Base metals smelters and refineries, and zinc plants: final performance report

On April 29, 2006, the Government of Canada published a pollution prevention planning notice (PDF) targeting specific toxic substances released from base metals smelters and refineries, and zinc plants. It applied to 11 facilities located in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Summary

The implementation of P2 plans resulted in a reduction in emissions of targeted toxic substances from the base year of 2005 and most factors to consider listed in the notice were met.

From 2005 to 2018, the sector reported the following resultsFootnote 1 :

Overall sector results 2005 to 2018

The following sections provide an overview of results at the sector level. Emission trends of some toxic substances are presented from 2005 to 2018.

Overall, from 2005 to 2018, the sector reported the following reductions:

The charts below indicate the trends of emissions from 2005 to 2018 for these specified toxic substances, which are presented in the notice, released by the sector. There were no sector targets for these substances.

Legend: The following legend is associated with each of the charts found in this section. Vertical purple bars indicate the reported annual emissions for each toxic substance for the sector, orange horizontal lines indicate the sum of total facility 2008 targets and blue horizontal lines indicate the sum of total facility 2015 targets for the particular substance. For each of the mercury and dioxins and furans, the 2008 target applied to a single facility. 

Legend

 

Chart 1: Sulphur dioxide (tons/year) 79% sector reduction (526,939 t)

Chart 1: Sulphur dioxide (tons/year) 79% sector reduction (526,939 t)
Chart 1: Long description

This figure shows total annual sulphur dioxide releases for the 2005 to 2018 period, as well as the sum of 2008 and 2015 targets. Total sulphur dioxide releases were 663,575 tonnes in 2005; 566,859 tonnes in 2008, 347,580 tonnes in 2015 and 136,636 tonnes in 2018. Total 2018 releases were less than the sum of 2008 targets of 690,525 tonnes and the sum of 2015 targets of 219,625 tonnes. In 2018, the BMS sector reported a 79% reduction (526,939 tonnes) from their total 2005 releases of sulphur dioxide.

Chart 2: Particulate matter (tons/year) 76% sector reduction (5,669 t)

Chart 2: Particulate matter (tons/year) 76% sector reduction (5,669 t)
Chart 2: Long description

This figure shows total annual particulate matter releases for the 2005 to 2018 period, as well as the sum of 2008 and 2015 targets. Total particulate matter releases were 7,416 tonnes in 2005, 4,480 tonnes in 2008, 3,607 tonnes in 2015 and 1,747 tonnes in 2018. Total 2018 particulate matter releases were less than the sum of 2008 targets of 5,307 tonnes and the sum of 2015 targets of 3,607 tonnes. In 2018, the BMS sector reported a 76% decrease (5,669 tonnes) from their total 2005 releases of particulate matter.

Chart 3: Mercury (kilograms/year) 88% sector reduction (1,486 kg)

Chart 3: Mercury (kilograms/year) 88% sector reduction (1,486 kg)
Chart 3: Long description

This figure shows total annual mercury releases for the 2005 to 2018 period, as well as the 2008 target. Total mercury releases were 1,691 kg in 2005; 1,006 kg in 2008, 177 kg in 2015 and 205 kg in 2018. Total 2015 mercury releases were less than the 2008 target of 373 kg. In 2018, the BMS sector reported a 88% decrease (1,486 kg) from their total 2005 releases of mercury.

Chart 4: Dioxins and furans (grams I-TEQ) 69% sector reduction (0.739 g I-TEQ)

Chart 4: Dioxins and furans (grams I-TEQ) 78% sector reduction (0.832 g I-TEQ)
Chart 4: Long description

This figure shows total annual dioxin and furan releases for the 2005 to 2018 period, as well as the 2008 target. Total dioxin and furan releases were 1.07 g I-TEQ (International Toxicity Equivalent Quotient) in 2005, 1.72 g I-TEQ in 2008, 0.378 g I-TEQ in 2015 and 0.331 g I-TEQ in 2018. Total 2015 releases are less than the 2008 target of 0.5 g I-TEQ. In 2018, the BMS sector reported a 69% decrease (0.739 g I-TEQ) from their total 2005 releases.

