fortune minerals limited saskatchewan ......modelling air dispersion models were developed by...
Post on 10-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
`
FORTUNE MINERALS LIMITED
SASKATCHEWAN METALS PROCESSING PLANT
Air Dispersion Modelling
Prepared for:
M2112-2840010
January 2011
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of an Air Dispersion Modelling (ADM) study conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Fortune Minerals Limited (FML) Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant (SMPP). The proposed development is located approximately 30 km northwest of Saskatoon near Langham, SK. The SMPP has a foot print area of approximately 80.2 hectares (ha). FML provided an Emission Inventory (EI) with the proposed project emission sources and their attributes. MDH Engineered Solutions (MDH) completed the modelling to estimate ground level Point of Impingement (POI) concentrations for the proposed facility air emissions and determine if mitigative measures were required.
ADM Guidelines
The study was completed using Alberta ADM guidelines, as Saskatchewan has no specific ADM guidelines for industrial developments. Air dispersion models SCREEN 3 and AERMOD were used to complete the modelling study. The estimated POI concentrations beyond the property boundary were added to background air quality data and compared with Regulatory Ambient Air Objectives (RAAOs) to determine if the proposed development requires any additional mitigative measures.
Background Data and Regulatory Objectives
Alberta guidelines recommend using at least one year of air emission data be collected in the vicinity of the proposed development or from a representative site. No monitored background data was available for the proposed SMPP location. Therefore, background air quality data from air monitoring stations nearby Saskatoon was acquired. RAAOs were acquired from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and the regulatory agencies from the following jurisdictions: Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, and Texas. For air emission parameters that have no Saskatchewan standards, the lesser of the available RAAOs from the aforementioned sources were used.
Modelling
Air dispersion models were developed by utilizing topographical, landuse, and surface and upper air meteorological data acquired from various sources. Based on the Screen 3 modelling (Phase I) results, all the facility emissions except Particulate Matter <2.5 µm (PM2.5) and Cobalt (Co) emissions were in compliance with the RAAOs. A refined modelling (Phase II) exercise using AERMOD was completed to further evaluate the two facility air emissions. The results are summarized below:
Considering extreme, transient, and rare meteorological conditions, the regulatory agencies recommend
using the 9th highest and 2nd highest estimated concentrations for 1-hour and 24-hour averaging periods,
respectively;
The estimated highest concentrations from the project emissions beyond the project boundary were
added to the background data and compared with the regulatory objectives;
Based on the Phases I and II results, the estimated concentrations of all the project emissions
(combined with background data) beyond the property boundary are lower than the regulatory ambient
air objectives;
The PM2.5 emissions were considered to be particulate matter of all sizes (including PM larger than
2.5 µm) to be conservative. In addition, metals and sulphuric acid mist were also added to the PM2.5
emissions;
As the proposed development is located in a rural area and the available background air quality data
was taken from the largest city in the province (Saskatoon); background air quality at the proposed
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page ii
SMPP site will have lower concentrations of air emissions;
RAAOs for 1-hour and annual averages for PM2.5 and Co emissions are not available. However, the
estimated concentrations (1-hour and annual averages) for the facility emissions are not expected to be
significantly high;
Dominant Green House Gases (GHG) from the proposed facility include CO2, water vapour, and
NOx. The GHG emission rates and the corresponding concentrations from the facility are not expected
to have measurable impact on regional/global GHG levels;
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) emissions from the proposed facilities will be minimal and are not expected to
cause measurable impact on environment or human health conditions; and
Cumulative effect within and around the proposed development is negligible as no major industrial
developments that emit significant air emissions are situated within 10 km from the proposed facility.
The proposed mitigative measures include bag houses, demisters, and scrubbers with single and double stages. A combination of these control measures or a single measure will be installed in Stacks #1, #3a, #3b, #7, #9, #10, #22, #25, and #26 to minimize project air emissions. Recommendations to minimize environmental and health impacts due to the project air emissions are listed below.
Recommendations
Minimize dust emissions during construction and operation of the proposed development by: o Wetting waste process residue piles, exposed surfaces, and utilizing cover or dust
suppressants; o Managing traffic to reduce driver exposure time to dust; and o Reducing construction time of unpaved ground.
Install a continuous monitoring program to measure air emissions from the stack sources and ambient air quality parameters;
Any significant expansion and modification to the SMPP facility that may change the plant emissions are required to be evaluated using a detailed air dispersion model; and
Develop an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) with mitigative measures for potential emissions that occur accidently and cause significant impact to environment and human health conditions.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 The SMPP Facility ................................................................................................................................. 1
3.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Background Concentrations .................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Regulatory Ambient Air Quality Objectives (RAAOs) ............................................................................ 5 3.4 Phase I: Screen Modelling ..................................................................................................................... 5 3.5 Phase II: Refined or Advanced Modelling ............................................................................................. 6
4.0 PROJECT EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 7 4.1 SMPP Process ...................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.1 Pressure Acid Leach Oxidation of Cobalt Concentrate ..................................................................... 8 4.1.2 Cobalt Recovery ............................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.3 Cobalt Metal Production .................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Copper Recovery .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.5 Bismuth Recovery ........................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.6 Gold Recovery ................................................................................................................................ 10 4.1.7 Residue Storage ............................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Air Emissions ....................................................................................................................................... 11 5.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 16
5.1 AERMOD Model .................................................................................................................................. 16 5.1.1 Meteorological Conditions ............................................................................................................... 16 5.1.2 Topography ..................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1.3 Landuse .......................................................................................................................................... 20 5.1.4 Receptors ........................................................................................................................................ 20
5.2 SCREEN 3 Model ................................................................................................................................ 21 6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 22 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 33 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 34 9.0 3rd Party Review ..................................................................................................................................... 34 10.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................................................... 35 11.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 36
APPENDICES
Terms and Abbreviations
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 – Location of the SMPP project area. .................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2.2 – SMPP buildings and stack locations layout. ....................................................................................... 3 Figure 3.1 – Flow chart indicating steps involved in the ADM study (AENV, 2009a). ............................................. 4 Figure 4.1 – SMPP Process flow diagram. ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4.2 – A schematic block diagram of autoclave scrubber system. .............................................................. 12 Figure 5.1 – Climatic normals of Saskatoon meteorological station. ..................................................................... 17 Figure 5.2 – Wind rose diagrams of the surface meteorological data used in the air dispersion modelling. ......... 18 Figure 5.3 – Topography within and around the proposed SMPP site used in AERMOD model. ......................... 19 Figure 5.4 – Nested receptor grid used in the AERMOD Model. .......................................................................... 21
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page iv
Figure 6.1 – 1-Hour Averaged Particulate Matter <2.5 µm Modelled Concentrations. ......................................... 27 Figure 6.2 – 24-Hour Averaged Particulate Matter <2.5 µm Modelled Concentrations. ....................................... 28 Figure 6.3 – Annual Particulate Matter <2.5 µm Modelled Concentrations. ......................................................... 29 Figure 6.4 – 1-Hour Averaged Cobalt Modelled Concentrations........................................................................... 30 Figure 6.5 – 24-Hour Averaged Cobalt Modelled Concentrations. ........................................................................ 31 Figure 6.6 – Annual Cobalt Modelled Concentrations. .......................................................................................... 32
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.2 – Air emissions sources (#1 through #13) from the proposed SMPP facility. ....................................... 14 Table 4.3 – Air emissions sources (#14 through #27) from the proposed SMPP facility. ..................................... 15 Table 5.1 – Summary of climatic variables for surface air data from 2005-2009. ................................................. 17 Table 5.2 – Attributes of the terrain data. .............................................................................................................. 19 Table 5.3 – Surface modelling parameters (AENV, 2009a). ................................................................................. 20 Table 5.4 – Receptor grid spacing (AENV, 2009a). .............................................................................................. 20 Table 5.5 – Details of the proposed main buildings at SMPP. .............................................................................. 22 Table 6.1 – Background air quality data (NAPS (2010) and WISSA (2006)). ....................................................... 23 Table 6.2 – Regulatory Ambient Air Quality Objectives (RAAOs) (units are µg/m3). ............................................ 24 Table 6.3 – Summary of Phase I modelling 1-hour averaging period results (units are µg/m3). ........................... 25 Table 6.4 – Summary of Phase II modelling results (units are µg/m3). ................................................................. 25
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fortune Minerals Limited (FML) retained MDH Engineered Solutions Corp. (MDH) to
complete Air Dispersion Modelling (ADM) as part of the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for their proposed Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant (SMPP). The study includes
estimation of ground level Point of Impingement (POI) concentrations of the project air
emissions and determines if additional mitigative measures are required. Details of the air
dispersion models used in the study are also presented.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Study Area
The proposed facility is located approximately 30 km northwest of Saskatoon, SK and 3 km
east of Langham, SK, in the Rural Municipality of Corman Park (RM 344). The legal land
location of the proposed development is the north half of Section 14 in Township 39,
Range 07, west of the 3rd Meridian and the southeast quarter of Section 23 in Township 39,
Range 07, west of the 3rd Meridian. The proposed SMPP location is shown in Figure 2.1.
2.2 The SMPP Facility
The proposed SMPP is designed to process NICO mine (NICO) Gold-Cobalt-Bismuth-
Copper mine concentrates into high-value metal cathode products. The NICO deposit is
located in the Northwest Territories, 160 km northwest of Yellowknife, and contains near-
surface reserves of 31 million tonnes. It is estimated that 65,000 tonnes of concentrate will
be shipped by truck/rail from the NICO mine to the proposed facility annually. The SMPP will
consist of the following infrastructure:
A processing plant building, including integrated reagent storage such as silos and tanks;
A service complex, including warehousing, laboratories, change rooms, lunchroom, offices, and workshops;
A concentrate storage, receiving, and warming shed;
Water well(s) and related distribution infrastructure;
Storage ponds for process water and cooling;
A modular Process Residue Storage Facility (PRSF) designed for containment levels similar to an industrial landfill;
A waste water injection well(s) and related infrastructure;
Railway siding, access, and switching; and
On-site access roads, ditches, surface water collection ponds, and other related infrastructure.
