancouver (40 µg/m3) and BC ENV (32 µg/m3) screening values. The maximum predicted nitrogen dioxide concentrations in the Application and Project Only Cases do not exceed these thresholds.


The predicted maximum concentration of nitrogen dioxide was assumed to be the exposure concentration. Use of maximum concentrations is a conservative approach as it is not anticipated that a person would be exposed to the maximum concentration all year. It was conservatively assumed that residential (community and Aboriginal) receptors were exposed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for 52 weeks per year over an entire lifetime of 80 years. It is unlikely that a person would spend their entire lifetime at any given receptor location. If we assume that 4 hours per day could be spent outside the RAA (i.e., exposed for 20 hours per day), HQs would be below the threshold of one.

Conservatism in the reference concentration

A reference concentration is not available for nitrogen dioxide; therefore, the screening threshold from CCME (23 µg/m3) was used as a surrogate for the TRV. Supporting documentation was not available for the CCME CAAQS. If the provincial screening thresholds from Metro Vancouver (40 µg/m3) and BC ENV (32 µg/m3) were used as reference concentrations, HQs would be below 1.


Nitrogen dioxide was retained as a COPC based on exceedance of the lowest screening value (proposed screening value for the year 2025 from CCME). Predicted nitrogen dioxide concentrations did not exceed provincial air quality objectives. The Project Only Case HQs were below the threshold of one. The residual effect for exposure to nitrogen dioxide is considered negligible because it screened in as a COPC based on a conservative threshold from CCME for the year 2025 and does not exceed provincial air quality objectives.

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; BC ENV = British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy; CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard; CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; COPC = constituent of potential concern; HQ = hazard quotient; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; RAA = regional assessment area; TRV = toxicity reference value.





72

Table 8.1-36: Residual Effects Analysis – Cadmium (Annual)




Application Case Predicted concentrations of cadmium at the MPOI (0.0064 µg/m3), Maximum Discrete Receptor location (0.0063 µg/m3) and 58 human health receptor locations (0.0063 µg/m3 at locations evaluated) exceeded the non-carcinogenic screening threshold of 0.005 µg/m3. Although predicted concentrations of cadmium were below the carcinogenic screening value of 0.016 µg/m3, cadmium was evaluated as both a non-carcinogen and carcinogen. Project Only Case Predicted concentrations of cadmium did not exceed the non-carcinogenic (0.005 µg/m3) or carcinogenic (0.016 µg/m3) screening thresholds at the receptor locations evaluated.

Context Comparison of Application Case and Project Only Case ILCRs to Baseline Case

MPOI: Baseline Case ILCR was 1.1x10-5 and remained the same in the Application Case. The Project Only Case ILCR was 5.7x10-8. Maximum Discrete Receptor location: Baseline Case ILCR was 1.1x10-5 and remained the same in the Application Case. The Project Only Case ILCR was 2.5x10-8. 58 Human Health Receptors: Baseline Case ILCR was 1.1x10-5 and remained the same in the Application Case. The Project Only Case ILCRs ranged from 1.9x10-10 to 2.5x10-8.



The emission sources of cadmium are diesel fuel LNG vessels, tugs, security vessel and the dredger. It is assumed that diesel fueled LNG carriers are at the maximum vessel size; however, the average capacity, as well as actual emissions would be lower than the maximum vessel size. Loading emissions are conservatively calculated based on the maximum loading durations for LNG carrier class and LNG bunker class, but the LNG vessel capacities range between 2,000 and 100,000 m³ and the loading emissions would vary. The annual emission for LNG carriers is based on the maximum size of the carrier class. However, the actual size, and thus, engine size and the emissions, is expected to vary.


The non-carcinogenic cadmium screening threshold (0.005 μg/m3) was based on data collected in industrial workers with lung cancer and renal effects. Cadmium exposure may result in various renal alterations, whether it is absorbed via inhalation or contaminated food. WHO (2000) indicated that the lowest estimate of the cumulative exposure to airborne cadmium in industrial workers leading to an increased risk of renal dysfunction (low-molecular-weight proteinuria) or lung cancer was 100 μg/m3-year for an 8-hour exposure, and this was extrapolated to a continuous lifetime exposure estimate of 0.3 μg/m3. However, the WHO (2000) screening value (0.005 μg/m3) was conservatively derived to prevent a further increase of cadmium in agricultural soils, which is likely to increase exposure to future generations through dietary intake. Predicted cadmium concentrations did not exceed the continuous lifetime exposure estimate of 0.3 μg/m3. The US EPA, Cal OEHHA and ATSDR have derived screening values of 0.01 μg/m3. Predicted cadmium concentrations also did not exceed this level. Therefore, cadmium was retained as a COPC for the chronic inhalation assessment based on a conservative non-carcinogenic screening value.


The predicted maximum concentration of cadmium was assumed to be the exposure concentration. Use of maximum concentrations is a conservative approach as it is not anticipated that a person would be exposed to the maximum concentration all year. It was conservatively assumed that residential (community and Aboriginal) receptors were exposed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for 52 weeks per year over an entire lifetime of 80 years. It is unlikely that a person would spend their entire lifetime at any given receptor location. If we assume that 4 hours per day could be spent outside the RAA (i.e., exposed for 20 hours per day), ILCRs would be below the threshold of 1 x10-5.





