8 air quality 8.1 introduction - rio tinto · simandou seia volume ii rail chapter 8: air quality...

Simandou SEIA Volume II Rail Chapter 8: Air Quality

8-1

8 Air Quality 8.1 Introduction This chapter presents the findings of the assessment of impacts on air quality from construction and operation of the Simandou Railway. It considers the following impacts: impacts from airborne pollutants on health (1) and vegetation; and impacts from dust deposition on amenity and vegetation. Potential sources of emissions during construction will include: combustion of fuel in construction vehicles, equipment and generators;

dust released from construction activities such as land clearing, earthworks, movement of vehicles over

unpaved surfaces, concrete batching, stockpiling and transport of friable materials, laying of ballast and building of structures such as bridges and tunnels; and

incineration of construction waste.

During operation sources will include: combustion of fuel in railway locomotives; particulate matter blown from ore wagons; combustion of fuel in generators used to provide electrical power for tunnel ventilation and other

facilities; and incineration of operational waste. Emissions arising from the loading and unloading of ore at the mine and port railheads are not considered in this volume as they are addressed within the Simandou Mine and Port air quality assessments in Volumes I and III respectively. Power will be generated for tunnel ventilation using a 5MW generator located at each tunnel. Generators will be designed and operated to comply with the emissions guidelines for small combustion plant set out in the International Finance Corporation General EHS Guidelines (Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality). The facilities will be in remote locations and with compliance with these emission guidelines they are not predicted to have any significant impact on air quality. They are therefore not considered further in the assessment. Incineration of waste is also not considered to be a significant source of emissions, as waste will only be disposed of by this method on a limited, small scale basis, and only where it cannot be safely and cost effectively landfilled. Incinerators will be small, modern plants designed and operated to comply with the emissions standards set out in the International Finance Corporation EHS Guidelines on Waste Management Facilities. Compliance with these standards should ensure that there are no significant impacts from this source. The key pollutants of interest for the assessment are thus expected to be: oxides of nitrogen (NO2 and NOx): the assessment considers two types: nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which

is of concern for its impact on health, and total oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which are of concern because of their impacts on plants (and therefore on supported fauna) (2);

(1) Including both human health and animal health. In the absence of specific standards for protection of animals, criteria for protection of human health are taken to also provide for similar protection of animal health. Impacts of air pollution on habitats and species are also discussed in Chapter 11: Biodiversity. (2) NOx includes NO2 plus nitrous oxide NO and nitrogen oxide (N2O) which convert to NO2 over time in the atmosphere.


8-2

sulphur dioxide (SO2): SO2 is of concern because of its impacts on health and vegetation (1); and

particulate matter or dust: this is considered in three fractions: very fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5); particles between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and total suspended particles (TSP). PM2.5 and PM10 are of concern because of their potential impact on health as the size means these particles are small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Larger particles are removed in the upper respiratory tract. TSP is of concern because of loss visibility at very high levels, impact on amenity caused by soiling of surfaces, and damage to plants caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of photosynthesis and blockage of leaf pores.

Other pollutants such as metals, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may arise from some activities, primarily combustion of fuel. IFC guidance (2), suggests that these pollutants are only likely to be significant where coal or heavy fuel oil are in use. As these fuels will not be used for the Project, significant impacts on air quality from these pollutants are therefore considered unlikely. Carbon monoxide will also arise from combustion but maintaining plant and equipment in good working order and operating plant and equipment according to manufacturer specifications will maintain emissions of carbon monoxide at concentrations that will not result in significant impacts to air quality. The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: Section 8.2 describes the assessment methodology used; Section 8.3 presents the baseline situation; Section 8.4 reports on the assessment of air quality impacts of the railway prior to mitigation; Section 8.5 presents the planned approach to mitigation and the residual impacts of the Project after

mitigation; and Section 8.6 summarises the findings of the assessment. Supplementary information is provided in a supporting Annex 8A: Air Quality Assessment – Supporting Information which presents the input data used in the assessment, details the approach used for calculating dust emissions from ore wagons, and presents the evidence base for draft deposition criteria. 8.2 Approach 8.2.1 Study Area The study area is defined as a corridor, extending to 500 m either side of the railway and its ancillary facilities. This was selected as the maximum extent over which significant impacts were considered possible. This view is supported by the findings of the study that conclude that significant impacts only occur at distances substantially less than 200 m (see Section 8.4). The general distribution of settlements located within 1 km has been identified from 2003 aerial photography in each of the nine sections of the railway, as shown in Figure 8.1. These range from single houses to large villages. There are no towns located within 1 000 m of the railway. It must be noted that the identification of settlements along the full alignment has been performed using remote data only and the actual numbers and locations may have changed since these data were gathered. However, as the final details of the alignment is to be confirmed it is not considered appropriate at this stage to identify individual settlements that could be affected. The data are therefore used to provide an indication of the likely scale of impact on settlements using the available information. This is considered to provide an adequate representation of the expected degree of impact at this stage in the development of the scheme.

(1) In urban areas SO2 can also be of concern because of corrosion of materials (building materials, monuments etc), however this is not judged likely to be an issue given the rural nature of the Project location. (2) IFC (2008) Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants

KISSIDOUGOUFORÉCARIAH

B E Y L A

GUÉCKÉDOU

K É R O U A N É

C O YA H

F A R A N A HK I N D I A

K A N K A N

D A B O L ADALABAP I T AT É L IM É L É K O U R O U S S A

D U B R É K A

MA C E N TA

M A M O U

S i e r r aS i e r r aL e o n eL e o n e

L i b e r i aL i b e r i a

Heremakono

BalziaCentre

BanankoroKouankan

Moribadou

ManfranBanankoro

Moribaya

Mamouroudou

BoussouraHeremakono

Baténafadji 1

DouakoBeindou

Banankoro

Banankoro

SibiribaroMamouroudou

Mamouroudou

Komodou

Soromayah

Niala

PassayaVillage

Heremakono

Sérédou

VasérédouWatankaCentre

Dandaya

Babila-Centre

Douako-Centre

Kérouané

Faranah

Banankoro

Binikala Moribadou

BanankoroAlbadariah

Sangardo Damaro

Nionsomoridou

KounsankoroBenty

Farmoréah

DandayaTassendi

Souguéta

MolotaCentre

Kolente

Friguiagbé

Tassendi

SanouyaYomayaLimban

Sikhourou

MambiaCentre

Kindia

Marella

BangouyaCentre

Soya

KégnékoCentre

Madina-Oula

Forécariah

Mamou

OuréKaba

Kounkouré

Moussayah

Soyah

Boussoura

Macenta

Tokounou

Douako

Mamouroudou

DantiliyaBanankoro Sonkonia

Heremakono

Mamouroudou

Hérémakono

Guéckédou

N.1

N.10

N.29

9°0'0"W

9°0'0"W

10°0'0"W

10°0'0"W

11°0'0"W

11°0'0"W

12°0'0"W

12°0'0"W

13°0'0"W

13°0'0"W

10°0

'0"N

10°0

'0"N

9°0'0"

