FRASER GRAIN TERMINAL EXPORT FACILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL AIR ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 REPORT N O FRASER GRAIN TERMINAL EXPORT FACILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL AIR ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT JUNE 2017

2

3 FRASER GRAIN TERMINAL EXPORT FACILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL AIR ASSESSMENT Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. Final Report Project no: Date: Canada Inc West Broadway Vancouver, BC, Canada V6J 4Y3 Phone: Fax:

4

5 i SIGNATURES PREPARED BY Sally Pang, B.Sc., EPt Air Quality Specialist, Environment Curtis Wan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Air Quality Engineer, Environment REVIEWED BY Chris Koscher, B.Sc.H., EP Regional Discipline Lead Air Quality, Environment Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

6

7 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION FACILITY OVERVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT OVERVIEW BASELINE CASE ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT SUMMARY PROJECT CASE ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT SUMMARY NO PROJECT CASE ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT SUMMARY GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE FACILITY SUPPLY CHAIN RECEIVER IDENTIFICATION AND PROXIMITY EMISSION SOURCES PRIMARY SOURCES FUGITIVE DUST RAIL MARINE NON-ROAD EQUIPMENT ON-ROAD VEHICLES ELECTRICITY EMISSION VARIABILITY AIR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EMISSIONS INVENTORY AIR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN DISPERSION MODELLING Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

8 iv 5 CURRENT CONDITIONS AMBIENT AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY METEOROLOGICAL INFLUENCES FUTURE CONDITION HORIZON YEAR RATIONALE DESIGN CAPACITY LIMITATION EMISSION ESTIMATES BASELINE CASE FUTURE PROJECT CASE NO PROJECT CASE LEVEL 2 DISPERSION MODELLING OVERVIEW OF MODELLING APPROACH CALPUFF MODEL RESULTS PROJECT CASE MITIGATION POTENTIAL USE OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY NOT ENTAILING EXCESSIVE COST APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE PROCEDURES IMPACT POTENTIAL COMPARE BASELINE CASE TO FUTURE PROJECT CASE COMPARE BASELINE TO FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CASE COMPARE PROJECT CASE TO BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY CONCLUSION No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

9 v TABLES TABLE 2-1 HISTORICAL ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT DATA FOR THE 2015 BASELINE... 6 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF THROUGHPUT CAPACITIES... 7 TABLE FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT... 9 TABLE 3-1 DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST RECEIVER TYPES TABLE 4-1 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2015 BASELINE FUGITIVE SOURCES TABLE 4-2 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT FUGITIVE SOURCES TABLE 4-3 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2020 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUGITIVE SOURCES TABLE 4-4 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RAIL SOURCES TABLE 4-5 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2015 BASELINE MARINE SOURCES TABLE 4-6 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT MARINE SOURCES TABLE 4-7 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2020 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT MARINE SOURCES TABLE 4-8 TABLE 4-9 ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT CASE NON-ROAD EQUIPMENT ACTIVITY MATRIX FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT CASE ON-ROAD VEHICLES TABLE 4-10 ACTIVITY MATRIX AND EMISSION FACTOR FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT CASE ELECTRICITY TABLE 4-11 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS TABLE 4-12 BLACK CARBON TO PM2.5 RATIOS TABLE 5-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES TABLE 5-2 TABLE 5-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION INFORMATION AND MEASUREMENT HEIGHTS SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS TABLE BASELINE EMISSIONS FACILITY SOURCES TABLE FUTURE WITH PROJECT EMISSIONS FACILITY SOURCES TABLE FUTURE WITH PROJECT EMISSIONS SUPPLY CHAIN TABLE FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FACILITY SOURCES TABLE FUTURE WITH PROJECT PREDICTED MAXIMUM AIR CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS TABLE FUTURE WITH PROJECT PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED AT NEAREST RESIDENCE AND SELECT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

10 vi TABLE 10-1 TABLE 10-2 EMISSIONS COMPARISON OF BASELINE TO FUTURE WITH PROJECT CASE FACILITY SOURCES EMISSIONS COMPARISON OF BASELINE TO FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CASE FACILITY SOURCES FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 LOCATION OF FACILITY WITHIN SURREY... 2 FIGURE 1-2 AERIAL VIEW FROM NEW WESTMINSTER ACROSS THE FRASER RIVER... 2 FIGURE 1-3 PROJECT SITE AND PARY... 3 FIGURE 1-4 PROJECT SITE... 3 FIGURE 1-5 PROJECT SITE RENDERING LOOKING EAST... 4 FIGURE 2-1 ANTICIPATED ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT LEVELS FOR PROJECT CASE AT CAPACITY... 8 FIGURE 3-1 FIGURE 3-2 FIGURE 5-1 FACILITY LOCATION AND MARINE SUPPLY CHAIN (BLUE), RAIL SUPPLY CHAIN (ORANGE), AND TRUCK SUPPLY CHAIN (PURPLE), FOR THE PROJECT FACILITY LOCATION, FENCELINE AND NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS LOWER FRASER VALLEY AIR QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