Figure 2.2 shows a site plan of the proposed SMPP with the main buildings and stack locations.
SASKATOON
NORTH
SASKATCHEWAN
RIVER
MARTINSVILLE
OSLER
WARMAN
LANGHAM
DALMENY
11
1111
11
11
1111
11
11
11 11 11
31
30
18
19
02
07
02
04
25
07
13
27
10
15
2219
18
03
32
08
30
06
34
0907
35
10
03
07
18
12
18
09
28
26
12
05
3432
10
20 21
0809
19 22
29
33
01
27
32
33
22
09
23
17
34
35
08
31
15
35
14
29
12
16
29
06
21
14
23
16
20
17
2123
30
35
26
20
04
28
01
36
16
33
36
13
27
29
17
14
36
26
30
3235
19
05
31
14
35
25
16
2728
13
06
19
06
31
33
31
28
36
30
16
34
2421
17
14
32
12
33
18
29
30
1315
31
30 28
17
33
08
05
2525
03
27
3235
34
19
29
27
31
26
08
12
31
25
14
07
2421
13
23
13
14
28
24
36
06 06
12
13
23
03
04
24
20
07
06
09
25
01
18
2925
28
23
20
18
24
23
26
25
05
30
19
07
34
36
05
18
30
30
32
20
24
26
02
33
17
01
08
31
34
17
07 12
01 02
13
1513
25
22
28
25
35 36
08
35
08
14
2829
24
26
02
26
26
14
12
24
26
09
17
09
29
32
15
27
33
26
12
07
06
10
18
09
10
18
05
20
12
20
0103
19
06 0501
25
32
252930
24
3132
13
02
16
29
14
05
03
32
04
10
07
27
33 35
26
36
16
01
35
21
2825
16
25
04
12
17
06
04
19
30
23
36
20
17
19
07
29
32
21
04
06 05
34
08
33
27
26
1814
23
31
01
21
17 15
34
05
19
16
10
06
21
15
17
02
30
24
1618
01
07
06
22
33
01
08
2022
02
02
29
24
09
13
13
08
03
21
26
2120
26
36
28
23
31
03
10
28
2727
09
04
16
04
30
04
22
05
36
22
29
02
09
03
29
04 02
16
28
08
27
02
12
04
22
36
15
09
05
10
34
2320
04
14
21
19
2825
01
35
3232
28
0405
15
33
01
3335
03
3633
313635
06
3135
05
32
02
3236
353433 34 3136 31
01
24
30
33
TP39-RG04-W3TP39-RG07-W3 TP39-RG06-W3 TP39-RG05-W3
TP37-RG06-W3TP37-RG07-W3TP37-RG05-W3 TP37-RG04-W3
TP38-RG06-W3 TP38-RG05-W3TP38-RG07-W3
TP38-RG04-W3
£¤14
£¤305
£¤16
£¤12
£¤5
£¤305
£¤16
£¤12
£¤14
£¤11
£¤5
£¤41
£¤7
370,000
370,000
380,000
380,000
390,000
390,000
5,780
,000
5,780
,000
5,790
,000
5,790
,000
5,800
,000
5,800
,000
S. LONG, GIS Cert.
LOCATION OF THE SMPPPROJECT
M2112-2840010
M2112-21-49
2.1
DETAIL
NOTE:COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 13N.
LEGEND
RAILWAYMAJOR HIGHWAYPROPOSED SMPP LOCATION
!Ns
!Ns!Ns!Ns!Ns
REGINA
NIPAWIN
YORKTON
WEYBURN
MELFORT
ESTEVAN
HUMBOLDT
MELVILLE
SASKATOON
MOOSE JAW
KINDERSLEY
MEADOW LAKE
SWIFT CURRENT
PRINCE ALBERT
NORTH BATTLEFORD
MONTANA NORTH DAKOTA
SASKATCHEWAN MANITOBAALBERTA³
AS SHOWNSCALE DATE
DESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
³
Path:
P:\Fo
rtune
Mine
rals L
td\M2
112-2
8400
10 - G
eotec
hnica
l Hyd
rogeo
logica
l and
Envir
onme
ntal A
sses
smen
ts Fo
r Sas
katch
ewan
meta
ls Pr
oces
sing P
lant\3
. GIS\
2. Dr
awing
s\M21
12-21
-49 TA
SK 8F
(Site
Loca
tion).
mxd
DETAIL SCALE: 1:150,000PROVINCE SCALE: 1::6,000,000
DETAIL
02-MAY-11URBAN MUNICIPALITIES 02-MAY-11L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
CLIMATE STATION!Ns
THE PAS
- THE PAS (UPPER CLIMATE DATA STATION)- SASKATOON (SURFACE CLIMATE DATA STATION)
ELEVATION (masl)High : 1,388 Low : 206
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo. 02-MAY-11
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
2
9
6
5
41
19
27
2625
242322
21
20
18
171615
1413
3D
10
7A
3E
7C97C8 7C77C57C4 7C37C2 7C1
7C107C6
522.5
522
523
522.25
522.75
521.75
521.5523.25
521.25
523.5
521
523.75
522.5
522
522.75
523
523
521.75
522.75
522.25
521.5
522.75
522
522.75
522
522.75
522.2
5
522.75
521.5
522.5
521.25
522
522
521
522
521.5
521.25
522.75
522.25
522
523.25
522
522
521.25
523
523
522.5
523.25
522.25
522.5
522.5
522.5
523522.5
521.75
522.25
522.25
521.5
522
522
523
522.75
522.25
521.75
522
522522.75
523
522
521.75523
.25
370,050
370,050
370,200
370,200
370,350
370,350
370,500
370,500
370,650
370,650
5,802
,300
5,802
,300
5,802
,450
5,802
,450
5,802
,600
5,802
,600
5,802
,750
5,802
,750
SCALE 1:2,500 DATEDESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
S. LONG, GIS Cert. 02-MAY-11
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
SMPP MAIN BUILDINGS AND STACK LAYOUT
M2112-2840010M2112-21-45
NOTES:1. PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN PROVIDED BY FORTUNE MINERALS LIMITED. (July 21 2010 2000g001.dwg)2. 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC). 3. UTM COORDINATES ARE IN NAD 83 ZONE 13.
³ LEGEND
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUTRAILWAY
PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA
BISMUTHBUILDING
MAIN PROCESSBUILDING
SERVICECOMPLEX
OXYGENPLANT
COBALT COPPERELECTROWINNING
BUILDING
STACK LOCATION!(
NOISE BERM
DETAIL
OVERVIEW SCALE 1:40,000
CONTOUR 25 CENTIMETER INTERVAL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
³
BUILDING OUTLINE
2.2
1 AC Stack after Scrubber/Heat Recovery 21.3 370,391 5,802,426 2182 Cu SX Area Fan 15.0 370,252 5,802,466 254
3A Cu EW after cleaned w ith scrubber 15.0 370,252 5,802,487 2753B Co EW + Degas Kiln Stack after cleaned w ith scrubber 15.0 370,255 5,802,487 2764 Co Diss Area Fan 9.0 370,250 5,802,430 2185 Gold Refinery Stack 18.3 370,331 5,802,448 2396 Cyanide Prep + Detox Fan 5.5 370,355 5,802,478 269
7C1 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,522 3107C2 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,519 3077C3 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,516 3047C4 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,512 3007C5 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,509 2977C6 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,506 2947C7 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,504 2927C8 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,501 2897C9 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,498 2867C10 Crossflow Ventilation Co/Cu EW 15.0 370,252 5,802,495 283
9 Bi Plant Ventillation & Scrubber 16.0 370,290 5,802,570 35910 Bi EW Circuit 16.3 370,301 5,802,568 35812 Guar Gum Bin Vent - side w all 7.5 370,232 5,802,527 31513 MnSO4 Bin Vent - side w all 7.5 370,232 5,802,526 31414 Spare EW Reagent Mixing Bin Vent - side w all 7.5 370,232 5,802,529 31715 Sodium Metabisulphi te Bin Vent 7.5 370,270 5,802,444 23316 Lignosol Bin Vent 7.5 370,414 5,802,445 23817 PAX Bin Vent 7.5 370,452 5,802,436 23018 Cobalt Cathode Epoxy Curing Oven 15.0 370,238 5,802,558 34619 Merrill Crow e Dust Collector 15.0 370,440 5,802,524 31720 Gold EW Exhaust Fan 15.0 370,440 5,802,524 31721 Oxygen Plant - side w all 8.0 370,202 5,802,454 24122 Lime Wet Scrubber Stack 23.0 370,305 5,802,424 21423 Lime Bin Vent 23.0 370,306 5,802,424 21424 Soda Ash Bin Vent 20.0 370,281 5,802,423 21225 Assay Lab Baghouse Stack 15.0 370,435 5,802,524 31726 Assay Lab Scrubber Stack 15.0 370,440 5,802,524 31727 Sulphuric Acid Storage Tank Vent 8.0 370,250 5,802,424 212
Nearest Distance to Property Boundary
(m)Stack ID Feature Height (m) Easting (m) Northing (m)
RAILWAY SIDING
L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo.
02-MAY-11
02-MAY-11
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 4
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overview
FML supplied an Emission Inventory (EI) with a list of emission sources, emission rates, and
stack attributes. MDH completed the ADM using Alberta guidelines (AENV, 2009a) as
Saskatchewan has no detailed ADM guidelines in practice for industrial developments.
Saskatchewan recommends using air dispersion models approved for use by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) such as SCREEN 3 and AERMOD.
Guidelines based on Ontario regulations (Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2009) were also
used in situations where Alberta guidelines had no specific/detailed information. Figure 3.1
provides a flow chart of modelling phases involved in the study.
Figure 3.1 – Flow chart indicating steps involved in the ADM study (AENV, 2009a).