N

9°0'0"

N

100000

100000

200000

200000

300000

300000

400000

400000

500000

500000

1000

000

1000

000

1100

000

1100

000

Client: Taille: Titre:Légende:Section de voie ferrée numéro / Rail Section Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Agglomération dans 1000m / Settlement within 1000mAgglomération / Settlement

Chef lieu de préfecture / Prefecture Chief TownChef lieu de sous-préfecture / Sub-Prefecture Chief TownAutre agglomération importante / Other Significant SettlementRoute principale / Primary RoadLimite de la préfecture / Prefecture BoundaryFrontière entre états / National Boundary

File:

0131

299S

iman

douG

IS_IG

_CK\

Maps

\ERM\

AirQu

ality\

Rail\r

w_rec

eptor

s_wi

thin_

1km.

mxd

Date: 20/06/2012

Vérifié par: RL

Projet: 0131299Dessiné par: WB

Approuvé par: KR Echelle: Comme barre d'échelle

Figure 8.1Zones habitées situé à 1 km de la ligne médiane de chemin de fer / Settlements Within 1km of the Railway Centreline

0 50

kilomètres

Projection: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 29N

A4

G u i n e aG u i n e a

M a l iM a l i


G u i n e a - B i s s a uG u i n e a - B i s s a u

S e n e g a lS e n e g a l

L i b e r i aL i b e r i a


8-4

8.2.2 Legal and Other Requirements Guinean legislation relating to air emissions is principally related to control of classified establishments and there are no legally mandated air quality standards in force in Guinea. In the absence of national standards, the assessment has made reference to:

IFC (2007) Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines General EHS Guidelines: Environmental Air

Emissions and Ambient Air Quality; World Health Organisation (2000) Air Quality Standards for Europe; World Health Organisation (2005) Air Quality Standards for Europe: Update; IFC (2007) Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Mining; and European Union Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe. The principles and approaches set out in the Rio Tinto Environment Standard E2 – Air Quality Control (1) have also been incorporated into the assessment. 8.2.3 Prediction and Evaluation of Impacts 8.2.3.1 Approach to Prediction of Construction Impacts Construction activities will cause emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, NO2 and SO2 from vehicle and plant exhausts, and emissions of TSP including PM10 and PM2.5 from as land clearing, earthworks, movement of vehicles over unpaved surfaces, concrete batching, stockpiling and transport of friable materials, laying of ballast and building of structures such as bridges and tunnels. The largest source of exhaust emissions will be construction vehicles. These will have the greatest potential to adversely affect health whilst passing through communities as they travel to and from construction sites. Emissions from vehicles and plant operating within construction sites are not typically sufficient to cause adverse impacts on air quality as there are typically only a small number of vehicles on site at any one time; the assessment therefore focused on off-site vehicle emissions. The impact of these was assessed using a method recommended by the United Kingdom Department of Transport in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (2). This indicates that significant impacts on air quality may occur where total daily traffic flows increase by 1 000 vehicles per day or more, or Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows increase by 200 vehicles per day or more. These thresholds are used as an initial screening test for adverse impacts on air quality from construction traffic and where these values are exceeded, the DMRB method is used to predict the impact on air quality. The existing levels of traffic likely on the roads used by construction vehicles are expected to be low, given that there are few major settlements and little existing industry in the region; however exact numbers of existing vehicles are unknown. DMRB does state that that there is negligible risk of air quality standards for NO2 and PM10 being exceeded from vehicle exhaust emissions alongside roads where traffic flows are less than 10 000 vehicles per day. Impacts from dust during construction were predicted using empirical information from typical construction sites. 8.2.3.2 Approach to Prediction of Operational Impacts Air Quality Modelling The impacts of railway operations on air quality were predicted using dispersion modelling. Using details of the proposed design and operations an air dispersion model was set up to simulate the movement of pollutants away from the railway and quantify the resulting changes in air quality. The AERMOD model, as derived from the United States Environmental Protection Agency source code, was used. This model is widely recognised for use in this type of assessment. It uses details on emission sources and local meteorology to predict changes in air quality at specified locations. In this case, the model was configured to

(1) Available at http://www.riotinto.com/documents/ReportsPublications/AirQualityControl.pdf (2) Available at www.dft.gov.uk/standards/dmrb