In addition, from 2005 to 2018, reported metal releases not subject to any targets under the notice (arsenic, cadmium, lead and nickel) were decreased by the sector as follows:

Chart 5: Cadmium (tons/year): No targets, 89% sector reduction (28 t)

Chart 5: Cadmium (tons/year): No targets 89% sector reduction (28 t)
Chart 5: Long description

This figure shows total annual cadmium releases for the 2005 to 2018 period. Total cadmium releases were 31 tonnes in 2005, 18 tonnes in 2008, 4 tonnes in 2015 and 3.4 tonnes in 2018. In 2018, the BMS sector reported an 89% decrease (28 tonnes) from their total 2005 releases of cadmium.

Chart 6: Arsenic (tons/year): No targets, 54% sector reduction (38 t)

Chart 6: Arsenic (tons/year): No targets 54% sector reduction (38 t)
Chart 6: Long description

This figure shows total annual arsenic releases for the 2005 to 2018 period. Total arsenic releases were 71 tonnes in 2005, 63 tonnes in 2008, 47 tonnes in 2015 and 33 tonnes in 2018. In 2018, the BMS sector reported a 54% decrease (38 tonnes) from their total 2005 releases of arsenic.

Chart 7: Lead(tons/year): No targets, 46% sector reduction (80 t)

Chart 7: Lead(tons/year): No targets 46% sector reduction (80 t)
Chart 7: Long description

This figure shows total annual lead releases for the 2005 to 2018 period. Total lead releases were: 174 tonnes in 2005, 158 tonnes in 2008, 94 tonnes in 2015 and 94 tonnes in 2018. In 2018, the BMS sector reported a 46% decrease (80 tonnes) from their total 2005 releases of lead.

Chart 8: Nickel (tons/year): No targets, 79% sector reduction (251 t)

Chart 8: Nickel (tons/year): No targets 79% sector reduction (251 t)
Chart 8: Long description

This figure shows total annual nickel releases for the 2005 to 2018 period. Total nickel releases were : 319 tonnes in 2005, 142 tonnes in 2008, 116 tonnes in 2015 and 68 tonnes in 2018. In 2018, BMS sector reported a 79% decrease (251 tonnes) from their total 2005 releases of nickel.

Community Air Quality Protection Program

Each facility from the sector implemented a Community Air Quality Protection Program (CAPP) to prevent exceedances of air quality objectives in communities surrounding the facility. Monitoring stations have been installed in the vicinity of individual facilities and provide automated and real-time data on air quality. In addition for most facilities, the requirement to have a CAPP has been integrated with their provincial environmental programs.

Environmental code of practice

The 11 facilities as a whole fully implemented more than 80% of applicable recommendations, on average and were in conformance with the code. Some recommended actions are required to be maintained on an ongoing basis (in other words, can never be “fully implemented”).

Environmental performance guideline for mercury

The notice required facilities to consider the CCME 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Mercury Emissions (PDF), which specifies that existing facilities should achieve an environmental source performance (atmospheric emissions) guideline of 2 grams of mercury per tonne of total production of finished metals. As of December 2018, this standard was met by all 11 facilities.

Reducing total emissions of metals

The sector achieved the notice requirement related to reducing total releases for metals of arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel and mercury from 1988 levels by 80% as of 2008 and by 90% beyond 2008, as set out in recommendation no. 1 of the base metals smelting sector Strategic Options Report. Total reductions of 86%, 90% and 93% for the sector were achieved in 2008, 2015 and 2018 respectively compared to 1988 level emissions.

Facility results

The following section provides an overview of results by the eleven individual facilities subject to the noticeFootnote 2 . Achievement of the targets and emission trends of some toxic substances for individual facilities are presented from 2005-2018.

Achievement of the targets

As of December 31, 2018, the status of achieving the 2008 and 2015 emissions targets by the facilities is as follows:

The status of achieving the 2008 and 2015 emissions targets by each facility is indicated in the table below.

Targets met for SO2, PM, mercury and dioxins and furans
Facility SO2 2008 SO2 2015 PM 2008 PM 2015 Mercury 2008 Dioxins and furans 2008
HudbayFootnote 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A
Glencore: CEZ Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A
Glencore: KiddFootnote 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A
Teck: Trail Operations No No Yes Yes N/A N/A
Vale: Port ColborneFootnote 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Glencore: Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A
Glencore: Horne Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A
Glencore: CCRFootnote 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vale: Copper Cliff Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A
Vale: ThompsonFootnote 7 Yes No Yes No N/A N/A
Glencore: Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes

Emission trends

Emission trends for sulphur dioxide, total particulate matter and total metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel, mercury) for 9 of the 11 facilities are provided as indicated in the charts below. The other 2 facilities are not presented because they are low emitters of sulphur dioxide, total particulate matter and total metals.