73



Conservatism in the inhalation unit risk

Although predicted concentrations of cadmium were below the carcinogenic screening value of 0.016 µg/m3, cadmium was evaluated as both a non-carcinogen and carcinogen. The inhalation unit risk was obtained from the US EPA (1987) and was based on lung, trachea and bronchus cancer deaths in occupational exposure studies. The ILCR was derived from a large cohort from one study, but human carcinogenicity data are limited.


Cadmium was retained as a COPC based on exceedance of a conservative screening value from WHO in the Application Case. Predicted cadmium concentrations did not exceed the US EPA, Cal OEHHA and ATSDR screening values. Predicted cadmium concentrations also did not exceed the selected carcinogenic screening threshold from the US EPA but was conservatively evaluated as a carcinogen in the chronic inhalation risk assessment. Due to the method used to estimate exposure doses (summed over each life stage [infant, toddler, child, teen, adult]), the ILCRs marginally exceeded 1x10-5 in the Application Case even though concentrations did not exceed the carcinogenic screening threshold, which was calculated for an adult life stage only. The ILCRs for the Project Only Case were below the threshold of 1x10-5. The residual effect for exposure to cadmium is considered to be negligible because it screened in as a COPC based on a conservative threshold from WHO and the Project Only Case ILCRs were below 1x10-5.

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Cal OEHHA = California Office of Environmental Health and Assessment; COPC = constituent of potential concern; HQ = hazard quotient; ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; RAA = regional assessment area; TRV = toxicity reference value; US EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency; WHO = World Health Organization.

Table 8.1-37: Residual Effects Analysis – Chromium (Annual)




Application Case

Predicted concentrations of chromium at the MPOI (0.002 µg/m3), Maximum Discrete Receptor location (0.002 µg/m3) and 58 human health receptor locations (0.002 µg/m3 at all locations) exceeded the carcinogenic screening threshold of 0.00012 µg/m3. Predicted concentrations exceeded the threshold by 94%.

Project Only Case

Predicted concentrations of chromium did not exceed the non-carcinogenic (0.1 µg/m3) or carcinogenic (0.00012 µg/m3) screening thresholds at the receptor locations evaluated.

Context

Comparison of Application Case and Project Only Case ILCRs to Baseline Case

MPOI: Baseline Case ILCR was 2.4x10-5 and remained the same in the Application Case. The Project Only Case ILCR was 6.4x10-8.

Maximum Discrete Reception location: Baseline Case ILCR was 2.4x10-5 and remained the same in the Application Case. The Project Only Case ILCR was 2.8x10-8.

58 Human Health Receptors: Baseline Case ILCR was 2.4x10-5 and remained the same in the Application Case. The Project Only Case ILCRs ranged from 2.1x10-10 to 2.8x10-8.



The emission sources of chromium are diesel fuel LNG vessels, tugs, security vessel and the dredger. It is assumed that diesel fueled LNG carriers are at the maximum vessel size; however, the average capacity, as well as actual emissions would be lower than the maximum vessel size. Loading emissions are conservatively calculated based on the maximum loading durations for LNG carrier class and LNG bunker class, but the LNG vessel capacities range between 2,000 and 100,000 m³ and the loading emissions would vary. The annual emission for LNG carriers is based on the maximum size of the carrier class. However, the actual size, and thus, engine size and the emissions, is expected to vary.





74




The carcinogenic screening threshold for hexavalent chromium (0.00012 µg/m3) was obtained from US EPA (2018) and is based on lung cancer mortality in a cohort of chromate workers. The US EPA screening value is the most conservative of the screening values available from WHO, OMOE, Cal OEHHA and TCEQ.


The predicted maximum concentration of chromium was assumed to be the exposure concentration. Use of maximum concentrations is a conservative approach as it is not anticipated that a person would be exposed to the maximum concentration all year. It was conservatively assumed that residential (community and Aboriginal) receptors were exposed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for 52 weeks per year over an entire lifetime of 80 years. It is unlikely that a person would spend their entire lifetime at any given receptor location. If it is assumed that 4 hours per day could be spent outside the RAA (i.e., exposed for 20 hours per day), ILCRs decrease by about 1.2-fold, but still exceed the threshold of 1 x10-5. It was conservatively assumed that 100% of chromium emitted by the Project is in the form of hexavalent chromium. It is likely that only a portion of the total chromium emitted is in the hexavalent form; therefore, exposure may be overestimated.

Conservatism in the inhalation unit risk

The US EPA (1998) provides an inhalation unit risk of 0.012 per µg/m3. The IUR is based on lung cancer mortality in a cohort of chromate workers and an assumed 1:6 ratio of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium.


The forms of chromium emitted by the Project could be trivalent or hexavalent or a combination of both. Because it is unknown what percentage may be present in the trivalent versus the hexavalent form; it was assumed that 100% of the chromium emitted is in the more toxic, hexavalent chromium form in the chronic inhalation assessment. It is expected that the actual proportion of hexavalent chromium emitted is less than 100%. The ILCRs for the Project Only Case were below the threshold of 1x10-5. The residual effect for exposure to chromium is considered to be negligible because chromium emitted by the Project is likely not 100% hexavalent chromium and the Project Only Case ILCRs were below 1x10-5.

Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; % = percent; Cal OEHHA = California Office of Environmental Health and Assessment; ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk; Maximum Discrete Receptor location = maximum of the 1090 sensitive receptor locations; MPOI = maximum point of impingement; OMOE = Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks; RAA = regional assessment area; TCEQ = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; US EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency; WHO = World Health Organization.