8-5

assess emissions arising from a series of 1 km stretches of single track rail line, each represented as a line of emission sources. Resultant air quality was calculated at increasing distances from the line, represented by receptors set at increasing distances up to 200 m. Where there is a passing loop, this was represented in the model by a single point source emission representing a stationary train idling for an average of 70 minutes. Identification of Emission Sources A review was undertaken of rail related emissions. This focused on combustion emissions from locomotives and dust from ore wagons. Throughout the length of the railway, the impacts will vary depending on locomotive ‘effort’, (ie whether the train is laden or unladen, running uphill, downhill or on the flat, or accelerating, cruising or braking). As the detailed alignment has yet to be finalised, a conservative assumption was made that the locomotives will operate at their design emission limits at all times. These are based on a 4 400 horsepower diesel-electric engine, compliant with USEPA Tier 2 emission standards. Details of the numbers of trains, their speed, the time stationary in passing loops and the sizes and capacity of ore wagons are presented in Annex 8A: Air Quality Assessment – Supporting Information. The emissions from the movements of trains within the railhead and maintenance yards are not specifically addressed, as these are of a sufficiently small magnitude that emissions are unlikely to affect air quality significantly outside the perimeter of these sites. Meteorology A key required input for the model is meteorological data. The use of five years of hourly sequential data is recommended by the IFC in order to capture long term and short term effects, and year on year variations. There are several key data types required, including wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover, solar radiation conditions, rainfall, and boundary layer depth. In the absence of measured data for these parameters for the operational railway corridor, Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) data were acquired from the United Kingdom Met Office. NWP data are based upon global modelling of weather patterns, focussed down to incrementally smaller areas to take into consideration local topography. The global weather data are validated against worldwide meteorological monitoring at ground level and in the upper atmosphere to ensure the best possible accuracy. They have also been checked against available local meteorological monitoring data (see Section 8.3.2) and are considered to be representative of the general meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the railway. Two meteorological data sets were used, one from the mine site (representative of inland locations), and one from the port site (representative of coastal locations). The dispersion modelling was undertaken using both datasets and the larger impact is reported in each case. Modelling PM2.5 Available information on locomotive emissions does not provide data on emissions of PM2.5 and it is therefore not possible to directly model PM2.5 from locomotives. However, PM2.5 is a key consideration from the perspective of impacts on health and impacts on air quality at sensitive receptors have therefore been estimated based upon emissions of PM10. In summary, mechanical sources of emissions (in this case windblown dust from the ore wagons) are dominated by particles in the size range of 2.5-10µm, which account for 77.6% of emissions. Conversely, combustion sources (including locomotive emissions) are dominated by particles in the size range <2.5µm, which account for 95.4% of emissions. Given this, it has been assumed that all PM emissions from locomotive fuel combustion are PM2.5 and all PM emissions from windblown dust from ore wagons are PM10. This is marginally conservative, but reasonable. Further details are provided in Annex 8A: Air Quality Assessment – Supporting Information. Dust from Ore Wagons As ore wagons move along the railway, the passage of air over the surface of the wagons will cause some dust to be released. This will increase with train speed and in higher winds. There is no standard method available for calculating emissions from this phenomenon, so a method developed for ore stockpiles used for the Australian National Pollution Inventory has been adapted to provide an estimate of emissions from this source. The method is based upon equations used to calculate the quantity of dust blown from an open


8-6

surface over which wind is blowing. The effect of movement of trains is simulated by substituting the train speed for wind speed in the model. Further details are provided in Annex 8A: Air Quality Assessment – Supporting Information. Operational Vehicles Emissions associated with (non-train) vehicles used to service the railway during operation have not been considered, as their numbers and therefore their impact will be much lower than during construction. The impacts of vehicle traffic will therefore be dominated by the construction phase, and their assessment is thus focused on the construction traffic assessment. 8.2.4 Evaluation of Significance Impacts on air quality are evaluated by reference to numerical standards for air quality and dust deposition. In this regard, human and ecological receptors were considered to be of equal sensitivity. The exception to this is where the railway passes through or close to areas protected for ecological purposes such as the Niger-Mafou Ramsar Wetland. Sensitive ecological receptors can be affected by airborne pollution in various ways, for example from acid deposition or nutrient nitrogen deposition. As there are no standards for air quality set out in Guinean legislation, the criteria are based on standards for protection of human health and vegetation provided by international sources. 8.2.4.1 Airborne Pollutants The criteria for evaluation of changes in air quality with respect to impacts of airborne pollutants on health are derived from IFC Guidelines (1). The IFC General EHS Guidelines state that: Projects with significant sources of air emissions, and potential for significant impacts to ambient air quality, should prevent or minimise impacts by ensuring that:

emissions do not result in pollutant concentrations that reach or exceed relevant ambient quality

guidelines and standards by applying national legislated standards, or in their absence, the current WHO Air Quality Guidelines, or other internationally recognized sources; and

emissions do not contribute a significant portion to the attainment of relevant ambient air quality

guidelines or standards. As a general rule, the Guideline suggests using 25 percent of the applicable air quality standards to allow additional, future sustainable development in the same airshed [ie in an undegraded airshed].

The guidelines define an undegraded airshed as one in which nationally legislated air quality standards or WHO Air Quality Guidelines are not significantly exceeded. Where projects are located within poor quality airsheds, the guidelines suggest that any increase in pollution levels should be as small as feasible, and should amount to only a fraction of the applicable short term and annual average air quality guidelines or standards. The guidelines also propose that a similar more stringent standard is applied to ecologically sensitive areas such as national parks, in order to recognise their greater susceptibility. In the absence of Guinean air quality standards, the assessment has used World Health Organisation (WHO) air quality standards, which establish interim targets and guideline values for protection of human health. The guideline values are aspirational and are intended to confer a maximum degree of protection. The interim targets are set at points to allow the staged achievement of air quality standards. The Interim Target 1 standards are considered to represent concentrations in ambient air above which it could be reasonably expected that health effects would begin to be observed and these are used as the basis for deriving the evaluation criteria for this assessment. The standards are set out in Table 8.1.

(1) IFC (2007) Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines General EHS Guidelines: Environmental Air Emissions And Ambient Air Quality


8-7

Table 8.1 Air Quality Standards for the Protection of Health

Pollutant Averaging Period Air Quality Standard (µg/m3)

Interim Target 1 Interim Target 2 Interim Target 3 Guideline

PM10 24 hour mean 150 100 75 50

Annual mean 70 50 30 20

PM2.5 24 hour mean 75 50 37.5 25

Annual mean 35 25 15 10

NO2 1 hour mean (3rd highest) 200

Annual mean 40

SO2 24 hour mean 125 50 20

10 minute mean 500

For protection of vegetation, the assessment has referenced European Union Standards, as there are no equivalent standards from IFC or WHO. These are set out in Table 8.2 Table 8.2 Air Quality Standards for the Protection of Vegetation

Pollutant Averaging period Air Quality Standard (µg/m3)

NOx Annual mean 30

SO2 Annual mean 20

Following the IFC guidance on the achievement of standards and the contribution of projects to this, the significance of impacts is evaluated by considering two factors: Process Contribution (PC): the impacts arising solely from Project related emissions; and Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC): the PC plus existing baseline. The resulting criteria for determining the significance of impact on air quality are set out in Table 8.3. The relevant air quality standards (AQS) are the WHO Interim targets and the EU standards for protection of vegetation set out in Tables 8.1 and 8.2. Table 8.3 Significance Criteria for Airborne Pollutants