Sulphur dioxide emissions

All 9 facilities reduced their sulfur dioxide emissions compared to 2005 level emissions.

Chart 9: emission trend for sulphur dioxide

Chart 9: Long description

This figure shows the trend of sulphur dioxide for each facility subject to the Notice. Nine facilities are presented on the figure from left to right. Four column charts show emissions for 2005, 2008, 2015 and 2018 for seven facilities. HBMS and Glencore Kidd only show two column charts emissions for 2005 and 2008 because they closed their operations in 2010.

From left to right, the figure shows SO2 emissions column charts for HBMS, Vale-Thompson, Vale Copper Cliff, Glencore-Sudbury, Glencore Horne, Glencore Brunswick, Glencore CEZ, Teck-Trail and Glencore Kidd.

Total particulate emissions

Seven out of 9 facilities reduced their PM emissions while 2 facilities increased their emissions respectively by 24% and 34% compared to 2005 level emissions but still met their 2008 and 2015 PM targets.

Chart 10: emission trend for particulate matter

Chart 10: Long description

This figure shows the trend of particulate matter for each facility subject to the Notice. Nine facilities are presented on the figure from left to right. Four column charts show emissions for 2005, 2008, 2015 and 2018 for seven facilities. HBMS and Glencore Kidd only show two column charts emissions for 2005 and 2008 because they closed their operations in 2010.

From left to right, the figure shows particulate matter emissions column charts respectively for HBMS, Vale-Thompson, Vale Copper Cliff, Glencore-Sudbury, Glencore Horne, Glencore Brunswick, Glencore CEZ, Teck-Trail and Glencore Kidd.

Total metals emissions

Total emissions of metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel, mercury) were reduced by 7 facilities but two facilities increased their total metal emissions when compared to 2005 levels as shown in the chart below.

Chart 11: emission trend for total metals

Chart 11: Long description

This figure shows the trend of total emissions of metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel, mercury) for each facility subject to the Notice. Nine facilities are presented on the figure from left to right. Four column charts show emissions for 2005, 2008, 2015 and 2018 for seven facilities. HBMS and Glencore Kidd only show two column charts emissions for 2005 and 2008 because they closed their operations in 2010.

From left to right, the figure shows total emissions of metals column charts for HBMS, Vale-Thompson, Vale Copper Cliff, Glencore-Sudbury, Glencore Horne, Glencore Brunswick, Glencore CEZ, Teck-Trail and Glencore Kidd.

Pollution prevention actions

Pollution prevention focuses on avoiding the creation of pollutants rather than trying to manage them after they have been created. As a factor to consider in preparing their P2 plans, facilities were asked to give priority to pollution prevention methods such as ”Equipment or process modifications” “good operating practices or training”, “material or feedstock substitution”, etc.

Facilities were also required to consider the use of pollution control methods to manage the pollution generated during the industrial process.

In their Declarations of preparation, facilities indicated that 92% of the actions they planned to undertake were pollution prevention activities, while 8% were pollution control activities. The most frequently cited pollution prevention activities were: “Equipment or process modification” (38%) and ”Good operating practices or training” (21%).

Similarly, in their Declarations of implementation facilities indicated that pollution prevention activities represented 87% of their actions, while 13% of their actions were pollution controls methods.

The pollution prevention and pollution control methods reported by facilities changed during the implementation period although “Equipment or process modifications” remained the most frequently cited method. An example of equipment or process modification is Vale Sudbury’s Clean Atmospheric Emissions Reduction project to reduce SO2 and particulate emissions.

Custom feed purchasing, or applying limits on the concentration of metals in secondary feed materials, was cited by some facilities as an example of good operating practices and purchasing techniques. Another example of good operating practices was paving or wetting unpaved roads on-site in order to reduce fugitive PM emissions.

Replacing or upgrading pollution control equipment such as electrostatic precipitators allowed greater capture of PM at some facilities. In some cases the captured PM could be recycled back into the process (on-site recovery and reuse).