8.1.4.4.3 Human Health Particulate Matter Risk Assessment



The receptors selected for the human health particulate matter risk assessment include community residents,

Aboriginal residents and recreational users of various ages (infants, toddlers, children, teens, and adults) who may

visit the locations identified above and may in future be exposed to COPCs resulting from the Project. The above

receptors are the same as those identified for the human health inhalation risk assessment (Section 8.1.4.4.2).

The receptor locations are listed in Table 8.1-8 and shown on Figure 8.1-1.


The Air Quality discipline identified particulate matter (consisting of particulate matter less than 10 microns [PM10],

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns [PM2.5] and DPM) as constituents emitted by the Project. For PM10 and

PM2.5, twenty-four hour and annual concentrations were predicted for the receptor locations identified above in

Table 8.1-8. Acute inhalation exposure was evaluated for the 24-hour exposure scenario, as 1-hour thresholds

were not available for PM10 and PM2.5. For DPM, 1-hour and annual concentrations were predicted for the receptor





75

locations identified above in Table 8.1-8. Acute inhalation exposure was evaluated for the 1-hour exposure

scenario. Regulatory agencies have not derived a 24-hour threshold for DPM. Predicted concentrations were

compared to the most conservative (i.e., lowest) of available health-based thresholds, preferentially obtained from

the following agencies:

Metro Vancouver;

British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy;

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment;

United States Environmental Protection Agency; and

World Health Organization.

For DPM, recent guidance provided by Health Canada (2016) was also consulted in addition to the above

agencies.

The available thresholds and the basis of these thresholds are presented in Appendix 8.1-4.

Particulate matter concentrations were predicted for receptor locations during the lifetime of the Project. The

predicted maximum particulate matter concentrations in air were compared to selected thresholds to determine

whether further assessment was required. Particulate matter was identified as a COPC and retained for further

evaluation if the predicted concentration exceeded the selected health-based screening value at any human

receptor location.

Predicted maximum particulate matter concentrations were compared to the selected thresholds in Appendix 8.1-

4. PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were below the selected screening thresholds at each of the receptor locations

evaluated in the 24-hour and annual averaging periods. Therefore, PM10 and PM2.5 were not retained as COPCs

for the human health particulate matter risk assessment. DPM concentrations exceeded the 1-hour threshold at

several receptor locations (Section 8.1.4.4.2.1.2) but were below the selected screening thresholds at each of the

receptor locations evaluated in the annual averaging period. Therefore, DPM was retained as a COPC for the

human health particulate matter risk assessment. Given that there is no threshold below which health effects are

not observed for particulate matter, additional discussion is provided in Section 8.1.4.4.3.2.


People may be exposed to particulate matter in air through inhalation while carrying out activities at the receptor

locations. However, particulate matter was not identified as a COPC; therefore, exposure to particulate matter in

air was not identified as an operable exposure pathway.


Based on the results of the problem formulation, particulate matter was not identified as a COPC in air and

therefore there are no operable exposure pathways for receptors. A human health particulate matter risk

assessment was not completed as part of the Human Health assessment.





76

8.1.4.4.3.2 Discussion on Particulate Matter

There is no prescribed method for assessing health risks of particulate matter, nor does the assessment of

particulate matter lend itself to risk assessment methods in the same manner as other constituents. For many

years, particulate matter in the air has been understood to be a serious health concern (Schwarze et al. 2006).

Many epidemiological studies have been conducted that identify the relationship between particulate matter and

adverse health outcomes (WHO 2006). The studies have shown that there is a broad range of health effects, but

predominantly there is a relationship between particulate matter and mortality and hospitalizations for respiratory

and cardiac health effects (WHO 2006). However, there remains uncertainty regarding the causal linkage between

particulate matter and health effects and, in particular, how varying compositions of particulate matter contribute

to health effects (Schwarze et al. 2006; Rohr and Wyzga 2015). An increasing number of health effects have been

linked to airborne particulate matter and research has shown that there are risks to health at levels already found

in many cities across the world (WHO 2013). Current research generally suggests that the composition of

particulate matter would be a better predictor of adverse health effects than the mass of particulate matter (Stanek

et al. 2011). Particulate matter is comprised of a mixture of different chemicals and biological components and as

such, differs from individual chemicals (WHO 2013).

The World Health Organization (WHO) states that the risk for various health outcomes increases with exposure to

particulate matter and that a threshold below which no adverse effects are expected is not likely to exist (WHO

2006). Given that a threshold has not been identified, WHO (2006) suggests that standards be derived to achieve

the lowest particulate matter concentration possible given the local context and priorities of the region.

Metro Vancouver (2018) and BC ENV (2018b) have adopted air quality objectives of 25 µg/m3 (PM2.5) and

50 µg/m3 (PM10) for the 24-hour averaging time. The maximum predicted 24-hour concentrations of PM2.5

and PM10 are below these objectives, indicating that the objectives are achieved.

Metro Vancouver (2018) and BC ENV (2018b) have adopted an air quality objective of 8 µg/m3 for PM2.5 for

the annual averaging time. This objective is an air management tool used to guide decisions on environmental

impact assessments and authorizations (such as new and existing facilities subject to permit reviews),

airshed planning efforts and regulatory development (BC ENV 2008; BC MHLS 2009). BC ENV views the air

quality objective as an immediate target for all communities (BC MHLS 2009) and this objective was selected

as the chronic screening threshold for the particulate matter assessment. Metro Vancouver (2018) and BC

ENV (2018b) have also adopted a planning goal of 6 µg/m3 for PM2.5 for the annual averaging time. This

planning goal is a voluntary target used to guide airshed planning efforts and encourage communities to

maintain good air quality during economic growth and development to the extent practical. The predicted

maximum Application Case concentrations marginally exceed the planning goal at the MPOI (6.2 µg/m3), but

the Project Only Case concentrations are well below (0.047 µg/m3). However, the maximum predicted annual

concentrations of PM2.5 are below air quality objective of 8 µg/m3, indicating that the objective is achieved.

Metro Vancouver (2018) has adopted an air quality objective of 20 µg/m3 for PM10 for the annual averaging

time, which is the same as the WHO value. BC ENV does not provide an annual objective for PM10. The

maximum predicted annual concentrations of PM10 are below this objective, indicating that the objective is

achieved.

Health Canada (2016) conducted a review of the potential health effects associated with exposure to diesel

exhaust and diesel exhaust particulates. The review indicated that acute exposure to diesel exhaust is related





77

to respiratory effects, and possibly cardiovascular effects, and central nervous system effects. Chronic

exposure to diesel exhaust is related to respiratory effects and lung cancer cardiovascular effects, and

possibly bladder cancer.

▪ The acute guidance value was set at 10 µg/m3 and was based on respiratory effects (increased airway

resistance and inflammation). The acute guidance value is protective of the general population, including

sensitive individuals, exposed to DPM for up to 2 hours. The maximum predicted 1-hour concentrations

of DPM exceeded the acute guidance value.

▪ The chronic guidance value was set at 5 µg/m3 and was based on respiratory effects (inflammation,

histopathological and/or functional changes). It is consistent with the previous thresholds derived by

Cal OEHHA in 1998. The chronic guidance value is protective of the general population, including

sensitive individuals, exposed to DPM for a lifetime. The maximum predicted annual concentrations of

DPM are below the chronic guidance value.

▪ The US EPA and Cal OEHHA developed carcinogenic screening thresholds for DPM (Appendix 8.1-4);

which are over 20 years old. Based on the more current evaluation from Health Canada (2016), there are

uncertainties with quantifying unit risks based on rat bioassays of lung tumour induction and Health

Canada has not derived guidance value based on cancer effects. Therefore, carcinogenic risk from

exposure to DPM was not evaluated in this assessment. It should be noted that the current annual

regional background concentrations of DPM are 1.0 µg/m3, which exceeds the Cal OEHHA carcinogenic

screening value of 0.033 µg/m3. The maximum predicted annual concentrations of DPM for the Project

Only Case are below the screening value of 0.033 µg/m3 at all receptor locations evaluated except the

MPOI, indicating that background exposure is the main contributor to chronic DPM exposure.

8.1.4.5 Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects

This section provides a determination of the significance of residual adverse effects. Based on the acute inhalation

assessment (Section 8.1.4.4.2.2.4), residual effects from exposure to nitrogen dioxide, DPM, benzo(a)pyrene,

cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde during the Normal Operation scenario are low but not

negligible. Acute 1-hour exposures to these COPCs were carried forward for significance determination. The

residual effects for nitrogen dioxide (Dredger scenario) and crotonaldehyde (Normal Operation scenario) are

negligible and therefore not significant.

As discussed in the methods section (Section 8.1.3.4.2), significance for the Human Health assessment was

evaluated based on the following:

Context, which focuses on the comparison of the Project Only Case risk estimates to the Baseline Case risk

estimates to evaluate changes that could be attributed to the Project;

The magnitude of the risk, as indicated by the HQ and/or ILCR calculation; and

The degree of conservatism and uncertainty in the analysis.





78

The determination of significance of potential residual effects for the Human Health assessment was based on the

residual effects rating assigned (negligible, low, moderate and high), a review of background information,

consultation with government agencies and other experts, and professional judgement.

The significance determination for nitrogen dioxide (Normal Operation scenario), DPM, benzo(a)pyrene,

cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde are presented in Table 8.1-38. Although the residual effect

was considered low for these parameters, the effect of the Project on human health is not significant. This is based

on several key conservatisms employed in the risk assessment process, namely:

The predicted 1-hour concentrations used to estimate risks were conservative. For example, the peak hourly

emission rate was paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to predict 1-hour concentrations. The peak

hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable. Furthermore,

the air quality model was based on the maximum vessel size for all carriers, but the average LNG carrier size

is expected to be lower. Details on conservatisms and uncertainties related to the 1-hour air quality

predictions are discussed in the residual effects tables (Section 8.1.4.4.2.2.4).

The air screening values used to identify COPCs for the 1-hour averaging time were conservative. For the

acute inhalation assessment, the screening values were also used to determine the HQs (or the magnitude

of risk). In other words, the HQ was determined by dividing the predicted 1-hour concentration by the acute

inhalation threshold. Several jurisdictions were consulted for 1-hour thresholds (Appendix 8.1-4). The most

conservative (i.e., lowest) guideline was typically selected for screening, and thus risk calculation, purposes.

For nitrogen dioxide, that meant selection of the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard of 79 µg/m3, which

comes into effect in 2025. The current BC Air Quality Objective is 188 µg/m3, which was not exceeded at any

of the receptor locations except the MPOI. Effort was also made to select the most suitable guidelines

(e.g., selection of values based on a health endpoint or human studies). Detailed supporting documentation

on how the thresholds were derived were not available for all constituents predicted to be emitted by the

Project. This was the case for nitrogen dioxide, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde.





79

Table 8.1-38: Significance of Residual Effects

Residual Effect Project Phase

Effect Occurs In Rationale Significance

Acute 1-hour exposure to nitrogen dioxide – Normal Operation scenario

Operations

Project Only Case HQs for nitrogen dioxide under the Normal Operation scenario exceeded the threshold of one at the MPOI, Dyke North 1 (same as the Maximum Discrete Receptor location) and TI'uqtinus. The HQ was highest at the MPOI (4.2), but people are not expected to spend a significant time at this hypothetical worst-case location. The HQs for Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus were low (1.5 and 1.1, respectively). There was only one exceedance of the threshold at each of these locations based on a year of modeling. Furthermore, the probability of exceeding a threshold at any of the human health receptor locations is 3.1% in a given year.

Not significant

Acute 1-hour exposure to diesel particulate matter

Operations

Project Only Case HQs for DPM exceeded the threshold of one at the MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location and several human health receptor locations (Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Tilbury Ice, Watermania and Nearest Residence to Facility Site). The HQ was highest at the MPOI (9.3), but people are not expected to spend a significant time at this hypothetical worst-case location. The HQs for the other receptor locations ranged from 1.2 to 4.2. The frequency of exceedances of the threshold at these locations based on a year of modeling ranged from 1 to 175. The probability of exceeding the threshold in a given year is 0.089% at the MPOI and 0.041% at the Maximum Discrete Receptor location. The probability of exceeding the threshold in a given year at the other human health receptor locations ranges from 0.00040% to 0.063%.

Not significant

Acute 1-hour exposure to benzo(a)pyrene

Operations

Project Only Case HQs for benzo(a)pyrene exceeded the threshold of one at MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2 and TI'uqtinus. The HQ was highest at the MPOI (4.5), but people are not expected to spend a significant time at this hypothetical worst-case location. The HQs at the remaining locations ranged from 1.1 to 2.1 and the frequency of exceedances was low, ranging from 1 to 8 hourly exceedances based on a year of modeling. Furthermore, the probability of exceeding a threshold at Dyke West 1 or TI'uqtinus (locations with the highest frequency of exceedances) is 0.0029% in a given year.

Not significant





80

Residual Effect Project Phase

Effect Occurs In Rationale Significance

Acute 1-hour exposure to cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene

Operations

Project Only Case HQs for cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene exceeded the threshold of one at MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus and Deas Park 2. The HQ was highest at the MPOI (5.6), but people are not expected to spend a significant time at this hypothetical worst-case location. The HQs at the remaining locations ranged from 1.2 to 2.6 and the frequency of exceedances was low, ranging from 1 to 14 hourly exceedances based on a year of modeling. Furthermore, the probability of exceeding a threshold at Dyke West 1 or Dyke North 1 (locations with the highest frequency of exceedances) is 0.0050% in a given year.

Not significant

Acute 1-hour exposure to 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde

Operations

Project Only Case HQs for 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde exceeded the threshold of one at the MPOI, Dyke West 1, Dyke North 1 (same as the Maximum Discrete Receptor location) and TI'uqtinus. The HQ was highest at the MPOI (3.6), but people are not expected to spend a significant time at this hypothetical worst-case location. The HQs for Dyke West 1, Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus were

low (ranged from 1.1 to 1.6). The frequency of

exceedances was low, ranging from 3 to 5 hourly exceedances based on a year of modeling. Furthermore, the probability of exceeding a threshold at Dyke North 1 (location with the highest frequency of exceedance) is 0.0018% in a given year.

Not significant

8.1.4.5.1 Confidence and Risk

Sources of uncertainty in the assessment were addressed by using conservative assumptions. These sources of

uncertainty and the predicted effect on the results of the risk assessment are described below. After identifying

the major sources of uncertainty, a level of confidence was assigned to each residual effect. Important

considerations with respect to prediction confidence include the following:

The air quality predictions use the maximum emission rates from the Project; however, this assumption is

conservative since most equipment does not operate at its maximum capacity on a continuous basis. This

assumption can lead to the overestimation of the potential Project-related effects for the longer averaging

periods (24-hr and annual). For the shorter averaging period (1-hour), the peak hourly emission rate was

paired with the worst-case pollutant transport to obtain the 1-hour predictions for nitrogen dioxide. The peak

hourly emission is not expected to occur throughout the year and pollutant transport is variable, resulting in

an overestimation of potential residual effects.





81

Overall, there were several model inputs and assumptions that were considered to result in a highly conservative

prediction of exposure and risks. Therefore, the assessment is considered conservative and there is high

confidence that risks have not been underestimated. However, due to some uncertainties around the air thresholds

and the air quality predictions, the prediction confidence is considered moderate. The predicted level of confidence

for the Human Health assessment is presented in Table 8.1-39.

Table 8.1-39: Prediction Confidence for Each Residual Effect in the Human Health Assessment


Receptor Location Confidence

Nitrogen dioxide (Normal Operation scenario)

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus

Moderate

Diesel particulate matter

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Bike Route, Boat Launch, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, Farm 1, Farm 3, TI'uqtinus, Richmond Horseshoe Slough Park, Tilbury Ice, Watermania, Nearest Residence to Facility Site

Moderate

Benzo(a)pyrene

MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2 and TI'uqtinus

Moderate


MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke East, Dyke West 1, Dyke West 2, Dyke North 1, Dyke North 2, TI'uqtinus and Deas Park 2

Moderate

2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde MPOI, Maximum Discrete Receptor location, Dyke West 1, Dyke North 1 and TI'uqtinus

Moderate

8.1.4.5.2 Summary of Residual Effects and Significance

The determination of the significance of each residual effect is summarised in Table 8.1-40, along with the

likelihood of the residual effect occurring, and the level of confidence associated with the determinations of both

significance and likelihood.

Table 8.1-40: Summary of Significance Determination of Residual Effects

Residual Effect Significance Likelihood

Determination (likely / unlikely)

Level of Confidence (low / moderate / high)

Potential Adverse Residual Effect

(Y/N)

Acute 1-hour exposure to nitrogen dioxide (Normal Operation scenario)

Not significant Unlikely Moderate N





82

Residual Effect Significance Likelihood

Determination (likely / unlikely)

Level of Confidence (low / moderate / high)

Potential Adverse Residual Effect

(Y/N)

Acute 1-hour exposure to diesel particulate matter


Acute 1-hour exposure to benzo(a)pyrene


Acute 1-hour exposure to cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene


Acute 1-hour exposure to 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde


8.1.5 Cumulative Effects Assessment

It is not possible to conduct a quantitative cumulative effects assessment for Human Health because there is

insufficient information available to conduct air quality modelling of other certain and reasonably foreseeable

projects and activities. Section 4.4 (Air Quality) provides a qualitative discussion of cumulative effects assessment

for the atmospheric environment and a summary is provided below.

Each certain and reasonably foreseeable Project was assessed based on distance from the Project, timing

of future projects and the project’s potential to emit measurable parameters. When a given project was

outside the LAA (greater than 5 km from the Project), the given project was assessed as low potential to

interact with the Project due to maximum Project residual effects being classified as within the LAA. For

projects within the LAA, professional judgement and experience was used to determine the likelihood that

the future project would emit measurable parameters and available information on project timing was used

to determine if potential interactions are expected.

Two projects were identified to have the potential to interact with the Project, Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities

Corporation Fuel Delivery Project and Seaspan Ferries Tilbury Expansion. The remaining projects were not

carried forward into the cumulative effects assessment. Rationale for inclusion or exclusion is provided in

Section 4.4. Residual effects in the cumulative effects assessment included an increase in concentrations of

the following: 1-hour nitrogen dioxide, annual nitrogen dioxide, 1-hour sulphur dioxide, annual sulphur

dioxide, 1-hour carbon monoxide, 8-hour carbon monoxide, 24-hour PM2.5, annual PM2.5, 24-hour PM10 and

annual PM10.

All residual cumulative effects were characterized as not significant.

With respect to benzo(a)pyrene, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde, emissions to air

result from diesel combustion in marine vessels. Benzo(a)pyrene emissions to air also occur from the

adjacent Fortis facility (in the Application Case), although the emissions are much lower than the Project Only

emissions. Potential interactions could occur with the VAFFC Fuel Delivery project and the proposed

expansion of the Tilbury Seaspan ferries jetty, as operation of these projects are likely to contribute emissions

of benzo(a)pyrene, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde at a level that may generate

residual effects. However, interaction would occur through combustion of diesel in marine vessels, and hence

interaction would likely be intermittent. For the VAFFC Fuel Delivery Project, where one marine vessel is

expected every two weeks, the interaction is infrequent. Therefore, the residual cumulative effects for

benzo(a)pyrene, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde were not considered significant.





83

8.1.6 Summary of Residual Project Effects and Residual Cumulative Environmental Effects

The potential residual effects of the Project and the Project’s contribution to potential residual cumulative effects

are summarized below.

The residual effects for acute 1-hour exposure to nitrogen dioxide in the Normal Operation scenario, DPM

and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde were low and not negligible.

A quantitative residual cumulative effects evaluation was not completed for Human Health because there is

insufficient information available to conduct air quality modelling of other certain and reasonably foreseeable

projects and activities. Section 4.4 (Air Quality) provides a qualitative discussion of cumulative effects

assessment for the atmospheric environment.

▪ The Air Quality cumulative effects assessment found that there could be an increase in concentrations of

the following: 1-hour nitrogen dioxide, annual nitrogen dioxide, 1-hour sulphur dioxide, annual sulphur

dioxide, 1-hour carbon monoxide, 8-hour carbon monoxide, 24-hour PM2.5, annual PM2.5, 24-hour PM10

and annual PM10.

▪ Although effects were calculated using conservative methods, all residual cumulative effects were

characterized as not significant.

▪ With respect to benzo(a)pyrene, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde, emissions to air

result from diesel combustion in marine vessels. Benzo(a)pyrene emissions to air also occur from the

adjacent Fortis facility (in the Application Case), although the emissions are much lower than the Project

Only emissions. Potential interactions could occur with the VAFFC Fuel Delivery project and the proposed

expansion of the Tilbury Seaspan ferries jetty, as operation of these projects are likely to contribute

emissions of benzo(a)pyrene, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde at a level that may

generate residual effects. However, interaction would occur through combustion of diesel in marine

vessels, and hence interaction would likely be intermittent. For the VAFFC Fuel Delivery Project, where

one marine vessel is expected every two weeks, the interaction is infrequent. Therefore, the residual

cumulative effects for benzo(a)pyrene, cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde were not

considered significant.