11 vii GLOSSARY µ Micro µg/m 3 Micrograms per cubic metre 2015 Baseline The baseline year considered for the assessment 2020 Future with Project The future year considered with the Project for the assessment 2020 Future without Project The future year considered without the Project for the assessment AAQOs AQMG ARM BATNEC BC MOE Bekaert BPIP PRIME CACs Ambient Air Quality Objectives British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline Ambient Ratio Method Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost BC Ministry of Environment Bekaert Canada Limited Building Profile Input Program PRIME Criteria Air Contaminants CEAA, 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 CH4 CMC Engineering CO CO2 CO2e CO2e100 CO2e20 d d/y DPM EC ECA Fenceline FSD g G g/h g/hph Methane CMC Engineering and Management Limited Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide equivalent Carbon Dioxide equivalent based on a 100-year time horizon Carbon Dioxide equivalent based on a 20-year time horizon Day Days per year Diesel particulate Matter Environment Canada (now Environment Canada and Climate Change) Emissions Controlled Area The Project site boundary Fraser Surrey Docks Gram Giga Grams per hour Grams per horsepower hour Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

12 viii g/kwh g/l g/m 2 /s g/m 3 g/s g/vkmt GAQM GHGs GWh/a GWPs h h/d h/y HP IMO IPCC JV Facility k K kg kg/mg kg/t km kw L L/h L/y Lat. LEM Long. M m m m/s m 2 Grams per kilowatt hour Grams per litre Grams per metres squared per second Grams per cubic metre Grams per second Grams per vehicle kilometres travelled Guidelines on Air Quality Models Greenhouse gases Gigawatt hours per annum Global Warming Potentials Hour Hours per day Hours per year Horsepower International Maritime Organization Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The existing joint venture facility operated by P&H and FSD Kilo Kelvin Kilogram Kilogram per Megagram Kilograms per tonne kilometre Kilowatt Litre Litres per hour Litres per year Latitude Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Longitude Mega metre Milli Metres per second Squared metres No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

13 ix m 3 m 3 /h m 3 /s me mg/kg mn MOVES Mt/a N2O NAD NAM NCEP NH3 NMM NO2 NOx OGVs OLM P&H PARY PER PG PGF PM10 PM2.5 ppmw QA/QC RAC S s s/h SO2 SOx t t CO2e/GWh Cubic metres Cubic metres per hour Cubic metres per second Metres East Milligram per kilogram Metres North Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator Megatonne per annum Nitrous Oxides North American Datum North American Mesoscale National Centers for Environmental Prediction Ammonia Non-hydrostatic Mesoscale Model Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides Ocean going vessels Ozone Limiting Method Parrish and Heimbecker Limited Port Authority Rail Yard Project and Environmental Review Pasquill-Gifford Paterson GlobalFoods Inc. Inhalable particulate matter Fine particulate matter Parts per million weight Quality Assurance and Quality Control Railway Association of Canada Sulphur Second Seconds per hour Sulphur Dioxide Sulphur Oxides Tonne (1,000 kilograms) Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per gigawatt hour Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

14 x t/d t/h t/y TEU the Project TPM US EPA UTM VFPA VkmT VOCs W WRF y YVR Tonnes per day Tonnes per hour Tonnes per year Twenty foot equivalent unit (20 foot containers) Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. proposes to build a start-of-the-art grain terminal on VFPA land located at Elevator Road in Surrey Total Particulate Matter United States Environmental Protection Agency Universal Transverse Mercator Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Vehicle kilometres travelled Volatile Organic Compounds Watt Weather Research Forecasting Model Year Vancouver Airport No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

15 1 1 INTRODUCTION Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. is a Canadian family-owned and operated grain company and the proponent for constructing a grain handling facility on Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) land. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012), the Port of Vancouver is required to conduct an environmental review of any proposed projects on port lands. The Environmental Air Assessment has been prepared to support the Port of Vancouver s Project and Environmental Review (PER) process. This assessment has been prepared following the Port of Vancouver s Environmental Air Assessment guidelines 1. Information presented in Section 1.1 and Section 2 below have been adapted from the Fraser Grain Terminal Project Description and Description of Operations. 1.1 FACILITY OVERVIEW Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. proposes to build a state-of-the-art grain export terminal primarily on VFPA land located at Elevator Road in Surrey (the Project ). The site which was used previously by a steel wire manufacturer, Bekaert Canada Limited (Bekaert), is currently vacant. The proposed Project will act as a trans-shipment facility for bulk grain products including: wheat, barley, oil seeds, pulses and other speciality grains. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd., in partnership with Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD), operate an existing agriproducts handling terminal at FSD built in 2011 (the JV Facility ). The JV Facility consists of a small rail unloading facility, an 18,000 t storage shed (Shed #1) and a series of portable conveyors to load vessels. In 2015, the JV Facility handled more than 800,000 t of agriproducts. The proposed Project will receive grain by rail then transfer the products to storage silos with a small amount loaded directly to vessels on a Direct Hit basis. Grain will be loaded from the storage silos onto cargo ships and into bulk containers, railcars or trucks. Ocean going cargo vessels will be partially loaded at the Project and then topped up at a deep water terminal, such as Alliance Grain Terminal in Burrard Inlet, if required. The majority of containers will be trucked to Deltaport, and then loaded onto container ships for export. Railcars and some trucks will distribute to customers in the Fraser Valley. FSD operates Berths #3 and #4 where the Project s state-of-the-art travelling ship loader is proposed. The ship loader will serve the proposed new terminal as well as the existing JV Facility. FSD and the Project will also share use of some of the proposed rail track in the Port Authority Rail Yard (PARY). 1 Port of Vancouver, Project Environmental Review. Guidelines Environmental Air Assessment. Accessed from: Guidelines-FINAL pdf Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