PC as % of Air Quality Standard

Undegraded Airsheds PC as % of Air Quality Standard

Degraded Airsheds and Ecologically Sensitive Areas

If PEC < AQS If PEC > AQS If PEC < AQS If PEC > AQS

<25% Not Significant Minor <10% Not Significant Minor

25-50% Minor Moderate 10-30% Minor Moderate

50-75% Moderate Major 30-75% Moderate Major

75-100% Major Critical 75-100% Major Critical

>100% Critical Critical >100% Critical Critical

All airsheds through which the railway passes were considered to be undegraded, as they are not influenced by any significant sources of anthropogenic emissions, for example large towns and cities, major industry or busy highways. There are localised sources which could cause short term elevations in ambient air pollutant concentrations such as burning of vegetation, open fires and poorly maintained vehicles, and dust levels are periodically increased above the underlying baseline due to natural causes during the dry season and the regional Harmattan winds. However, the baseline is generally of high quality (see Section 8.3) and the criteria for undegraded airsheds were therefore applied for the entire route in relation to protection of health.


8-8

For protection of vegetation, the first set of thresholds (starting at 25% of the EU standards) was used for general vegetation including crops. The more stringent thresholds (starting at 10% of the EU standards) were used in locations where the railway passes through areas designated for their importance for biodiversity. 8.2.4.2 Dust The preceding discussion includes consideration of the impact of airborne fine particles (PM2.5 and PM10) on health but, as noted in Section 8.1, dust is also of concern because of the potential for dust deposition to adversely affect amenity and vegetation. Dust may be deposited onto surfaces in quantities sufficient to cause nuisance for people, for example by soiling surfaces and washing, and it can harm vegetation by blanketing leaf surfaces. There are several sources of guidance on levels affecting people and these are reviewed in Annex 8A: Air Quality Assessment – Supporting Information. There is much more limited evidence available on levels at which dust deposition affects plants. However, one key source, Farmer (1993), brings together numerous other sources of evidence for damage to vegetation due to dust soiling. The study showed that impacts vary considerably between species and with different dust types. Broadly, however, the evidence suggests that damage to vegetation due to dust deposition will occur at approximately the same levels as nuisance will occur for people. The criteria for assessing the magnitude of predicted impacts and the distances at which these levels would typically occur around construction works, derived from these sources are set out in Table 8.4. Table 8.4 Significance Criteria for Project Related Dust Deposition

Annual Mean Deposition Rate

Effect Distance from Construction Work

Significance

<350mg/m2/day Nuisance and damage to plants unlikely to occur >200 m Not Significant

350 - 650 mg/m2/day Nuisance and damage to plants possible 100-200 m Minor

650 - 950 mg/m2/day Nuisance and damage to plants probable 50-100 m Moderate

950 - 1190 mg/m2/day Nuisance and damage to plants highly probable 20-50 m Major

>1190 mg/m2/day Serious complaints and severe damage to plants <20 m Critical

No account has been taken of the contribution made by the existing baseline conditions, on the basis that receptors will have become acclimatised to the existing baseline deposition and, therefore, only additional dust burden created as a consequence of the Project will cause impact. 8.3 Baseline 8.3.1 Baseline Air Quality The baseline conditions along the railway will vary along the route, however, for the pollutants being assessed, baseline concentrations are expected to be substantially below the air quality standards in all locations for most of the time. This is based on the absence of significant sources of existing pollutant emissions such as large towns, industry or busy highways and is supported by monitoring at the end of the rail route near the mine, where baseline concentrations are all well below relevant air quality standards. The monitoring location sites at the mine are presented in Figure 8.2 and the monitoring results for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 (presented as monthly means) from near the mine are presented in Figures 8.3 to 8.5. Table 8.5 sets out monitoring results for PM10, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2 for the mine and port.

SokouralaNionsomoridou

Foma

Touréla

KankoroBanko Koimoridou

CangaEast

Camp

Mandou

Orono

Lamandou MafindouMoribadou

Mamouroudou

Korèla

Wataférédou II

Wataférédou ITraoréla Siatouro

Bahdata

Boulaydou

Moribadou

Mafindou

Mandou

Dabatini

FokouWest

Oueleba

Mandou

8°50'0"W

8°50'0"W

8°40'0

"N

8°40'0

"N

8°30'0

"N

8°30'0

"N

505000

505000

510000

510000

515000

515000

520000

520000

525000

525000

9400

00

9400

00

9450

00

9450

00

9500

00

9500

00

9550

00

9550

00

9600

00

9600

00

Client: Taille: Titre:

Date: 20/06/2012

Dessiné par: WB

Vérifié par: CHM

Approuvé par: KR

Projet: 0131299

Echelle: Barre d'echelle

Légende:

Figure 8.2Points de suivi environnemental autour de la mine / Monitoring Sites in the Vicinity of the Mine

Site de suivi de la qualité de l'air / Air Quality Monitoring SiteStation météorologique / Weather StationUsine et infrastructures minières /Mine Plant & InfrastructureContour de mine / Mine OutlineTerril de stériles / Waste EmplacementProjet de route de la mine /Proposed Mine RoadLocalisation de la base de vie / Camp LocationZone de stockage d'explosifs /Explosives Storage AreaZone d'exclusion autour de lazone de stockage d'explosifs /Explosives Area Clearance Zone

Dépôt de carburant / Fuel Farm

Centrale électrique / Power StationTracé indicatif du corridor de la voie ferrée /Indicative Rail CorridorAgglomération / SettlementRoute principale / Primary RoadRoute secondaire / Secondary RoadRoute tertiaire / Tertiary RouteCours d'eau / WatercourseForêt classée / Classified Forest

Projection: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 29N

File:

0131

299S

iman

douG

IS_IG

_CK\M

aps\E

RM\A

irQua

lity\R

ail\rw

_AQ_

Monit

oring

_Stat

ions.m

xd

A4

0 2

kilomètres

G u i n e aG u i n e a

M a l iM a l i


S e n e g a lS e n e g a l

C o t eC o t ed ' I v o i r ed ' I v o i r eL i b e r i aL i b e r i a

PIC de FONPIT

OUÉLÉBAPIT


8-10

Figure 8.3 Results of Baseline Air Quality Monitoring: Monthly Mean Total Suspended Particulates

Figure 8.4 Results of Baseline Air Quality Monitoring: Monthly Mean PM10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐08

Sep‐08

Nov‐08

Jan‐09

Mar‐09

May‐09

Jul‐09

Sep‐09

Nov‐09

Jan‐10

Mar‐10

May‐10

TSP ug/m

3Moribadou

Mandou

Mafindou

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐08

Sep‐08

Nov‐08

Jan‐09

Mar‐09

May‐09

Jul‐09

Sep‐09

Nov‐09

Jan‐10

Mar‐10

May‐10

PM10 ug/m

3

Moribadou

Mandou

Mafindou


8-11

Figure 8.5 Results of Baseline Air Quality Monitoring: Monthly Mean PM2.5

Note: The March 2010 value is high compared to the corresponding values for PM10 and TSP and is considered to result from a measurement anomaly.

Table 8.5 Baseline monitoring of PM10, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2: Annual Mean

Pollutant WHO Interim Target 1 (µg/m3) Site Annual Mean (µg/m3)

SO2 125 (24 hour mean) Mandou (Mine) 0.4

Moribadou (Mine) 0.7

Kipimpi (Port) 0.9

Ynde (Port) 1.3

NO2 40 Mandou (Mine) 1.0


Kipimpi (Port) 0.9

Ynde (Port) 0.72

PM2.5 35 Mandou (Mine) 12.7


Kipimpi (Port) 28.7

PM10 70 Mandou (Mine) 31.3

Moribadou (Mine) 196

Kipimpi (Port) 161

The monitoring results indicate that annual average NO2 and SO2 levels are substantially below air quality standards at either end of the railway route. The data for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 are more variable with higher levels in the dry season. This is as expected, as rainfall will naturally attenuate dust emissions from open surfaces. Whilst there is a clear seasonal variation, it is also apparent that concentrations of dust have increased in recent years. At Moribadou and Mafindou, the dust is dominated by the size fraction larger than 2.5µm. This suggests that windblown dust from exposed land is the primary contributing source of emissions, as mechanical sources of emissions (as opposed to combustion) typically arise in this size fraction. At Mandou, the split is approximately 50% larger than 2.5µm and 50% smaller than 2.5µm, suggesting that combustion sources are more important here. Anecdotal information from around the monitoring sites suggests that elevated levels

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐08

Sep‐08

Nov‐08

Jan‐09

Mar‐09

May‐09

Jul‐09

Sep‐09

Nov‐09

Jan‐10

Mar‐10

May‐10

PM2.5 ug/m

3

Moribadou

Mandou

Mafindou


8-12

are associated with local human activity including clearing of land, burning of vegetation, open fires and traffic on unpaved roads. Based on these data, and as discussed in Section 8.2.4.1, the airsheds along the railway have been defined as undegraded as, although particulate levels do sometimes exceed the standards, this is caused by localised and often natural sources, and the underlying baseline is of high quality. 8.3.2 Meteorology Meteorology has been monitored at seven monitoring stations near the Simandou mine site, in addition to the NWP data obtained for the mine and port locations. A detailed description of the monitoring results, and the meteorological trends are set out in Volume 1, Annex 9A: Local Climate Baseline. Monitoring has been undertaken at locations on the Simandou ridge, on the mountain slopes and at locations around the base of the ridge. No meteorological monitoring has been undertaken along the majority of the route; however the NWP data for the mine and port locations are considered to be adequate to represent conditions throughout the rail route. Meteorological conditions are a key factor in determining the dispersion of emissions from rail activities, and therefore impacts on nearby settlements and ecological receptors. The local monitoring from the mine was used to confirm that the NWP data was following expected trends, and is therefore appropriate for use in the study. The key highlights of the meteorological monitoring, and NWP data in relation to air quality are set out below. Further detail is set out in Volume 1, Annex 9A: Local Climate Baseline. The meteorological conditions follow a clear seasonal pattern, with the wet season most evident in August and September, and the dry season most evident in January; the monitoring of relative humidity and rainfall clearly follow this trend year on year. There is little variation between the monitoring sites at the mine, indicating that relative humidity and rainfall are regional phenomena and less affected by local circumstances. However, the wet season is more pronounced and shorter at the coast in line with coastal meteorology being more heavily influenced by offshore oceanic weather systems. Temperature also follows this seasonal trend, with the highest ambient temperatures during the dry season. The average temperature is slightly higher at the coast than experienced inland, in line with the changes in altitude. Wind direction shows a seasonal variation in line with the cycle of wet and dry seasons. This corresponds with the effect of the regional monsoon and Harmattan winds from the Sahara during the dry season. The prevailing wind direction is from the south to south west, which will lead to the key dispersion of emissions being towards the north and northeast. There is a small amount of variation between the monitoring sites within the general trend at the mine. This indicates that whilst wind direction is largely a regional phenomenon, there are effects of localised wind channelling. The wind direction at the coast is somewhat more uni-directional than at the mine. This reflects the stronger influence of the oceanic weather systems for the majority of the year. Localised effects will have little effect on impacts as these are more dependent upon macro-scale effects; the differences between the mine and coastal locations will have some effect of the dispersion of emissions from the rail line. As a result, both mine and port NWP meteorological data has been considered in the assessment and the most pessimistic results used in the impact assessment. Wind speed shows something of a seasonal trend, tending to be lower between April and July; however this trend is not strong. However, there is considerable local variation at the mine, with the highest wind speeds being observed at higher altitude, more exposed sites. As would be expected the data suggest that local topographical presence of Simandou ridge has a considerable influence on the wind conditions. The wind speed at the coast is not substantially different from that at the mine, being within the data range for the mine. The wind speed has a significant impact on the finding of the assessment both in terms of the potential for airborne pollutants to be generated from the mine activities, and also in terms of dispersion of emissions. The data demonstrate that whilst in some parameters there is variation, the NWP data are representative of the overall meteorological conditions in the area, being within the monitored parameters at the mine; therefore its use is pragmatic and reasonable.