Air emission concentrations estimated by SCREEN 3 are typically higher than AERMOD
estimations. Therefore, the regulatory agencies recommend using the SCREEN 3 model as
Modelling assessment complete
Screen Modelling
Refined or Advanced Modelling
Redesign source or consult with
Regulators if needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Identify the source
Does the source emit substances?
Are Regulatory Air Quality Objectives met?
Are Regulatory Air Quality Objectives met?
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 5
a screening tool and suggest using AERMOD for a detailed estimation of air concentrations.
Based on the Alberta guidelines, the assessment was completed in two phases; 1) Screen
Modelling and 2) Refined and Advanced Modelling. Modelling steps involved in each phase
are described below.
3.2 Background Concentrations
Alberta guidelines recommend using at least one year of monitored data collected in the
vicinity of the proposed development or from a representative site. No monitored
background data was available for the proposed SMPP location. Therefore, background air
quality data from nearby air monitoring stations was acquired from the National Air Pollution
Surveillance Program (NAPS, 2010) and Western Interprovincial Scientific Studies
Association (WISSA, 2006).
3.3 Regulatory Ambient Air Quality Objectives (RAAOs)
Regulatory objectives were acquired from ambient air objectives of the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment (CCME), and regulatory agencies from Saskatchewan, Alberta,
Ontario, and Texas. For air emission parameters that have no Saskatchewan standards, the
lesser of the RAAOs available from the aforementioned sources were used to be POI
regulatory objectives along and beyond the proposed project boundary.
3.4 Phase I: Screen Modelling
The proposed emission rates were evaluated using SCREEN 3 to estimate maximum air
concentrations beyond the project boundary. The Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment
(MOE) recommends using SCREEN 3 model (EPA, 1995) to complete the screening phase
of the assessment. SCREEN 3 characteristics are summarized below:
The model estimates maximum (1 hour) ground level concentration for given air
emissions;
Incorporates the effects of building downwash on the maximum concentrations.
Downwash phenomenon is associated with the aerodynamic flow around an object
that causes emissions to be entrained into the wake of the object, i.e. around a
building (building downwash) or around a smokestack with too low an exit velocity
(stack-tip downwash);
Estimates concentrations in the cavity recirculation zone;
Estimates concentrations due to inversion break-up and shoreline fumigation
determining plume rise for flare releases;
The effects of simple elevated terrain (i.e. terrain not above stack top) on maximum
concentrations are incorporated into the model;
Estimates concentrations of simple area source emissions using a numerical
integration approach;
Calculates the maximum concentration at any number of user-specified distances in
flat or elevated simple terrain, including distances out to 50 km for long-range
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 6
transport; and
Examines a full range of meteorological conditions including all stability classes and
wind speeds to determine maximum impacts.
Maximum 1-hour ground level concentrations were estimated using the SCREEN 3 model.
The estimated concentrations represent the highest air concentrations beyond the property
boundary, as a result of the project air emissions. These typically represent POI
concentrations for the project emissions. The concentrations were added to the
corresponding background air quality data and compared with the RAAOs. For parameters
with no 1-hour regulatory objectives, lower regulatory objectives for available averages were
used with the below conversion factor recommended by Ontario Ministry of Environment
(2009).
o Conversion factor =
Where, = shorter averaging period;
= longer averaging period;
= 0.28 (a recommended value); and
o Subsequently, the 24-hour and annual concentrations were divided by 0.41
and 0.078, respectively, and used as 1-hour concentrations.
As recommended by Alberta guidelines (Figure 3.1), the facility emissions that had non-
compliance with the regulatory objectives were further evaluated using a refined or advanced
modelling.
3.5 Phase II: Refined or Advanced Modelling
As recommended by the Government of Saskatchewan (2010), AERMOD (EPA, 2004) was
selected to complete the Phase II assessment in this study. Modelling characteristics of
AERMOD are described below:
Capable of dealing with a combination of multiple sources such as point, area, line,
volume, flares, etc.;
Dispersion algorithm is a steady-state Gaussian plume air dispersion model;
Calculates concentrations up to 50 km from the source (s) for various average
periods;
Utilizes a pre-processed surface and upper meteorological data developed by the
AERMET model to characterize meteorology effect on emission plume;
Considers topographical data in pre-processed format developed by an EPA module,
AERMAP, to characterize any topographical effects on emission plume; and,
Calculates building downwash effects by using a Building Profile Input Program
(BPIP) that is capable of dealing with multiple buildings.
The facility air emissions estimated in Phase II were added to the corresponding background
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 7
data and compared with the RAAOs to determine if any additional mitigative measures are
required.
4.0 PROJECT EMISSIONS
4.1 SMPP Process
Bulk concentrate containing approximately 8% moisture will be shipped by truck/rail from the
NICO mine in lined bags. Concentrate will be removed from the bags and slurried with
water. Figure 4.1 shows a flow diagram of the SMPP process. The bulk concentrate slurry
will be fed to a cyclone that operates in a closed circuit with a regrind mill. After the
concentrate slurry is ground to the appropriate size, froth flotation will be used for the
separation of the bismuth and cobalt containing minerals.
The bismuth stream will contain bismuth minerals and will have a high gold content (the
bismuth concentrate), while the cobalt stream will contain several minerals including cobalt,
iron, gold, and copper (the cobalt concentrate). No tailings will be produced from the froth
flotation circuit as both concentrates contain recoverable metals. Each product stream will
be dewatered prior to further processing and the water will be recycled to slurry the next
batch of NICO concentrate.
Figure 4.1 – SMPP Process flow diagram.
Concentrate Regrind and
Flotation
Cobalt Concentrate Pressure Acid
Leach Oxidation
Bismuth Recovery -
Chloride Leach
Cobalt Metal Production
Cobalt Recovery Precipitation
Stages
Gold Recovery
Copper Cathode Product
Copper Metal Recovery
Cobalt Cathode Product
Bismuth Metal Production
Gold (Doré) Bars
Bismuth Cathode Product
Residue Storage Facility
Water Treatment & RO Package
Fresh Water Inputs
NICO Bulk Concentrate
Receiving
Brine Injection System
Process Water Cooling Pond
Cyanide Destruction
Process
Saline Aquifer
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 8
4.1.1 Pressure Acid Leach Oxidation of Cobalt Concentrate
The cobalt concentrate will be fed into a pressurized vessel (an autoclave) operating at a
temperature of 180°C and a pressure of 2,100 kilopascals (kPa). The retention time in the
vessel will be approximately sixty minutes. Oxygen, supplied by an on-site oxygen plant, will
be continually injected into the slurry. The autoclave will oxidize 85% to 90% of the sulphide
minerals, producing sulphuric acid to remove (leach) over 95% of the cobalt from the
concentrate. The cobalt, copper, and a number of other metals report to the liquid phase of
the slurry while gold remains in the solid phase. Under these conditions, iron, arsenic and
oxygen react to form scorodite, an environmentally stable form of arsenic mineral that also
reports to a solid phase.
The slurry will then be fed to a series of wash thickeners, filters, and clarifiers, separating the
soluble cobalt and copper from the insoluble gold and scorodite. Cobalt and copper will be
recovered from the solution stream while gold will be recovered from the insoluble stream.
These processes are described in the following sections.
Heat will be produced by the generation of acid in the autoclave. To maintain a constant
temperature and controlled conditions, cooling water will be injected into the autoclave. This
represents the majority of the site's process water requirements. As required, some of the
stream will enter a heat recovery unit to supply heat to the thawing shed or other process
vessels. The off-gases from the autoclave will be vented to a double stage scrubber and
released to the atmosphere as steam. Air emissions from the autoclave (Stack #1) are
detailed in Section 4.2.
4.1.2 Cobalt Recovery
The cobalt-rich solution will be pumped to a series of precipitation stages with increasing
alkalinity to reduce the solubility of various target metals. These stages include thickening or
filtering of the slurry for effective removal of the solid precipitates. The solutions will be fed to
the next stage for further processing. The precipitation stages are:
Stage 1: Iron-Arsenic Precipitation.
Lime will be used to increase the pH for the precipitation of copper and any remaining iron-
arsenic hydroxides. These solids will then be re-leached for copper recovery (described in
the section 4.1.4).
Stage 2: Copper Precipitation.
Sodium carbonate will be used to increase the pH to remove any residual copper. The solid
precipitates will be dissolved by acid from the autoclave and recycled back to Stage 1.
Stage 3: Cobalt Precipitation.
Sodium carbonate will be used to precipitate cobalt as cobalt carbonate, along with a small
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 9
amount of impurities (zinc, copper, and nickel). This precipitate could be sold as a cobalt
carbonate if required, but the SMPP will include facilities to upgrade this carbonate solid to a
high purity cobalt metal.
Stage 4: Scavenger Precipitation.
Sodium hydroxide will be used to increase the pH to precipitate any remaining metals. The
precipitates will be dissolved by acid from the autoclave and recycled back to Stage 1 for a
second pass recovery.
The remaining solution from this process will be recycled back to the high pressure acid
leach oxidation step.
4.1.3 Cobalt Metal Production
The cobalt carbonate resulting from the stage 3 precipitation will be re-dissolved in a
sulphuric acid solution in a closed circuit. An ion exchange (IX) system will be used to
remove zinc, copper, and nickel contaminates and electrowinning (EW) will be used to
produce the cobalt metal. This process is commonly referred to as ion-
exchange/electrowinning (IX/EW).
The solution will be fed to a series of packed columns containing specific ion-exchange
resins for zinc, copper, and nickel. Ionic exchange resins immobilize target metals through
the exchange of hydrogen ions. Intermittently, the zinc, copper and nickel are stripped from
the ion-exchange resin using a strong sulphuric acid solution, and precipitated as a mixed
carbonate. These precipitates will be filtered, bagged, and prepared for sale.
The remaining high-purity cobalt solution will be processed in a cobalt electrowinning plant to
produce cobalt metal. In electrowinning, an electrical current is passed through a liquid
containing dissolved metal causing the target metal to collect on the positive electrode (the
cathode). Spent solution containing reduced cobalt levels, will be continuously recycled to
dissolve the stage 3 cobalt carbonate precipitate. Fully developed cobalt metal cathodes will
be produced over a five to six day period. The cobalt metal cathodes will be washed and
sold as high purity cobalt metal.
