fortune minerals limited saskatchewan ......modelling air dispersion models were developed by...

`

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


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.


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


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


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


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?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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)


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)


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


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



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


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



CLIENT

PRODUCED BY

PROJECT No.

TITLE

FIG. No.DRAWING No.

24-HOUR AVERAGEDPARTICULATE MATTER < 2.5 µmMODELLED CONCENTRATIONS

M2112-2840010M2112-26-09





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


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



CLIENT

PRODUCED BY

PROJECT No.

TITLE

FIG. No.DRAWING No.

ANNUAL PARTICULATE MATTER < 2.5 µm MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS

M2112-2840010M2112-26-08





PROJECT BOUNDARY

6.3

0.2920.5840.8761.1681.460


02-MAY-11

02-MAY-11

A. KARVONEN, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo


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



CLIENT

PRODUCED BY

PROJECT No.

TITLE

FIG. No.DRAWING No.

1-HOUR AVERAGED COBALT MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS

M2112-2840010M2112-26-07



ESTIMATED COBALT CONTOURS (µg/m3)


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



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



CLIENT

PRODUCED BY

PROJECT No.

TITLE

FIG. No.DRAWING No.

24-HOUR AVERAGED COBALT MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS

M2112-2840010M2112-26-06





PROJECT BOUNDARY

6.5

0.0530.1060.1600.213

02-MAY-11

02-MAY-11



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



CLIENT

PRODUCED BY

PROJECT No.

TITLE

FIG. No.DRAWING No.

ANNUAL COBALT MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS

M2112-2840010M2112-26-05





PROJECT BOUNDARY

6.6

0.0080.0160.0240.0320.0400.0480.0560.064

02-MAY-11

02-MAY-11





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.


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: [email protected]

Web: www.airzoneone.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.airzoneone.com/


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

.


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.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/raobs/

http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=35205651-cfcc-496a-97b7-4e8484699571

http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=35205651-cfcc-496a-97b7-4e8484699571

http://www.ec.gc.ca/rnspa-naps/Default.asp?lang=En&n=5C0D33CF-1

http://www.ec.gc.ca/rnspa-naps/Default.asp?lang=En&n=5C0D33CF-1

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/tox/esl/

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_screening.htm#screen3

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod


M2112-2840010 Appendices

TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS



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



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



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.

fortune minerals limited saskatchewan ......modelling air dispersion models were developed by...

Documents