8-13

8.4 Assessment of Impacts 8.4.1 Overview The following section presents the assessment of impacts on air quality under the following headings: dust from construction works; exhaust emissions from construction traffic; exhaust emissions from locomotives during operation; and dust from locomotives and ore wagons during operation. The assessment is based on the following design specifications: locomotives will meet the current USEPA Tier 2 emission standards for diesel-electric locomotives; and locomotive and other operational fuel will have a sulphur content of 500 ppm. 8.4.2 Impacts Arising from Dust from Construction Works The construction of the proposed railway has the potential to cause emissions of dust (TSP) from land clearing, earthworks, movement of vehicles over unpaved surfaces and roads, handling of friable materials, laying of ballast, and construction of structures such as bridges and tunnels. These sources have the potential to increase ambient concentrations of particulate matter, resulting in nuisance at nearby settlements and to affect crops and natural vegetation through dust deposition. Experience from construction sites around the world suggests that dust deposition levels can be sufficient to adversely affect people and vegetation at distances up to a few hundred metres from construction activity. Typically critical impacts can occur up to 20 m from construction sites, major impacts up to 50 m, moderate impacts up to 100 m, and minor impacts up to 200 m. At this stage in design of the railway, it is not considered appropriate to identify individual settlements that could be affected by dust, as these may change with refinement of the detailed alignment, but an assessment of the likely scale of impact is provided by estimating the numbers of settlements currently within distances of the construction corridor around the current alignment that could be affected by nuisance levels of dust deposition. Settlements were identified from aerial photography and range from single homes up to large villages. The results are presented in Table 8.6. It must be emphasised that these figures are provided as indicators of the potential level of impact in the different sections of the route and should not be taken as predictive of actual impacts that will occur in specific settlements. Table 8.6 Numbers of Settlements Potentially Exposed to Significant Dust Impacts during

Construction

Rail

Section

Minor Impacts

(100-200m from construction corridor)

Moderate Impacts


Major Impacts


Critical Impacts


1 14 3 3 3

2 17 0 0 0

3 4 3 0 0

4 12 8 1 1

5 11 4 4 0

6 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0

8 2 0 0 0

9 2 0 0 1

Total 62 18 8 5


8-14

These data suggest that up to of the order of 90 settlements could be affected by significant dust impacts, with two thirds experiencing minor impacts, about 20% experiencing moderate impacts, and only a small number being close enough to experience major or critical impacts. The sections where the largest number of significant impacts are likely to occur are Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5. These have the highest concentration of population alongside the rail corridor, as illustrated in Figure 8.1. These impacts will be short-lived in most locations, as the construction works will take only a few days or weeks to pass by most settlements, but the impacts could be longer term near larger structures such as river and road bridges where construction could take up to several months. 8.4.3 Impacts Arising from Construction Traffic Exhaust Emissions and Construction Traffic

Dust Emissions The principal source of combustion emissions during construction will be exhaust emissions from vehicles and construction equipment. Construction equipment will be limited to operation within work areas and emissions from this source are not expected to be sufficient to adversely affect air quality outside work areas. Construction traffic will travel on the public road network, delivering construction materials to logistical supply centres and work fronts from the Marine Offloading Facility, the container port in Conakry (refer to Volume III Port) and from more local sources including quarries. It is estimated that there will be an average of about 23 trucks per hour leaving the Marine Offloading Facility and Conakry Container port and travelling eastward delivering materials along the rail corridor, and a similar number returning empty to the coast. The actual number will vary during the construction period, with flow peaking in at the end of the first year, and will decrease with distance from the coast as materials are delivered along the corridor. In addition, there will be an average of approximately six ballast truck movements per hour in each rail section, delivering rock and ballast from local quarries. Towards the end of construction, ore is also likely to be transported by truck from the mine to the coast prior to start of railway operations. This initial ore transportation will result in an additional ten trucks per day in each direction, adding twenty “one-way” trips per day to the construction traffic along the national road network. Taking all these figures into account, it is evident that the increase in flow of trucks on roads could exceed the threshold of 200 vehicles per day at which significant impacts could occur (see Section 8.2.3.1) in some locations and it is estimated that the flows could be as much as 600 trucks per day or more in the busiest locations. Construction traffic will use the N4 and N1 highways as far as Faranah, then the N2 to N’Zérékoré and Beyla, and will connect from these roads to logistical supply centres and the construction work fronts using existing local roads and some new roads constructed for the Project. Towns and villages on these roads could therefore be affected by exhaust emissions from this traffic and by dust generated by movements of vehicles. The United Kingdom DMRB method has been used to calculate the effect of exhaust emissions on communities through which traffic passes assuming a peak daily flow of approximately 630 vehicles and an average speed of 50 km per hour. The impact of this level of traffic on air quality is set out in Table 8.7. Table 8.7 Impact of Peak Construction Truck Movements on Roadside Air Quality

Pollutant WHO Interim Target 1 annual mean(µg/m3)

Traffic contribution (µg/m3)

Traffic contribution as % of Air Quality Standard

NO2 40 1.8 4.5%

PM10 70 0.24 0.34%

The results set out in Table 8.7 illustrate that the impact on air quality associated with exhaust emissions from truck movements during the construction phase is less than 25% of the air quality criteria set out in Section 8.2.3, and is therefore not significant. Where traffic passes through areas of ecological sensitivity the 10% threshold will also be met.