8.1.7 Monitoring and Follow Up Programs

Monitoring plans specific to the Human Health assessment will not be developed as part of the environmental

assessment. The Project is not expected to have a significant effect on Air Quality (Section 4.4); therefore, a

monitoring program is not recommended. Project mitigation measures have been defined and an air emissions

management plan will be developed and implemented to manage air emissions during the operation phase.

\\golder.gds\gal\burnaby\final\2013\1422\13-1422-0049\1314220049-155-r-rev3\1314220049-155-r-rev3 tilbury ea 8.1 human health 18mar_19.docx





84

8.1.8 References for Human Health Assessment

ATSDR. 2012. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health

Service, ATSDR. Atlanta, GA, USA.

ATSDR. 2018. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. August 2018. US Department of Health

and Human Services, Public Health Service. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/mrllist.asp>.

BC EAO. 2013. Guideline for the Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects.

<https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-

assessments/guidance-documents/eao-guidance-selection-of-valued-components.pdf>.

BC ENV. 2008. Provincial Ambient Air Quality Criteria for PM2.5 Ministry Intentions Paper.

BC ENV. 2017a. Protocol 13 for Contaminated Sites: Screening Level Risk Assessment. Site Remediation

Protcols, Environmental Protection & Sustainability, Air, Land & Water, Site Remediation, BC ENV.

Victoria, BC, Canada.

BC ENV. 2017b. Technical Guidance on Contaminated Sites 7: Supplemental Guidance for Risk Assessments.

Technical Guidance for Site Remediation, Environmental Protection & Sustainability, Air, Land & Water,

Site Remediation, BC ENV. Victoria, BC, Canada.

BC ENV. 2017c. Protocol 4 for Contaminated Sites: Establishing Background Concentrations in Soil. Site

Remediation Protocols, Environmental Protection & Sustainability, Air, Land & Water, Site Remediation,

BC ENV. Victoria, BC, Canada.

BC ENV. 2017d. BC Recreational Water Quality Guidelines: Guideline Summary. Water Quality Guideline Series,

Water Quality & Aquatic Science, Water Protection & Sustainability Branch, BC ENV. Victoria, BC,

Canada.

BC ENV. 2017e. BC Source Drinking Water Quality Guidelines: Guideline Summary. Water Quality Guideline

Series, Water Quality & Aquatic Science, Water Protection & Sustainability Branch, BC ENV. Victoria,

BC, Canada.

BC ENV. 2018a. Contaminated Sites Regulation [BC CSR; includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 116/2018,

June 14, 2018]. <http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/375_96_00>.

BC ENV. 2018b. British Columbia Ambient Air Quality Objectives – Provincial Air Quality Objective Information

Sheet. Environmental Standards Branch, BC ENV. <https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-

land-water/air/reports-pub/aqotable.pdf>.

BC MHLS. 2009. Guidance on Application of Provincial Air Quality Criteria for PM2.5. Victoria, BC, Canada.

Cal OEHHA. 2016. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and chronic reference exposure levels (chRELs) summary as of

June 2016. Air Toxicology and Epidemiology, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

<http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html>.

Cal OEHHA. 2018. Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values.

<https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm>.

CCME. 1999a. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health,

Chromium. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999. CCME. <http://ceqg-

rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/262>.

CCME. 1999b. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality Objectives: Process and Status. In: Canadian

Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999. CCME. <http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/>.

CCME. 2017. Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). CCME. <http://airquality-

qualitedelair.ccme.ca/en/>.





85

Charlie, C., 2015. Cowichan Nation Traditional, Current, and Planned Future Use of the George Massey Tunnel

Replacement Bridge Project Area. Prepared for Cowichan Tribes, on behalf of the Cowichan Nation

Alliance. 10 p. + appendices

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2018. 2017-2018 Departmental Plan. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Victoria, BC, Canada.

First Nations Health Council. 2011. Implementing the Vision: BC First Nations Health Governance.

<http://www.fnhc.ca/images/uploads/FNHC_Health_Governance_Book-web2.pdf>.

Fraser Health Authority. 2018. Comment provided to the BC EAO during EAC Application Review Screening.

Gall, C., 2016. Métis Nation British Columbia’s comment on the Draft Aboriginal Consultation Report 1 – WesPac

Tilbury Marine Jetty Project. Comments prepared by Métis Nation British Columbia. 14p.

Health Canada. 2010a. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part V: Guidance on Human

Health Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Chemicals (DQRAChem). Contaminated Sites Division,

Safe Environments Directorate. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Health Canada. 2010b. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II: Health Canada

Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical-specific Factors, Version 2.0. Contaminated Sites

Division, Safe Environments Directorate. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Health Canada. 2012. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part I: Guidance on Human

Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA), Version 2.0. September 2010, revised 2012.

Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Directorate. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Health Canada. 2016. Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust. March 2016. Fuels Assessment

Section, Water and Air Quality Bureau, Health Environments and Consumer Safety Branch. Ottawa, ON,

Canada.

Health Canada. 2017a. Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise.

Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Health Canada. 2017b. Supplemental Guidance on Human Health Risk Assessment of Contaminated

Sediments: Direct Contact Pathway. Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Directorate.

Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Health Canada. 2017c. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality – Summary Table. Water and Air Quality

Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Health Canada. 2017d. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada: Supplemental Guidance on

Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Quality, Version 2.0. Contaminated Sites Division, Safe

Environments Programme, Health Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

IARC. 2018. Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-122.