Air emissions from the cobalt EW unit (Stack #3b) and the cobalt dissolution fan (Stack #4)
are detailed in Section 4.2.
4.1.4 Copper Recovery
Copper is a major by-product of cobalt recovery. Saleable copper metal is recovered from
the Stage 1 precipitate by dissolving (re-leaching) the copper with dilute sulphuric acid.
Gypsum and iron-arsenic precipitates remain in the solid phase as stable precipitates. The
copper re-leach residue will be filtered and stored in the PRSF. Solvent extraction and
electrowinning (SX/EW) will be used to recover copper from solutions generated by the
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 10
dissolution process.
A chemical extractant transported by kerosene will be used as a solvent to recover the
copper from solution. The solvent, containing the copper, will be transferred to a scrubbing
stage and will be contacted with a strong sulphuric acid solution to strip the copper from an
organic phase, back to the water phase. The scrubbing solution will then be transferred to
an electrowinning circuit for recovery as copper metal sheets, in a process similar to the one
previously described for cobalt. The organic phase of the precipitate, depleted in copper, will
be recycled for reuse.
Air emissions from the copper SX fan (Stack #2) and copper EW unit (Stack #3a) are
detailed in Section 4.2.
4.1.5 Bismuth Recovery
The recovery of bismuth at the proposed facility is an innovative process developed by
Fortune Minerals Limited and its partners. It has been demonstrated successfully at the pilot
plant scale. The process is referred to as the chloride leach electro-recovery (CLER)
process. Bismuth concentrate will be leached in tanks using a concentrated ferric chloride
solution. This chloride solution, produced by mixing sulphuric acid and sodium chloride, will
be contacted with the concentrate in two stages to dissolve the iron and bismuth in the
concentrate. After solid-liquid separation, the solution containing the iron and bismuth is fed
to a modified electrowinning circuit for the production of high purity bismuth metal powder.
The washed residue is processed for gold recovery (described in section 4.1.6) and the
solution, containing iron, is recycled to the leaching stage after reagent make-up. The
bismuth metal may be sold as powder or a cast metal ingot.
A stream from the primary electrowinning stage is removed from the circuit to maintain circuit
flow balance. This bleed stream is directed to a secondary stage electro-recovery circuit
based on the same design principles as the first stage circuit. Two waste streams will be
produced, the solution bleed and a stable precipitate. Residual concentrations of iron and
arsenic in the bleed solution will be removed by the addition of air or oxygen and lime to
precipitate iron arsenate. Gypsum will also be produced and the filtered solids will be stored
in the PRSF. The remaining solution will contain elevated levels of chlorides suitable for
deep well injection into an underground saline aquifer.
4.1.6 Gold Recovery
There are two gold recovery methods in the SMPP process, one for the bismuth residue and
one for the cobalt residue.
Bismuth Circuit Cyanidation: Following washing, gold will be recovered from the bismuth
process residue through cyanidation, a standard metallurgical process for extracting gold
from ore. The gold is dissolved into solution as a gold-cyanide molecule that can be
concentrated and/or treated for recovery to doré, the form of gold commonly recognized as a
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 11
bar. To minimize the amount of cyanide used, the residue produced each day will be treated
in one of four batch cyanidation tanks. After cyanidation, the slurry will be pumped from the
tank to a pressure filter for dewatering. The washed filter cake will be discharged for a
second-pass gold recovery along with the autoclave discharge solids (described below). The
resulting filtrate is very rich in gold. The solution will be directed to the gold electrowinning
circuit to recover the gold as a metal powder. The spent solution will subsequently be used
to re-pulp new residue in the system.
Cobalt Circuit Cyanidation: Following solid-liquid separation of the autoclave discharge, the
solids and slurry components will be treated for gold recovery along with the remaining solids
from the bismuth circuit cyanidation. The solids will be contacted with cyanide in a
continuous cyanidation process rather than the batch process. The slurry will then be filtered
and washed after cyanidation. A stable scorodite solid from the autoclave will remain and
will be stored permanently on-site in the PRSF. The gold-rich solution will be processed
using the Merrill-Crowe process, a common industrial process to remove gold from solution
by cementation with zinc dust. The zinc-gold dust particles will then be filtered from solution.
The solids will be cast into doré metal (gold bars) while the cyanide solution will be recycled
in the process. Any excess solution from the cyanidation process will be treated by a
conventional cyanide destruction unit with hydrogen peroxide.
The gold recovery process includes air emission sources from Stacks #5, #6, #9, #10, and
#19. Additional air emissions sources and the air emissions associated with the above metal
recovery processes are detailed in Section 4.2.
4.1.7 Residue Storage
Waste residues from the recovery of metals will be deposited into an engineered
containment facility with primary and secondary containment. All solid waste residue
streams will be filtered to maximize water recycling and minimize reagent consumption. As
described in the process description above, there will be three residues which will require
long-term storage on-site:
Washed residue from the acid leach recovery of cobalt and gold cyanidation;
Copper re-leach iron/gypsum residue from the recovery of copper; and
Iron precipitate solids from the bismuth CLER circuit.
Since the PRSF will be capped with a store and release cover that prevents water infiltration
and includes a layer of top soil, no significant air emissions are expected from this facility.
4.2 Air Emissions
The proposed SMPP facility will have emissions from 25 stack sources, vehicles used during
construction and operation, and an emergency diesel generator. A list of substances that
potentially could be emitted from the proposed SMPP can be found in Table 4.1. The stack
attributes and the estimated emission rates are summarized in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 12
Additional details of the emissions sources and emission rates are summarized below:
o The proposed mitigative measures include bag houses, demisters, and scrubbers
with single and double stages. A single or a combination of these control measures
will be installed to Stacks #1, #3a, #3b, #7, #9, #10, #22, #25, and #26 to minimize
project air emissions;
o Stack #1, autoclave will have a two-stage wet scrubber manufactured by DESOM
with a venturi scrubber efficiency of 97% and 99% for first and second stage aqueous
entrainment, respectively, and 99% for both the first and second stage for solids
entrainment. A schematic diagram of the autoclave scrubber system is presented in
Figure 4.2;
o VOCs from Stack #2 (Copper Solvent Extraction Area Fan) emissions include
approximately 88% Kerosene and 12% Cognis LIX 84-I;
o A single stage scrubber with 98.5% efficiency will be used for Stacks #3a, #3b, #9,
and #10;
o It is noted that cyanide concentrations will not be emitted from any of the stacks;
o Demisters, a type of air emission control measure, will be installed on Stack #7. It is
noted that the Stack #7 emission rates presented in Table 4.2 indicate emission rate
before applying the demisters (conservative);
o Stacks #2, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, and #21 will have horizontal orientation
while the remaining stacks will be vertical. It is noted that vertical orientation of
emission sources will result in lower air concentration due to increased effective
release height in comparison with horizontally oriented stack, for a given emission;
o Emergency diesel generator will have 50 hours of annual testing;
o The process residue will approximately have 31% moisture content and will be stored
in containment cells which will eventually have a vegetation cover; therefore, air
emissions from the residue storage facility will be negligible.
Figure 4.2 – A schematic block diagram of autoclave scrubber system.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 13
Emission rates for each source were supplied by FML and were estimated using either a
single procedure or a combination of the below procedures:
o Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) which includes consideration of natural
gas combustion rates, hydrometallurgical modelling simulations using METSIM;
o Typical industrial design data used in hydrometallurgical data; and
o Vendor mechanical design packages for individual processing units.
Table 4.1 – Possible air emissions from the proposed SMPP facility.
Substance Symbol
Total Particulate Matter PMT
Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns PM2.5
Nitrogen Oxides NOx
Nitrogen Dioxide NO2
Carbon Monoxide CO
Sulphur Dioxide SO2
Water Mist H2O
Carbon Dioxide CO2
Volatile Organic Carbons VOCs
Arsenic As
Lead Pb
Zinc Zn
Manganese Mn
Iron Fe
Cobalt Co
Nickel Ni
Copper Cu
Sulfur S
Sulfuric Acid H2SO4 mist
Diesel Particulate Matter D.P.M.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 14
Table 4.2 – Air emissions sources (#1 through #13) from the proposed SMPP facility.
1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Air Emission
Substance/ AttributeUnits
AC Stack after
Scrubber/Heat
Recovery
Cu SX
Area Fan
Cu EW after
cleaned with
Scrubber
Co EW + Degas
Kiln Stack after
Cleaned w/
Scrubber
Co
Dissolution
Area Fan
Gold Refinery
Stack
Cyanide
Mixing &
Detox Fan
Crossflow
Ventilation
Co/Cu EW
Stationary
Diesel
Equipment - Fire
Pump/
Generator
Bi Plant
Ventil'n
& Scrubber
Bi Plant
Ventil'n
& Scrubber
Mobile
Equipment
Guar Gum
Bin Vent -
side wall
MnSO4 Bin
Vent - side
wall
PMT kg/h 0.035 - 0.003 0.006 - - - 0.006 0.015 - - 0.0002 0.004 0.009
NO2/NOX kt/a - - - - - 0.0001 - - 4.80E-07 - - 0.0005 - -
CO Nm3/a - - - - - - - - 0.21 - - 20.49 - -
H2O 55.19 - - 0.03 0.05 - - 1.59 0.01 3.40 3.40 1.33 - -
CO2 0.34 - - 0.04 2.20 0.0001 0.12 1.95 0.03 - - 3.25 - -
VOCs kg/a - 5.97 - - - - - - - - - - - -
As 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pb 0.00 - - 0.004 - - - - - - - - - -
Zn 0.00 - - 0.0017 - - - - - - - - - -
Mn 0.00 - - 0.002 - - - - - - - - - 0.01
Fe 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Co 0.05 - - 0.071 - - - 0.0587 - - - - - -
Ni 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cu 0.01 - 0.0079 - - - - 0.0074 - - - - - -
S 0.19 - - 0.004 - - - - - - - - - -
H2SO4 mist kg/h 0.009 - 0.003 0.003 - - - 0.0037 - - - - - -
Temperature °C 97 5 to 20 20 to 60 80 64 100 51 10 NA 25 25 NA Ambient Ambient
Height m 21.3 15 15 15 9 18.3 5.5 16.0 16.3 7.5 7.5
Easting 370,391 370,255 370,252 370,255 370,250 370,331 370,355 370,290 370,301 370,232 370,232
Northing 5,802,426 5,802,487 5,802,487 5,802,487 5,802,430 5,802,448 5,802,478 5,802,570 5,802,568 5,802,527 5,802,526
Diameter/Duct Size mm 500 800 x 800 300 1,000 800 x 800 750 800 x 800 1,520 305 406 152 152
Exit Velocity m/s 29.1 3.0 1.3 1.1 3.0 0.3 3.0 5.21 10.1 5.9 2.8 2.8
Quantity stacks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1
Total Flow m3/s 5.72 1.92 0.09 0.90 1.92 0.15 1.92 94 3.0 3.1 0.05 0.05
Total Flow per stack m3/s 5.72 1.92 0.09 0.90 1.92 0.15 1.92 9.4 3.0 3.1 0.05 0.05
Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous ContinuousTwice per week,
six hours each
time
Continuous Continuous Emergency only Continuous Continuous ContinuousTwo hours per
day
Two hours per
day
Note 1: '-' indicates either estimated to be in zero concentrations based on METSIM or negligible concentrations based on engineered calculations, assumptions, or specifications.
Note 2: PMT includes metals, H2SO4 and diesel particulate matter.
Stack ID
kt/a
Exhaust
Blowers at
Co/Cu EW
Eff Treat Area/
Service
Complex
Non-specific
Operation period
kg/day
Coordinate
One Multiple
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 15
Table 4.3 – Air emissions sources (#14 through #27) from the proposed SMPP facility.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Air Emission
Substance/ AttributeUnits
Spare EW
Reagent Mixing
Bin Vent - side
wall
Sodium
Metabisulphite
Bin Vent
Lignosol Bin
Vent
PAX Bin
Vent
Cobalt
Cathode
Epoxy Curing
Oven
Merrill Crowe
Dust
Collector
Gold EW
Exhaust Fan
Oxygen Plant
- side wall
Lime Wet
Scrubber
Stack
Lime Bin
Vent
Soda Ash
Bin Vent
Assay Lab
Baghouse
Stack
Assay Lab
Scrubber
Stack
Sulphuric Acid
Storage Tank
Vent
PMT kg/h 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 - 0.004 - - - 0.004 0.004 0.004 - -
Temperature °C Ambient Ambient Ambient Ambient > 100 Ambient Ambient Ambient Ambient Ambient Ambient > 100 C Ambient Ambient
Height m 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 15 15 15 8 23 23 20 15 15 8
Easting 370,232 370,270 370,414 3,700,452 370,238 370,440 370,440 370,202 370,305 370,306 370,281 370,435 370,440 370250
Northing 5,802,529 5,802,444 5,802,445 5,802,436 5,802,558 5,802,524 5,802,524 5,802,454 580,424 580,424 5,802,423 580,524 5,802,524 580424
Diameter/Duct Size mm 152 152 152 152 300 152 800 x 800 1000 x 1000 300 300 300 300 300 100
Exit Velocity m/s 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 NA 2.8 3.0 6.00 6.0 6.0 6.0 33.2 20.1 0.3
Quantity stacks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total Flow m3/s 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 NA 0.05 1.92 6.00 0.43 0.43 0.43 2.35 1.42 0.002
2 2 2 2 12 Continuous Continuous Continuous 2 4 4 Continuous Continuous Once per week
Note: '-' indicates either estimated to be in zero concentrations based on METSIM or negligible concentrations based on engineered calculations, assumptions, or specifications.
Coordinate (Easting
and Northing)
Stack ID
Number of Hours Per Day
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 16
5.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The AERMOD and SCREEN 3 models were developed by integrating topographical,
landuse, and surface and upper meteorological data of the study area. The models require
different levels of the existing environmental data detailed in the below sections.
5.1 AERMOD Model
5.1.1 Meteorological Conditions
Surface and upper meteorological data are required by AERMOD to characterize mixing
height and wind effect on plume dispersion. Alberta guidelines recommend using either
one year of site-specific meteorological data or 5 years of data from a nearby climate station.
Long-term surface meteorological measurements are often available from Environment
Canada for major cities/towns. However, availability of long-term upper air data monitoring
stations in Saskatchewan is relatively sparse. Saskatchewan is currently in the process of
developing long-term meteorological data for air dispersion modelling (Government of
Saskatchewan, 2010).
In the current study, the Saskatoon climate station, located approximately 30 km southeast
from the proposed SMPP location, was selected to represent surface meteorological
conditions of the study area. The upper meteorological data for the study area was selected
from The Pas, MB climate station, located approximately 400 km northeast of the proposed
SMPP site (Figure 2.1). The surface and upper air data were acquired from Environment
Canada (2010) and Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL, 2010), respectively. The
selection criteria for the stations include proximity, data availability, and similarity in the
Prairie meteorological conditions between the proposed study area and the selected climate
stations. Figure 5.1 shows typical patterns of surface climatic conditions from 1971 to 2000
for the Saskatoon meteorological station.
Recent meteorological data for a 5-year period (2005-2009) was acquired from Environment
Canada (2010) for the AERMOD modelling. A summary of the surface air data used in the
AERMOD model is presented in Table 5.1. Figure 5.2 shows wind rose diagrams for the
surface meteorological data. The wind direction in the study area is predominantly from the
northwest.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 17
Figure 5.1 – Climatic normals of Saskatoon meteorological station.
Table 5.1 – Summary of climatic variables for surface air data from 2005-2009.
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Air
Te
mp
era
ture
(A
T,
oC
)
Pre
cip
ita
tio
n (
mm
)
Month
Rainfall
Snowfall (Water Equivalent)
Daily Average AT
Daily Maximum AT
Daily Minimum AT
Climatic Variable Minimum Maximum Average
Temperature (oC) -40.9 36.8 2.5
Relative Humidity (%) 14.0 100.0 73.4
Cloud Cover (tenths) 0.0 10.0 5.0
Pressure (mb) 922.6 982.6 954.3
Wind Direction (degrees) n/a n/a 200.8
Wind Speed (m/s) 0.0 19.4 4.3
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 18
Figure 5.2 – Wind rose diagrams of the surface meteorological data used in the air dispersion modelling.
2005 2006 2007
2008 2009 2005-09
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 19
5.1.2 Topography
A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was used to represent topography of the study area in the
AERMOD models developed in the present study (Figure 5.3). The attributes of the DEMs
are summarized in Table 5.2. The topography within and around the proposed SMPP site is
relatively flat. The elevations at the proposed SMPP site vary from approximately
520 metres above sea level (masl) near the southeast corner, to 525 masl along the
northeast side. The slope classes within and around the proposed SMPP site vary from
gently sloping (0.5% to 2%) to moderately sloping (5% to 10%), based on the DEM. The
North Saskatchewan River is located approximately 6 km northwest of the proposed SMPP
site and has a minimum elevation of approximately 440 masl along its thalweg.
Figure 5.3 – Topography within and around the proposed SMPP site used in AERMOD model.
Table 5.2 – Attributes of the terrain data.
Data Source www.geobase.ca
Data Extent Within ~10 km radius from the SMPP site
Vertical Accuracy 5 m
Horizontal Accuracy 10 m
Horizontal Resolution 19 m
Time Period 1986-1996 (NTDB data dates)
Attribute Details
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 20
5.1.3 Landuse
The air dispersion model requires surface landuse characteristics to determine the degree of
ground turbulence caused by the passage of winds across the ground surface. Existing
landuse characteristics within and around the proposed SMPP site include cropland, prairie
wetlands, and hay lands. Cultivated land is the predominant landuse type in the vicinity of
the proposed SMPP location. These landuse conditions were characterized by surface
roughness, Albedo, and Bowen Ratio values shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 – Surface modelling parameters (AENV, 2009a).
5.1.4 Receptors
AERMOD estimates the concentrations of air emissions for a given source location at user-
defined locations which are often referred to as „receptors‟. A nested receptor grid
(Table 5.4) as recommended by Alberta guidelines was used in the AERMOD model to
ensure maximum ground-level concentrations are estimated. A view of the receptor grid is
shown in Figure 5.4.
Table 5.4 – Receptor grid spacing (AENV, 2009a).
Landuse Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Surface roughness 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.01
Albedo 0.14 0.20 0.18 0.60
Bowen Ratio 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.50*Definition of Seasons:
"Spring" refers to periods when vegetation is emerging or partially green. This is a transitional situation that
applies for 1-2 months after the last killing frost in spring.
"Summer" applies to the period when vegetation is lush and healthy, typical of midsummer, but also of other
seasons where frost is less common.
"Autumn" refers to a period when freezing conditions are common, deciduous trees are leafless, crops are
not yet planted or are already harvested (bare soil exposed), grass surfaces are brown, and no snow is
present."Winter" conditions occur when surfaces are snow-covered and subfreezing air temperatures are prevelant.
* Winter Bowen ratios depend upon whether a snow cover is present. Bowen ratios range from the value
listed for autumn for rare snow covers to the value listed for winter for a continuous snow cover.
Distance away from project boundary (km) Grid Spacing (m)
0.0 20
0.5 50
2.0 250
5.0 500
Greater than 5.0 1,000
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 21
Figure 5.4 – Nested receptor grid used in the AERMOD Model.
5.2 SCREEN 3 Model
The air emission rates for each air emission substance and stack were converted to 1-hour
emission rates, as previously described (Section 3.4), and corresponding air concentrations
were estimated with the modelling parameters described below.
Meteorology
To estimate maximum air concentration for a given substance, all meteorological stability
classes (A through F) were used in the SCREEN 3 modelling. A stability class typically
represents the atmospheric turbulence, Class A being most unstable or most turbulence
class and Class F the most stable or least turbulent class (Pasquill, 1961).
Topography
The proposed SMPP location has a relatively flat terrain within and around the site.
Furthermore, the ground elevation around the proposed stack location is not greater than the
lowest stack height (7.5 m). Therefore, a simple terrain feature was used in the SCREEN 3
modelling.
Building Downwash
Building largest lateral dimensions were inputted for each stack location to characterize
cavity/downwash effect due to the surrounding buildings. A summary of the building
dimensions can be found in Table 5.5.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 22
Table 5.5 – Details of the proposed main buildings at SMPP.
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The highest ground level POI concentrations estimated beyond the property boundary were
added to the background air quality data and compared with RAAOs to determine if the
proposed development requires any additional mitigative measures. The background air
quality data and RAAOs are summarized in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2, respectively. The
following points were incorporated into the air dispersion models.
The 24-hour and annual averages of the background air quality data correspond to 90
and 50 percentiles, respectively, taken from a distribution of monitored air quality
data;
Background data for the air emissions PM2.5, NO2, NOX, CO, Pb, Zn, Mn, Fe, Ni, and
S were acquired from 2009 Saskatoon NAPS data;
No specific monitored background data was available for PMT. Therefore, PMT
background data was conservatively estimated to be four times the PM2.5
concentration based on Brook et al. (1997);
Total VOC (TVOC), As, Co, and Cu concentrations were acquired from 2004
monitored data from WISSA (2006) study;
The plant VOC emissions include Kerosene and LIX 84i compounds. The specific
background data for these compounds were not available, rather TVOC concentration
was available. Therefore, a conservative estimate of 60% of the TVOC concentration
was used as background concentration of Kerosene and LIX-84i compounds; and
As no background data was available for H2SO4 concentration, a conservative value
of 1 µg/m3 was used even though very small (almost zero) concentrations can be
observed in the proposed SMPP region.
Building Activities Dimension (L X W X H)
Service Complex
Administration offices, security, first aid, change rooms,
lunch room, analytical lab, warehouse, product storage,
product shipping, maintenance areas
73 m x 55 m* x 10 m
Main Process Building
Concentrate receiving, pressure oxidation and leaching,
residue precipitation and filtration, cobalt precipitation, ion
exchange columns, gold cyanidation and recovery, gold
product casting, water treatment.
259 m* x 59 m* x 10 m
Oxygen Plant Oxygen production 25 m x 32 m x 9 m
Cobalt and Copper
Electrowinning
Cobalt electrowinning cells, copper solvent extraction,
copper electrowinning cells90 m x 20 m x 15 m
Bismuth BuildingBismuth recovery by chloride leach and electrowinning,
bismuth product melting and casting65 m x 19 m x 15 m
* Measurements are furthest extent of building.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 23
Table 6.1 – Background air quality data (NAPS (2010) and WISSA (2006)).
A summary of the Phase I results with SCREEN 3 estimated concentrations of the facility
emissions is presented in Table 6.3. The below assumptions were considered in the
estimation of the facility emission concentrations:
As no particulate size distribution was available in the given emission inventory, PMT
concentrations were additionally evaluated as PM2.5, to be conservative;
NOx concentrations include NO2 and NO concentrations. Emissions of NOX consist
mainly of NO, with some NO2. In ambient air, NO converts to NO2 which has adverse
effects at much lower concentrations than NO. A conservative conversion of NOx to
NO2 was used by considering 100% of NOX as NO2, as recommended by Alberta
guidelines;
The parameters that had no Saskatchewan regulatory objectives were estimated
according to the lowest value of the available regulatory objectives; and
The lower ambient air quality objective for the Kerosene and LIX-84i compounds
(VOCs) was considered to be conservative. It is noted that Kerosene has lower
regulatory objectives based on Texas regulatory objectives.
24 hour Annual
PMT 28.67 13.60
PM2.5 7.17 3.40
NO2 38.24 16.37
NOx 63.17 26.49
CO 309.10 217.51
TVOC 36.00 10.00
As 0.0013 0.0013
Pb 0.02 0.01
Zn 0.02 0.00
Mn 0.02 0.01
Fe 0.52 0.18
Co 0.006 0.006
Ni 0.01 0.00
Cu 0.01 0.01
S 0.66 0.31
Parameter
Saskatoon Background
Concentrations (μg/m3)
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 24
Based on the Phase I modelling results, all the facility emissions except Particulate
Matter <2.5 µm (PM2.5) and Cobalt (Co) emissions are in compliance with the RAAOs.
Therefore, the refined or advance modelling (Phase II) was used to further evaluate the two
facility emissions.
Table 6.2 – Regulatory Ambient Air Quality Objectives (RAAOs) (units are µg/m3).
AERMOD based air dispersion models were developed by integrating the project emission
sources, buildings, topography, landuse, and surface and upper meteorological air data. The
models were used to complete the refined or advanced modelling for the project emissions
PM2.5 and Co. The results are summarized in Table 6.4 and the contours of the estimated
concentrations are presented in Figure 6.1 through Figure 6.6. Air emission concentrations
vary temporally. Therefore, the estimated ground level concentrations are presented for 1-
hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging periods.
1 hour 24 hour Annual 1 hour 24 hour Annual 1 hour 24 hour Annual 1 hour 24 hour Annual
PMT 120 70 400 100 120 60 120 70
PM2.5 30 30 15
NO2 400 100 400 200 60 400 200 400 200 100
CO 15,000 450 36,200 15,000 6,000
VOCs 5**
As 0.1* 0.01* 0.3
Pb 5 1.5 0.5
Zn 120 120
Mn 2* 0.2* 2.5
Fe 4
Co 0.1
Ni 6* 0.05* 2
Cu 50 50
S 5
H2SO4 10 5
Highlighted standards are used in the study; * Alberta refers to Texas objectives; ** This objective is based on Texas
requlatory standards and considers a minimum air quality standard among Kerosene (lowest) and LIX-84i components'
objectives.
Parameter
Saskatchewan
Environment (2007)
Alberta Environment
(2009b)
Ontario Minister of
Environment (2005)CCME (1999)
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 25
Table 6.3 – Summary of Phase I modelling 1-hour averaging period results (units are µg/m3).
Table 6.4 – Summary of Phase II modelling results (units are µg/m3).
The results of the ADM study are summarized below:
Considering extreme, transient, and rare meteorological conditions, the regulatory
agencies recommend disregarding the highest eight and one for 1-hour and 24-hour
predicted average concentrations, respectively. However, the eight highest predicted
concentrations were included when calculating the 24-hour and annual averages;
ParameterFacility
Modelled
Saskatoon
BackgroundTotal
Requlatory
ObjectiveIs Objective Met ?
PMT 20.82 69.80 90.62 243.48 Yes
PM2.5 20.82 17.45 38.27 36.52 No
NOx 41.07 153.80 194.88 400 Yes
CO 1.44 752.59 754.03 15,000 Yes
VOCs 0.11 52.59 52.70 64 Yes
As 0.01 0.003 0.01 0.10 Yes
Pb 0.02 0.04 0.06 1.22 Yes
Zn 0.01 0.04 0.05 292.17 Yes
Mn 1.19 0.05 1.24 2.00 Yes
Fe 0.01 1.26 1.27 9.74 Yes
Co 0.62 0.014 0.63 0.24 No
Ni 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.64 Yes
Cu 0.08 0.01 0.09 121.74 Yes
S 0.14 1.60 1.73 63.51 Yes
H2SO4 Mist 1.30 1.00 2.30 10.00 Yes
*The parameters that have no 1-hour regulatory objectives from Saskatchewan were
estimated based on the lowest available 24-hour and annual standards (Section 3.4).
ParameterAveraging
Period
Facility
Modeled
Saskatoon
BackgroundTotal
Requlation
LimitConclusion
PM2.5 7.25 17.45 24.70
Co 0.30 0.014 0.31
PM2.5 1.24 7.17 8.41 15.00 In Compliance
Co 0.06 0.006 0.07 0.10 In Compliance
PM2.5 0.15 3.40 3.55
Co 0.01 0.006 0.02
1-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
No Regulatory Limits Available
No Regulatory Limits Available
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 26
The 9th highest and 2nd highest estimated concentrations were considered to
represent 1-hour and 24-hour averaging periods, respectively;
In the present study, the highest estimated concentrations from the project emissions
beyond the project boundary were added to the background data and compared with
the regulatory objectives;
Based on the results, the estimated concentrations of PM2.5 and Co and their
corresponding background data beyond the property boundary are lower than the
regulatory ambient air objectives;
For a conservative analysis, the PM2.5 emissions were considered to be particulate
matter of all sizes (including larger than 2.5 µm). In addition, metals and sulphuric
acid mist were also added to the PM2.5 emissions;
As the proposed development is located in a rural area and the available background
air quality data was taken from the largest city in the province (Saskatoon),
background air quality at the proposed SMPP site will have lower concentrations of
air emissions;
Regulatory ambient air objectives for 1-hour and annual averages of the emissions
PM2.5 and Co are not available. However, the estimated concentrations for the
facility emissions are not significantly high;
Dominant Green House Gases (GHG) from the proposed facility include CO2, water
vapour, and NOx. The GHG emission rates and the corresponding concentrations
from the facility are not expected to have significant impact on regional/global GHG
emissions;
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) emissions from the proposed development will be minimal and
are not expected to cause significant impact on environment and human health
conditions;
It is noted that the proposed mitigative measures include the installation of bag
houses, demisters, and scrubbers with single and double stages; and
Cumulative effect within and around the proposed development is negligible as no
major industrial development, that emits significant air emissions, are situated within
10 km of from the proposed facility.