8-15

Dust deposition from road traffic is likely to be a more significant issue than exhaust emissions, as many of the roads used by construction vehicles will be unpaved or have poorly maintained surfaces. Traffic will need to pass through settlements along these roads with the potential to affect people living near the road and nearby vegetation. Receptors up to 200 m from the roadside may be affected, with major impacts for people living within 50 m of roads which are heavily trafficked, moderate impacts for receptors up to 100 away, and minor impacts for receptors up to 200 m away. As the final details of roads to be used for construction have yet to be determined, it is not possible to specify where these effects will occur at this time, but in the absence of mitigation, construction traffic is predicted to have an overall moderate or major adverse impact due to soiling caused by dust deposition and locally elevated levels of PM10 and PM2.5 where the roads to be used during construction pass through towns and villages. Further information will be provided for impacts from road traffic in Site Files prepared in accordance with the Class SEIA for the Simandou Roads Programme approved by Government in May 2012. 8.4.4 Exhaust Emissions from Locomotives During Operation 8.4.4.1 Predicted Air Quality The results of AERMOD modelling of emissions dispersion from locomotives operating on the railway are presented in Table 8.8. The predicted air quality is for locations on the boundary of the indicative operational corridor (nominally 20 m from the railway centreline). Based on modelling, there are no predicted significant impacts from locomotive emissions at distance of more than 20 m from single track sections. Near passing loops, where higher emissions will be generated by waiting trains, impacts become not significant at 30 m for human health, 100 m for vegetation and 500 m for protected areas. Table 8.8 Predicted Impacts of Exhaust Emissions from Rail Locomotives (at 20 m from Rail

Centreline on Single Track and at Passing Loops)

Pollutant

NO2 (health) PM10 (health) NOx (vegetation)

Annual average µg/m3

1 hour maximum

µg/m3

Annual average µg/m3

24 Hour maximum

µg/m3

Annual Average

µg/m3

Annual average

(protected areas) µg/m3

AQS 40 200 70 150 30

Threshold for minor impact (25% of AQS or 10% in protected areas)

10 50 17.5 37.5 7.5 3

Single Track

Maximum Project Contribution (PC) at any receptor location

2.71 12.1 1.36 2.75 3.87

% of AQS 6.8% 6.0% 1.9% 1.8% 13%

Significance Not

Significant Not

Significant Not

Significant Not

Significant Not

Significant Minor (at

20m)

Passing Loops

Maximum Project Contribution (PC) at any receptor location

8.59 34.58 1.39 3.06 22.6

% of AQS 21% 17% 2.0% 2.0% 75%

Significance Not

Significant Not

Significant Not

Significant Not

Significant Major (at

20m) Major (at

20m) Note: Impacts at passing loops assume the worst case scenario that all unladen trains have to stop so that nine trains per day wait for 70 minutes per train in each passing loop.


8-16

8.4.4.2 Impacts on Health No significant impacts from emissions of locomotives are predicted for single track sections of the railway. Whilst concentrations of NO2 close to passing loops are sufficient to cause moderate impacts, concentrations decrease quickly with distance from the source and impacts become not significant at distances of greater than 30 m. The locations of passing loops will be selected to avoid settlements and impacts on health from railway operation will therefore be not significant. 8.4.4.3 Impacts on Vegetation There will be no significant impacts on vegetation around the single track sections of railway. Major impacts would occur if there was any vegetation within 20 metres of passing loops but as there will be a clear corridor around passing loops and levels will decline rapidly to minor at 30 m and not significant at more than 100 m, it is predicted that there will be at most minor impacts on vegetation (including crops) in these locations. 8.4.4.4 Impacts on Protected Areas The current alignment crosses the edges of the Pinselli Classified Forest and the Upper Niger National Park for short distances and runs through the Niger Mafou Ramsar Site for about 70 km. It also crosses the proposed STEWARD transboundary park. If passing loops are located within these designated ecological areas, emissions from stationary trains are predicted to cause moderate impacts within 60 m and minor impacts up to 500 m away. 8.4.5 Dust from Locomotives and Ore Wagons during Operation As the trains move along the railway, there will be potential for dust to be emitted from the diesel exhausts and from the open surfaces of the ore wagons. Exhaust emissions were assessed using the AERMOD model as described in Section 8.4.4, but the generation of dust from the moving wagons as a result of air flow over the surface and wind was calculated using the method described in Annex 8A: Air Quality Assessment – Supporting Information. The results are presented in Table 8.9 for impacts at 20 m from the railway centreline. Table 8.9 Predicted Impacts of Dust Emissions from Trains (at 20 m from Rail Centreline on Single

Track and Passing Loops)

Pollutant

TSP (health) Dust deposition (nuisance and vegetation)

Annual average (µg/m3)

Annual average (mg/m2/day)

Annual average (protected areas mg/m2/day)

Air Quality Standard (AQS) 70 (PM10) 350

Threshold for minor impact (25% of AQS or 10% in protected areas)

18.5 87.5 35.0

Single track

Project Contribution (PC) 1.36 3.27

% of AQS 1.9% 0.93%

Significance Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Passing Loop

Project Contribution (PC) 1.36 3.27

% of AQS 1.9% 0.93%

Significance Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Note: Predictions are made for total suspended particulates (TSP) but as there are no standards for protection of health for TSP, these are compared with the AQS for PM10. This will over-estimate the significance of impacts. Impacts on sensitive human and ecological receptors from dust due to locomotive emissions and wind erosion from ore wagons are predicted to be not significant on both single line sections and in passing loops.


8-17

8.5 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 8.5.1 Overview As previously noted the following measures are included within the specifications for the Project: small generating plant (3MWth – 50MWth, including generators used for tunnel ventilation) will be

designed and operated to meet the emissions standards for small combustion plant set out in IFC(2007) Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality Guidelines;

waste incineration plant will only be used where alternatives are not feasible and will be small, modern

plants designed and operated to meet the emissions standards for incinerators set out in IFC (2007) EHS Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities;

all plant, vehicles and locomotives will comply with USEPA Tier 2 emission standards;

all construction vehicles and equipment will be maintained in good working order to prevent excessive

emissions; and

during operations fuel will have a sulphur level no greater than 500 parts per million. Further measures to mitigate significant impacts identified in Section 8.4 are detailed below. 8.5.2 Mitigation of Air Quality Impacts from Construction Sites During construction, the Project will adopt the following measures to control dust and other emissions: unnecessary disturbance of exposed surfaces will be avoided and areas of exposed ground will be kept

to the minimum necessary;

surfaces exposed for long periods, including soil stockpiles, will be stabilised by treatments such as re-vegetation;

cleared areas will be re-vegetate as soon as possible after completion of works; open burning of cleared vegetation and waste will be prohibited without specific prior authorisation;

stockpiles of friable material will be damped down or covered in dry and windy conditions;

water sprays will be used to control dust; drop heights for dusty materials will be reduced to extent practicable, and where needed. Shields fitted

to control windblown dust;

where required, dust suppression or extraction systems will be fitted to concrete batching, crushing and screening plants;

speed limits will apply to on-site vehicles and vehicle movements outside designated areas will be

prohibited;

all construction vehicles and equipment will be maintained in good working order to prevent excessive emissions; and

measures will be taken to minimise the risk of fire on construction sites.