<http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf>.

Jones, B. and McLaren, D., 2016. Kwantlen Land Use and Occupation in the Vicinity of Tilbury Island. Report

prepared for Kwantlen First Nation and Seyem’ Qwantlen. 11 p.

Kennedy, D., 2015. George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project: Cowichan Occupation and Use of the Project

Lands. Report prepared by Bouchard and Kennedy Research Consultants for David Robbins of Woodward

and Co., on behalf of the Cowichan Tribes. 111 p.





86

Marshall, D., 2017. Patullo Bridge Replacement Project – Cowichan Nation Alliance Strength of Claim Report.

Report prepared by Pacific Reach Consulting Ltd. 30 p. + appendices.

Metro Vancouver. n.d. Health Impact Assessment of Transportation and Land Use Planning Activities:

Guidebook. <http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/HIA-

Guidebook.pdf>.

Metro Vancouver. 2018. Metro Vancouver’s Ambient Air Quality Objectives June 2018.

<http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-

quality/AirQualityPublications/CurrentAmbientAirQualityObjectives.pdf>.

Minister of Justice. 2017. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52). <http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/FullText.html>.

Morin, J., 2016. Tsleil-Waututh Nation Traditional Use Study Review in Relation to the WesPac Tilbury Marine

Jetty Project. Report prepared for Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Treaty, Lands and Resources Department. 14-

211, 38 p.

Nelitz, M et al. (2018). Impacts of marine vessel traffic on acess to fishing opportunities of the Musqueam Indian

Band. Prepared by M. Nelitz, H. Stimson, C. Semmens, B. Ma and D. Robinson for the Musqueam Indian

Band.

Nesdole, R., D. Voigts, R. Lepnurm, and R. Roberts. 2014. Reconceptualizing determinants of health: Barriers to

improving the health status of First Nations peoples. Can J Public Health. 105:209–213.

OMOE. 2011a. Basic Comprehensive Certificates of Approval (Air) User Guide. Environmental Assessment and

Approvals Branch, OMOE, Toronto, ON, Canada.

OMOE. 2011b. Ontario Air Standards for Benzo[a]pyrene as a surrogate for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.

Standards Development Branch, OMOE. Toronto, ON, Canada.

OMOE. 2018. Ontario’s Air Contaminants Benchmark List: Standards, guidelines and screening levels for

assessing point of impingement concentrations of air contaminants. Standards Development Branch,

OMOE. <https://www.ontario.ca/page/air-contaminants-benchmarks-list-standards-guidelines-and-

screening-levels-assessing-point>.

Reading, C. L., and F. Wein. 2009. Health Inequalities and Social Determinants of Aboringal Peoples’ Health.

National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Prince George, BC, Canada.

Rohr, A. C., and R. E. Wyzga. 2015. Long-term particulate matter exposure: Attributing health effects to

individual PM components. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 65:524–543.

Schwarze, P. E., J. Ovrevik, M. Låg, M. Refsnes, P. Nafstad, R. B. Hetland, and E. Dybing. 2006. Particulate

matter properties and health effects: Consistency of epidemiological and toxicological studies. Hum Exp

Toxicol. 25:559–579.

Stanek, L. W., J. D. Sacks, S. J. Dutton, and J. J. B. Dubois. 2011. Attributing health effects to apportioned

components and sources of particulate matter: An evaluation of collective results. Atmos Environ.

45:5655–5663.

Tam, J. et al. (2016). Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study. Prepared for the Proposed George

Massey Tunnel Replacement Project by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olsen and Firelight Research with

Musqueam Indian Band.





87

Tam, J. et al. (2018). xwməθkwəy̓əm Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study: WesPac Midstream’s

Proposed LNG Marine Jetty Project, prepared by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc.

with the Musqueam Indian Band, October 9, 2018.

TCEQ. 2016. Crotonaldehyde (Cis and Trans), Trans-Crotonaldehyde, and Cis-Crotonaldehyde. Development

Support Document, Office of the Executive Director, TCEQ. Austin, TX, USA.

TCEQ. 2018. Download Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) Used in the Review of Air Permitting Data. Office of the

Executive Director, TCEQ. <https://www.tceq.texas.gov/toxicology/esl/list_main.html/>.

US EPA. 1987. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary: Cadmium. National

Center for Environmental Assessment, US EPA. Washington, D.C., USA.

US EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A).

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, US EPA. Washington, D.C., USA.

US EPA. 1998. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary: Chromium (VI).

National Center for Environmental Assessment, US EPA. Washington, D.C., USA.

US EPA. 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of

Solid Waste, US EPA. Washington, D.C., USA.

US EPA. 2016. United States National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Table.

<https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table>.

US EPA. 2018a. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) - Generic Tables. National Center for Environmental

Assessment, US EPA. <https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables>.

US EPA. 2018b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessments. National Center for Environmental

Assessment, US EPA. <https://www.epa.gov/iris>.

WHO. 1948. The Preamble of the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Bull. World Health Organ.

80:982.

WHO. 2000. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe (Second Edition). Regional Office for Europe, WHO.

Copenhagen, DK.

WHO. 2006. WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide:

Global update 2005, Summary of risk assessment. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland.

WHO. 2013. Health Effects of Particulate Matter: Policy Implications for Countries in Eastern Europe, Caucasus

and Central Asia. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark.

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project - British Columbia · WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project...

Documents

Transcript of WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project - British Columbia · WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project...