SE-23-39-07-W3
NE-14-39-07-W3
SW-23-39-07-W3
NW-14-39-07-W3 NW-13-39-07-W3
SE-22-39-07-W3
SW-24-39-07-W3
NE-15-39-07-W3
SW-14-39-07-W3 SE-14-39-07-W3SE-15-39-07-W3
SW-13-39-07-W3
NE-23-39-07-W3 NW-24-39-07-W3NW-23-39-07-W3NE-22-39-07-W3
3.744
11.229
0.001
3.744
7.487
7.487
369,000
369,000
370,000
370,000
371,000
371,000
5,802
,000
5,802
,000
5,803
,000
5,803
,000
5,804
,000
5,804
,000
SCALE 1:10,000 DATEDESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
S. LONG, GIS Cert. 02-MAY-11
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
1-HOUR AVERAGED PARTICULATE MATTER < 2.5 µmMODELLED CONCENTRATIONS
M2112-2840010M2112-26-10
NOTE: 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
LEGENDRAILWAY³PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA
ESTIMATED PM2.5 CONTOURS (µg/m3)
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6.1
3.7447.48711.22914.97218.71422.45726.19929.942
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo. 02-MAY-11
02-MAY-11L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
ATTRIBUTE QUANTITY (µg/m 3)BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 17.45MODELLED FACILITY CONCENTRATION 7.25TOTAL 24.70REGULATORY OBJECTIVE NOT AVAILABLEIS REGULATORY OBJECTIVE MET? NOT APPLICABLE
SE-23-39-07-W3
NE-14-39-07-W3
SW-23-39-07-W3
NW-14-39-07-W3 NW-13-39-07-W3
SE-22-39-07-W3
SW-24-39-07-W3
NE-15-39-07-W3
SW-14-39-07-W3 SE-14-39-07-W3SE-15-39-07-W3
SW-13-39-07-W3
NE-23-39-07-W3 NW-24-39-07-W3NW-23-39-07-W3NE-22-39-07-W3
0.626
1.253
0.626
1.8792.505
369,000
369,000
370,000
370,000
371,000
371,000
5,802
,000
5,802
,000
5,803
,000
5,803
,000
5,804
,000
5,804
,000
SCALE 1:10,000 DATEDESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
S. LONG, GIS Cert. 02-MAY-11
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
24-HOUR AVERAGEDPARTICULATE MATTER < 2.5 µmMODELLED CONCENTRATIONS
M2112-2840010M2112-26-09
NOTE: 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
LEGENDRAILWAY³PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA
ESTIMATED PM2.5 CONTOURS (µg/m3)
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6.2
0.6261.2531.8792.5053.1313.7574.3835.009
ATTRIBUTE QUANTITY (µg/m 3)BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 7.17MODELLED FACILITY CONCENTRATION 1.24TOTAL 8.41REGULATORY OBJECTIVE 15IS REGULATORY OBJECTIVE MET? YES
L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo 02-MAY-11
02-MAY-11
SE-23-39-07-W3
NE-14-39-07-W3
SW-23-39-07-W3
NW-14-39-07-W3 NW-13-39-07-W3
SE-22-39-07-W3
SW-24-39-07-W3
NE-15-39-07-W3
SW-14-39-07-W3 SE-14-39-07-W3SE-15-39-07-W3
SW-13-39-07-W3
NE-23-39-07-W3 NW-24-39-07-W3NW-23-39-07-W3NE-22-39-07-W3
0.2920.5840.876
369,000
369,000
370,000
370,000
371,000
371,000
5,802
,000
5,802
,000
5,803
,000
5,803
,000
5,804
,000
5,804
,000
SCALE 1:10,000 DATEDESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
S. LONG, GIS Cert. 02-MAY-11
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
ANNUAL PARTICULATE MATTER < 2.5 µm MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS
M2112-2840010M2112-26-08
NOTE: 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
LEGENDRAILWAY³PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA
ESTIMATED PM2.5 CONTOURS (µg/m3)
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6.3
0.2920.5840.8761.1681.460
ATTRIBUTE QUANTITY (µg/m 3)BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 3.40MODELLED FACILITY CONCENTRATION 0.15TOTAL 3.55REGULATORY OBJECTIVE NOT AVAILABLEIS REGULATORY OBJECTIVE MET? NOT APPLICABLE
02-MAY-11
02-MAY-11
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo
L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
SE-23-39-07-W3
NE-14-39-07-W3
SW-23-39-07-W3
NW-14-39-07-W3 NW-13-39-07-W3
SE-22-39-07-W3
SW-24-39-07-W3
NE-15-39-07-W3
SW-14-39-07-W3 SE-14-39-07-W3SE-15-39-07-W3
SW-13-39-07-W3
NE-23-39-07-W3 NW-24-39-07-W3NW-23-39-07-W3NE-22-39-07-W3
0.2000.399
0.599
0.399
0.3990.399
369,000
369,000
370,000
370,000
371,000
371,000
5,802
,000
5,802
,000
5,803
,000
5,803
,000
5,804
,000
5,804
,000
SCALE 1:10,000 DATEDESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
S. LONG, GIS Cert. 02-MAY-11
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
1-HOUR AVERAGED COBALT MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS
M2112-2840010M2112-26-07
NOTE: 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
LEGENDRAILWAY³PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA
ESTIMATED COBALT CONTOURS (µg/m3)
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6.4
0.2000.3990.599
ATTRIBUTE QUANTITY (µg/m3)BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 0.01MODELLED FACILITY CONCENTRATION 0.30TOTAL 0.31REGULATORY OBJECTIVE NOT AVAILABLEIS REGULATORY OBJECTIVE MET? NOT APPLICABLE
L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo. 02-MAY-11
02-MAY-11
SE-23-39-07-W3
NE-14-39-07-W3
SW-23-39-07-W3
NW-14-39-07-W3 NW-13-39-07-W3
SE-22-39-07-W3
SW-24-39-07-W3
NE-15-39-07-W3
SW-14-39-07-W3 SE-14-39-07-W3SE-15-39-07-W3
SW-13-39-07-W3
NE-23-39-07-W3 NW-24-39-07-W3NW-23-39-07-W3NE-22-39-07-W3
0.0530
0.106
369,000
369,000
370,000
370,000
371,000
371,000
5,802
,000
5,802
,000
5,803
,000
5,803
,000
5,804
,000
5,804
,000
SCALE 1:10,000 DATEDESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
S. LONG, GIS Cert. 02-MAY-11
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
24-HOUR AVERAGED COBALT MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS
M2112-2840010M2112-26-06
NOTE: 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
LEGENDRAILWAY³PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA
ESTIMATED COBALT CONTOURS (µg/m3)
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6.5
0.0530.1060.1600.213
02-MAY-11
02-MAY-11
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo.
L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
ATTRIBUTE QUANTITY (µg/m 3)BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 0.01MODELLED FACILITY CONCENTRATION 0.06TOTAL 0.07REGULATORY OBJECTIVE 0.10IS REGULATORY OBJECTIVE MET? YES
SE-23-39-07-W3
NE-14-39-07-W3
SW-23-39-07-W3
NW-14-39-07-W3 NW-13-39-07-W3
SE-22-39-07-W3
SW-24-39-07-W3
NE-15-39-07-W3
SW-14-39-07-W3 SE-14-39-07-W3SE-15-39-07-W3
SW-13-39-07-W3
NE-23-39-07-W3 NW-24-39-07-W3NW-23-39-07-W3NE-22-39-07-W3
0.008
0.0160.024
0.032
369,000
369,000
370,000
370,000
371,000
371,000
5,802
,000
5,802
,000
5,803
,000
5,803
,000
5,804
,000
5,804
,000
SCALE 1:10,000 DATEDESIGN BYDRAWN BYAPPROVED BY
S. LONG, GIS Cert. 02-MAY-11
CLIENT
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
TITLE
FIG. No.DRAWING No.
ANNUAL COBALT MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS
M2112-2840010M2112-26-05
NOTE: 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
LEGENDRAILWAY³PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA
ESTIMATED COBALT CONTOURS (µg/m3)
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6.6
0.0080.0160.0240.0320.0400.0480.0560.064
02-MAY-11
02-MAY-11
A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo.
L. BACHU, M.Sc., E.I.T.
ATTRIBUTE QUANTITY (µg/m 3)BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 0.01MODELLED FACILITY CONCENTRATION 0.01TOTAL 0.02REGULATORY OBJECTIVE NOT AVAILABLEIS REGULATORY OBJECTIVE MET? NOT APPLICABLE
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 33
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
MDH completed air dispersion modelling as part of the EIS for the proposed SMPP facility
emissions provided by FML. The study was completed using Alberta ADM guidelines as
Saskatchewan has no specific ADM guidelines for industrial developments. Air dispersion
models SCREEN 3 and AERMOD were used to complete the modelling study. The model
estimated POI concentrations beyond the property boundary which were added to
background air quality data and compared with regulatory ambient air objectives. This will
determine if the proposed development requires any additional mitigative measures.
Alberta guidelines recommend using at least one year of monitored data collected in the
vicinity of the proposed development or from a representative site. No monitored
background data was available for the proposed SMPP location. Therefore, background air
quality data from nearby air monitoring stations was acquired from the National Air Pollution
Surveillance Program (NAPS, 2010) and Western Interprovincial Scientific Studies
Association (WISSA, 2006). Regulatory objectives were acquired from RAAOs of Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, and
Texas. For air emission parameters that have no Saskatchewan standards, the lesser of the
air ambient standards from the aforementioned sources were used.
Air dispersion models were developed by utilizing topographical, landuse, and surface and
upper air meteorological data acquired from various sources. Based on the Screen 3
modelling (Phase I) results, all the facility emissions except PM2.5 and Co emissions were in
compliance with the RAAOs. A refined or advance modelling (Phase II) using AERMOD
model was used to further evaluate the two facility emissions. The results are summarized
below.