Conclusion

The 2006 pollution prevention notice met its objective and resulted in a reduction in emissions of targeted toxic substances from the base year of 2005. Facilities implemented both pollution prevention and pollution control methods to achieve results. Factors to consider from the Notice like the recommended practices of the Code of Practice and the development of a Community Air Quality Protection Program were taken into consideration by each facility in order to meet the risk management objective. Facilities that were subject to the 2008 and 2015 targets for targeted substances largely achieved them:

Next steps

By December 31, 2018 the P2 notice was fully implemented. On January 5, 2018, performance agreements between ECCC and base metals facilities were published and are in effect until 2025. The purpose of these agreements is to achieve and maintain the base-level industrial emissions requirements (BLIERs) for emissions of SO2 and PM. In addition, facilities are to make continual improvement, where reasonably feasible, with respect to further reducing emissions of SO2 and PM, reduce emissions of metals and fugitive PM, and continue to implement the applicable recommendations in the code of practice.

Background

Canada’s base metals smelting (BMS) sector includes producers of zinc, copper, lead, nickel and cobalt. The notice applied to 11 facilities as indicated in the table below.

Facilities subject to the notice

Facilities subject to the notice

(names in 2006) 

Facilities subject to the notice

(names in 2021)

Province

Implementation year

Noranda: CEZ Glencore: CEZ Quebec 2009
HBM&S Co. Ltd HudbayFootnote 4 Manitoba 2010
Falconbridge: Kidd/Timmins Glencore: KiddFootnote 5 Ontario 2010
Teck Cominco: Trail Operation Teck: Trail Operations British Columbia 2011
Inco: Port Colborne Vale: Port Colborne Ontario 2012
Falconbridge: Brunswick Glencore: Brunswick New Brunswick 2012
Falconbridge: Horne Glencore: Horne Quebec 2015
Falconbridge: CCR Glencore: CCR Quebec 2015
Falconbridge: Sudbury Glencore: Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations Ontario 2017Footnote 8
Inco: Sudbury Vale: Copper Cliff Ontario 2018Footnote 8
Inco: Thompson Vale: ThompsonFootnote 7 Manitoba 2018Footnote 8


These facilities release substances specified on the List of Toxic Substances (Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999).

Assessment of these releases led to the conclusion that they enter the environment in quantity, concentration or conditions that can have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or biological diversity, and that constitute a danger to human health or life in Canada.

Toxic substances contained in those releases include SO2, PM of less than 10 microns (PM10), PM containing metals released from copper smelters and zinc plants, mercury, dioxins and furans, lead, inorganic arsenic compounds, inorganic cadmium compounds, and oxidic, sulphidic and soluble inorganic nickel compounds.

Each facility within the sector was required to file:

The facilities subject to the notice had to fully implement their plans by December 31, 2015.

When preparing and implementing their P2 plans, facilities were required to take into consideration factors which included:

Targets for SO2, PM, mercury and dioxins and furans
Facility 2015 SO2 targets (tonnes per year) 2008 SO2 targets (tonnes per year) 2015 PM targets (tonnes per year) 2008 PM targets (tonnes per year)

2008 Mercury targets

(kg per year)

2008 Dioxins and furans targets (gI-TEQ)
HudbayFootnote 4 187,000 33,500 930 616 373 N/A
Glencore: CEZ 6,900 6,900 137 130 N/A N/A
Glencore: KiddFootnote 5 7,525 7,525 500 500 N/A N/A
Teck: Trail Operations 3,400 3,400 441 441 N/A N/A
Vale: Port Colborne N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Glencore: Brunswick 12,700 12,100 104 100 N/A N/A
Glencore: Horne 45,000 43,500 500 500 N/A N/A
Glencore: CCR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vale: Copper Cliff 175,000 66,000 1430 864 N/A N/A
Vale: ThompsonFootnote 7  187,000 22,800 735 198 N/A N/A
Glencore: Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations 66,000 25,000 530 258 N/A
0.50

The notice included facility-specific annual sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) targets for 9 facilities for 2008 and 2015. In addition, 1 facility was subject to a 2008 target for mercury, and another facility was subject to a 2008 target for dioxins and furans. 2 low-emission facilities were not subject to targets for SO2, PM, mercury or dioxins and furans. The notice also recommended each facility to develop and implement a CAPP that mainly included monitoring of ambient air, modeling, prediction and prevention of exceedances of ambient air objectives and measurements, estimates and reporting of air emissions from process sources. 

Page details

Date modified: