Technical articles on biomass logistics, verification protocols, and Canada’s Impact Assessment Act for enterprise facilities.
A detailed walkthrough of the chain-of-custody audit required for a 15 MW facility in Northern Ontario. The article covers moisture sampling protocols, transport emissions tracking, and how to close compliance gaps identified during screening.
Read full articleThis article explains the AERMOD dispersion modelling process used during technical due diligence for a 200,000-tonne Alberta facility. It details particulate matter control, baghouse filtration upgrades, and real-time monitoring system design for IAA compliance.
Read full articleA replicable verification framework developed with First Nations and private developers. The protocol covers feedstock classification, greenhouse gas accounting using BC Best Practices Methodology, and community engagement documentation for provincial and federal submissions.
Read full articleCommon questions about our biomass verification and regulatory compliance services under the Impact Assessment Act.
We review chain-of-custody records, moisture content sampling protocols, and transport emissions tracking for biomass supply chains. The audit checks compliance with the Canadian Biomass Certification Program and identifies gaps that could affect an IAA screening.
We use AERMOD dispersion modelling to assess particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and other emissions from combustion systems. The model accounts for local meteorology, terrain, and nearby receptors. Results inform baghouse filtration design and real-time monitoring requirements.
It is a standardized verification framework developed with First Nations and private developers. The protocol covers feedstock classification, greenhouse gas accounting using the BC Best Practices Methodology, and community engagement documentation. It is now a reference standard for IAA submissions in British Columbia.
Yes. We have completed projects across Canada, including British Columbia, Quebec, and the Maritimes. Our team is familiar with provincial and federal regulatory frameworks and can adapt verification protocols to local requirements.
Timelines depend on facility size and documentation complexity. A standard review for a 200,000-tonne pellet plant takes 6 to 8 weeks, including emissions modelling and report drafting. Expedited timelines are possible for smaller facilities or repeat clients.
We typically request engineering drawings, emissions control specifications, feedstock supply agreements, chain-of-custody records, and any prior environmental assessments. A full checklist is provided during the scoping call.
Definitions and conditions that govern the interpretation of our technical documentation and verification reports.
Feedstock is considered verified only when the full chain-of-custody record — from harvest or collection site to the facility gate — has been audited against the Canadian Biomass Certification Program criteria. Partial records or estimates based on regional averages do not meet the verification threshold. Our reports explicitly flag any gaps in traceability and assign a confidence level to each feedstock class.
No. The AERMOD dispersion modelling we provide is a technical input for the Impact Assessment Act screening process. It estimates potential ground-level concentrations of key pollutants under defined meteorological and operational scenarios. These results are not regulatory limits; they inform the design of monitoring systems and mitigation measures. Final compliance is determined by the reviewing authority based on the complete submission package.
A standard review covers engineering documentation, emissions modelling, and feedstock verification as outlined in the project scope. It does not include financial audits, land title verification, community consultation records prepared by third parties, or detailed structural engineering of existing buildings. If a client requires these elements, a separate engagement is scoped and quoted.
Once a protocol is adopted by a provincial or federal body, any subsequent revisions must follow the amendment process defined by that authority. Our role is limited to providing the original technical framework and supporting documentation. We do not automatically update protocols unless a new contract is signed. Clients are responsible for tracking regulatory changes that may affect the protocol’s applicability.
No. Each verification report is site-specific and tied to a single facility’s feedstock supply chain, emissions profile, and engineering design. Using a report from one location as evidence for another facility would require a formal gap analysis and, in most cases, a new audit. We clearly mark each report with the facility name, date, and scope to prevent misapplication.