Based on the results, the estimated concentrations of PM2.5 and Co and their
corresponding background data beyond the property boundary are lower than the
regulatory ambient air objectives;
Dominant Green House Gases (GHG) from the proposed facility include CO2, water
vapour, and NOx. The GHG emission rates and the corresponding concentrations
from the facility are not expected to have significant impact on regional and global
scales;
It is noted that the proposed mitigative measures include bag houses, demisters, and
scrubbers with single and double stages; and
Cumulative effect within and around the proposed development is negligible as no
major industrial development that emit significant air emissions are situated within a
10 km radius from the proposed facility.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 34
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The air dispersion modelling completed for the proposed SMPP facility shows that the
estimated air emission concentrations beyond the property boundary are in compliance with
the regulatory ambient air objectives. However, recommendations for the sustainability of
the environmental and human health conditions regarding potential air emissions are to:
Minimize dust emissions during construction and operation of the proposed
development by:
o Wetting the process residue piles, exposed surfaces, and utilizing cover or
dust suppressants;
o Managing traffic to reduce driver exposure time to dust; and
o Reducing construction time of unpaved ground.
Install a continuous monitoring program to measure air emissions from the stack
sources and ambient air quality parameters;
Any significant expansion and modification to the SMPP facility that may change the
plant emissions are required to be evaluated using a detailed air dispersion model;
and
Develop an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) with mitigative measures for
potential leaks that occur accidently and cause significant impact to environment and
human health conditions.
9.0 3rd Party Review
Technical assumptions, methodologies, and modelling results associated with the air
dispersion modelling presented in this report were peer reviewed by:
Dr. Franco DiGiovanni, Ph.D.
Airzone One Ltd.
222 Matheson Boulevard East
Mississauga, Ontario, L4Z 1X1
Tel: (905) 890-6957 Ext. 102
Fax: (905) 890-8629
Email: fdi-giovanni@airzoneone.com
Web: www.airzoneone.com
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 35
10.0 CLOSURE
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp., hereinafter collectively referred to as “MDH”, has
exercised reasonable skill, care, and diligence in preparing this report. MDH will not be liable
under any circumstances for the direct or indirect damages incurred by any individual or
entity due to the contents of this report, omissions and/or errors within, or use thereof,
including damages resulting from loss of data, loss of profits, loss of use, interruption of
business, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, even if advised of the
possibility of such damage. This limitation of liability will apply regardless of the form of
action, whether in contract or tort, including negligence.
MDH has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Fortune Minerals Limited does not
accept any responsibility for the use of this report for any purpose other than intended. Any
alternative use, reliance on, or decisions made based on this document are the responsibility
of the alternative user or third party. MDH accepts no responsibility to any third party for the
whole or part of the contents and exercises no duty of care in relation to this report. MDH
accepts no responsibility for damages suffered by any third party as a result of decisions
made or actions based on this report.
Should you have any questions or comments please contact us.
Regards,
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp. Association of Professional Engineers And Geoscientists of Saskatchewan Certificate of Authorization Number 662
.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Page 36
11.0 REFERENCES
Alberta Environment (AENV), 2009a. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives. Air Policy Branch, Edmonton, AB.
AENV, 2009b. Alberta Quality Modelling Guideline. Climate Change, Air, and Land Policy Branch, Edmonton, AB.
Brook, J.R., Dann, T. F., & Burnett, R., 1997. The relationship among TSP, PM10, PM2.5 and inorganic constituents of atmospheric particulate matter at multiple Canadian locations. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 47, 2-19.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 1999. Canadian national ambient air quality objectives: process and status. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, MB.
Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), 2010. Upper meteorological data. Retrieved from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/raobs/ in August 2010.
Environment Canada, 2010. Surface climate data requested from http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/index_e.html in June 2010.
Government of Sasktachewan, 2010. Air dispersion modelling information. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=35205651-cfcc-496a-97b7-4e8484699571 in August, 2010.
National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS), 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/rnspa-naps/Default.asp?lang=En&n=5C0D33CF-1 in August 2010.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2005. Summary of O. Reg. 419/05 Standards and Point of Impingement Standards and Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQCs). Standards Development Branch.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2009. Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario. Environmental Modelling and Data Analysis Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch.
Pasqual, F., 1961. The estimation of the dispersion of windborne material, The Meteorological Magazine, vol 90, No. 1063, pp 33-49.
Saskatchewan Environment, 2007. Air Monitoring Directive for Saskatchewan, Environmental Sciences Unit Air and Land Section Environment Protect Branch, EPB 377, Regina, SK.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2010. Effective Screening Levels (ESL) Lists Used in the Review of Air Permitting Data. Retrieved from http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/tox/esl/ in September 2010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1995. SCREEN3 User Manual. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_screening.htm#screen3 in May 2010.
EPA, 2004. AERMOD User Manual. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod in May 2010.
Western Interprovincial Scientific Studies Association (WISSA), 2006. Western Canada study of animal health effects associated with exposure to emissions from oil and natural gas field facilities. Research Appendices. Calgary, AB.
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Appendices
TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Appendices
AERMAP – The terrain pre–processor for AERMOD. AERMAP allows the use of digital
terrain data in AERMOD.
AERMET – The meteorological pre-processor for AERMOD.
AERMIC – American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory
Model Improvement Committee.
AERMOD – The current US EPA short-range regulatory air dispersion model that was
developed by AERMIC. AERMOD is a next-generation air dispersion model that
incorporates concepts such as planetary boundary layer theory and advanced methods for
handling complex terrain.
Air Emissions – Release of contaminants into the air from a source of contaminant.
Albedo – Portion of the incoming solar radiation reflected and scattered back to space.
Ambient Air (Air) – Open air not enclosed in a building, structure, machine, chimney, stack
or flue.
Bowen Ratio – It is the ratio of energy fluxes from one medium to another by sensible and
latent heating respectively. It is often used as a measure of the amount of moisture at the
surface. The presence of moisture at the earth‟s surface alters the energy balance, which in
turn alters the sensible heat flux and Monin-Obukhov length.
BPIP – Building Profile Input Program.
Calm – A meteorological condition characterized by low wind speed values (generally wind
speeds below 1.0 m/s). Wind speeds below the starting threshold of the anemometer or vane
(whichever is greater) are normally considered calms.
Cavity Region – A recirculating region of air adjacent to an obstruction of the wind flow.
Complex Terrain – Terrain exceeding the height of the stack being modelled.
DEM – Digital Elevation Model. Digital files that contain terrain elevations typically at a
consistent interval across a standard region of the Earth‟s surface.
Dispersion Model – A group of related mathematical algorithms used to estimate (model)
the dispersion of contaminants in the atmosphere due to transport by average wind attributes
and small scale turbulence.
Diurnal – 24-hour period.
Downwash – A phenomenon associated with the aerodynamic flow around an object that
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Appendices
causes emissions to be entrained into the wake of the object, i.e. around a building (building
downwash) or around a smokestack with too low an exit velocity (stack-tip downwash).
Emission Factor – Typically used with a product production rate or a raw material
consumption rate to assess the rate at which a contaminant is released to the atmosphere.
EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Fumigation – A transient phenomenon that eliminates the inversion layer containing a stable
plume below, causing mixing of emissions downward and resulting in uniform concentration
with height beneath the original plume centerline.
Gaussian Model – An air dispersion model based on the assumption that the time averaged
concentration of a species emitted from a point source has a Gaussian distribution about the
mean centerline.
Inversion – An increase in ambient air temperature with height. This is the opposite of the
usual case.
ISCPRIME – The US EPA Industrial Source Complex – Short Term Dispersion Model
supporting the PRIME downwash algorithms.
Lee side – The side of a building that is sheltered from the wind.
Meteorology – The science that deals with the phenomena of the atmosphere especially
weather and weather conditions. In the area of air dispersion modelling, meteorology is used
to refer to climatological data needed to run an air dispersion model including: wind speed,
wind direction, stability class, and ambient temperature.
Mixing Height – Top of the neutral or unstable layer (see stability class) and also the depth
through which atmospheric contaminants are typically mixed by dispersive processes.
MOE or Ministry – the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment.
Monin-Obukhov Length – A constant, characteristic length scale for any particular example
of flow. It is negative in unstable conditions (upward heat flux), positive for stable conditions,
and approach infinity as the actual lapse rate for ambient air reaches the dry adiabatic lapse
rate.
NTDB – National Terrain Database
NWS – National Weather Service. A U.S. government organization associated with the
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration.
Pasquill Stability Categories – A classification of the dispersive capacity of the
Fortune Minerals Limited SMPP – Air Dispersion Modelling January 2011
M2112-2840010 Appendices
atmosphere, originally defined using surface wind speed, solar insolation (daytime) and
cloudiness (night time). They have since been reinterpreted using various other
meteorological variables.
PM2.5 – Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (µm) in diameter.
PM10 – Particulate matter less than 10 µm in diameter.
POI – Point of Impingement, a location beyond the property boundary, with maximum
predicted ground level concentrations for a given air emission.
Screening Technique – A relatively simple analysis to determine if a given source is likely to
pose a threat to air quality. Concentration estimates from screening techniques are
conservative.
Simple Terrain – An area where terrain features are all lower in elevation than the top of the
stack of the source.
Stability Class – A description of the potential of atmospheric conditions to disperse
emissions through the process of turbulent diffusion. A relatively stable atmosphere contains
very little turbulence so that emission concentrations remain high. Unstable atmospheric
conditions promote vertical mixing and, thus, lower emission concentrations. The original
Pasquill Stability Classifications consisted of six classes; A, the most unstable, through F, the
most stable.
Surface Roughness – It is a measure of the height of obstacles to the wind flow. Surface
roughness affects the height above local ground level that a particle moves from the ambient
air flow above the ground into a “captured” deposition region near the ground. This height is
not equal to the physical dimensions of the obstacles, but is generally proportional to them.
For many modelling applications, the surface roughness length can be considered to be on
the order of one tenth of the height of the roughness elements.
Upper Air Data – Meteorological data obtained from balloon-borne instrumentation that
provides information on pressure, temperature, humidity and wind away from the surface of
the earth.
Wind Profile Component – The value of the exponent used to specify the profile of wind
speed with height according to the power law.
top related