8-18

With effective adoption of these good site management practices, there should be no more than minor impacts on people and sensitive vegetation located close to construction works from dust deposition and other emissions. Dust concentrations and deposition rates will be monitored at selected locations to confirm the level of impact and if more significant impacts do occur, consideration will be given to adopting more stringent measures to control dust. Although this is not expected to occur, if major or critical impacts cannot be avoided, consideration will be given to temporary relocation of affected people during the period when dust is expected to remain a problem. This will be explored in consultation with the affected community and will be planned and implemented in accordance with the Project Framework for Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Compensation (the PARC Framework). Further details are provided in Chapter 18: Land Use and Land-Based Livelihoods. 8.5.3 Mitigation of Emissions and Dust from Construction Traffic

Exhaust emissions from construction traffic will have no significant impact on air quality. As noted above, all vehicles and plant will be maintained in good working order in order to prevent increases in emissions. The Project will adopt the following measures to limit the impact of dust from vehicles moving on public roads: vehicles will be required to follow designated routes and strict speed limits will be applied to all vehicles

traveling through settlements;

drivers will be trained in good driving practices to minimise the potential for generating dust;

dust suppression techniques such as water sprays will be used where excessive dust levels are predicted or reported;

if necessary, further treatment or binding of road surfaces will be considered if high traffic flows are expected for long periods and people will be exposed to unacceptably high levels of dust; and

where major dust impacts from traffic passing through communities cannot be avoided, consideration

will be given to the need to provide temporary bypasses around settlements. These measures will reduce the impacts of dust from construction traffic, but minor to moderate adverse impacts are still likely to occur given the volume of heavy of construction traffic, the extent of unpaved roads likely to be used by the Project, and the numbers of people living close to these roads. 8.5.4 Mitigation of Emissions from Locomotives and Ore Wagons during Operation The assessment indicates that there should be no significant impacts from locomotive operations on single track sections of the railway and no specific mitigation is required. All locomotives will be maintained in good working order so that emissions do not exceed design standards. The potential for minor or moderate impacts on designated ecological areas in the vicinity of passing loops will be mitigated by locating passing loops outside designated areas wherever possible. If this is not possible, the locations of passing loops will be planned to avoid areas of more sensitive vegetation and the duration of stopping in these locations will be kept to the minimum necessary for safe operation of the railway. With these measures, it should be possible to ensure that the impacts of emissions on designated ecological areas are no more than minor and the aim will be to avoid all significant impacts if possible. No specific measures are identified as required to control dust blown from ore wagons and impacts of dust from trains will be not significant.


8-19

8.6 Summary of Findings The assessment considers the potential impacts from airborne pollutants and dust on health, amenity and crops and natural vegetation during the construction and operation of the Simandou Railway. The findings of the assessment are summarised in Table 8.10. Table 8.10 Summary of Residual Impacts and Mitigation

Impact Impact before mitigation

Mitigation (additional to standard project design measures)

Residual impact

Impacts on people and vegetation from dust generated by construction activities affecting up to about 90 settlements (single houses to large villages) within 200 m of construction works.

Critical for approximately 5 settlements immediately adjacent to construction

Implementation of good construction site practices including restrictions on dust generating activities, speed limits, watering of dusty areas, covering of dusty materials, dust suppression and extraction equipment where needed to prevent significant impacts on nearby receptors.

Monitoring to confirm dust levels and if required implementation of additional controls including if necessary temporary relocation of affected people.

Minor for receptors very close to works

Major for approximately 8 settlements

Moderate for approximately 18 settlements

Minor for approximately 62 settlements

Impact on people and vegetation from dust caused by construction traffic on roads through settlements.

Major for people living within 50 m of roads used by high flows of construction traffic

Speed limits on all project traffic through communities.

Driver training on good driving practices to reduce dust.

Consideration of use of water spraying, surface treatments, surfacing of roads and construction of by-passes around settlements where necessary to avoid major impacts.

Minor to moderate for people living adjacent to unpaved roads used by high flows of construction traffic

Moderate within 100 m

Minor within 200 m

Impact of construction traffic emissions on health.

Not Significant Not Significant

Impact of emissions from locomotives on health, crops and habitats in single track sections.


Impact of emissions from locomotives on health, crops and habitats near passing loops.

Potentially moderate for adjacent habitats in areas designated as of importance for biodiversity

Avoid location of passing loops in designated areas where possible.

Where not possible to avoid designated areas:

locate passing loops in areas of less sensitive vegetation; and

keep the duration of stops in passing loops to the minimum necessary for safe operation of the railway.

Minor or Not Significant

Impact of dust from locomotives and ore wagons on people and vegetation.



8-20

In summary: adoption of good construction site practices and the mitigation measures set out above will ensure that

impacts from airborne pollutants and dust from construction activities are not significant for the large majority of receptors. There is a risk that during periods of particularly dusty activities, or during unfavourable weather (ie dry and windy) there may be minor impacts for sensitive human receptors and crops immediately adjacent to a construction work area;

impacts of construction traffic on settlements will be mitigated by application of speed limits and driver training, and where necessary roads through settlements may be surfaced or treated to control dust or bypasses may be built. Heavy construction vehicles travelling on un-surfaced roads through settlements are nevertheless likely to cause minor to moderate impacts from dust;

locomotive emissions will have no significant impacts on human health;

locomotive emissions could cause adverse impacts on sensitive habitats close to passing loops where

trains will wait for periods of up to about 70 minutes. These impacts will be avoided where possible by locating passing loops outside sensitive areas where possible. Where designated areas cannot be avoided passing loops will be sited to avoid sensitive habitats and locomotive waiting times will be minimised; and

dust from trains and ore wagons will not cause any significant impact on air quality.

8 air quality 8.1 introduction - rio tinto · simandou seia volume ii rail chapter 8: air quality...

Documents