16 2 The proposed facility will be constructed on land adjacent to the FSD lands located at Elevator Road in the City of Surrey, see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 below. The overall site layout is shown in Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4, and a site rendering is shown in Figure 1-5. Figure 1-1 Location of Facility within Surrey Figure 1-2 Aerial View from New Westminster across the Fraser River No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

17 3 Figure 1-3 Project Site and PARY Figure 1-4 Project Site Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

18 4 Figure 1-5 Project Site Rendering Looking East 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project is designed to unload 3.5 Mt/a of grains from railcars and load 3.2 Mt/a of grains onto vessels consisting of wheat, barley, canola, soybeans, peas, and lentils. The existing JV Facility will remain in operation to unload approximately 546,800 t of canola meal pellets, but will make use of the Project s new travelling ship loader for loading vessels. The intent of the Project is to receive grain from the Canadian prairies by unit trains and export about 75% by bulk via ocean going vessels. About 20% of grain received will be loaded into 20 foot containers (TEUs) for export; the balance, 5%, will be loaded onto railcars and trucks to serve the Fraser Valley feed industry. In order to construct the Project, the former Bekaert s structures located on the property will be demolished. No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

19 5 The proposed Project will consist of the following: A semi-loop track, located within the property boundaries, will connect to the adjacent Port Authority Rail Yard (PARY). The PARY will be expanded to accommodate unit trains and additional volume. In particular, Tracks 94, 95, and 96 will be extended and some turnouts relocated to accommodate receipt of 112 car unit trains. Some of the tracks serving Chemetron will be realigned to make space for the track extensions. An unloading station to empty railcars will be located on the semi-loop track. Twenty-four (24) 3,000 t corrugated and galvanized silos and ten (10) 500 t corrugated and galvanized bins for a total grain storage of 77,000 tonnes will be constructed on concrete slabs above ground. A travelling ship loader with a cascading type telescoping loading spout with special dust suppression will be installed on existing Berth #4 and a portion of Berth #3 for loading Panamax class vessels. A transfer steel tower containing two bulk weighers, a shipping surge bin, two grain samplers and three bucket elevators will be located near the unloading station. This transfer tower will serve as the central receiving and dispatch point for directing grain flow from the unloading station to storage silos and ship loader. A network of totally enclosed belt conveyors, supported by steel trusses, will connect the receiving station to storage silos and ship loader via the transfer tower. Dust suppression systems will be installed to mitigate dust escaping from all conveyors, silos and other associated material handling equipment. A truck and railcar loading facility. A container loading facility with associated empty container yard, container preparation area and full container yard will be constructed to stuff containers with bulk grain for international markets. An administration/welfare building and a maintenance shop will be built to serve the needs of the plant s operational and maintenance staff. 2.2 BASELINE CASE ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT SUMMARY The JV currently operate an agriproduct facility at the existing FSD dock. Agricultural product arrives by railcars at the PARY, and strings of railcars are then unloaded at the JV Facility unloading station. At present, Berth #3 and #4 at FSD are used to load vessels destined for export with agriproduct. This assessment does not consider emissions associated with FSD s agricultural product operations, as these are outside of the Project site boundary, as shown in Figure 1-2, with the exception being the emissions generated from the transfer and loading of agricultural products, and marine activities at the berth. The historical activity and throughput data for FSD Berths #3 and #4 are shown below in Table 2-1. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

20 6 Table 2-1 Historical Activity and Throughput Data for the 2015 Baseline Year Number of Vessel Calls Throughput (t) , , , , ,543 The baseline year was chosen to be 2015 (2015 Baseline), which represented the highest throughput and activity during the historical period (2011 through 2015) at the existing JV Facility. Once the proposed Project is operational, the existing JV Facility will be used exclusively for agriproducts. The Project will be used for grains, therefore the throughput of the exiting JV Facility will be approximately 546,800 t. 2.3 PROJECT CASE ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT SUMMARY The future year was chosen to be 2020 (2020 Future with Project), which represents the terminal capacity. A summary of the throughput capacities for the 2020 Future with Project scenario is shown in Table 2-2, and an overview of the anticipated activity and throughput levels is shown in Figure 2-1. Specific details regarding the emissions calculations are presented in Section 4 and Appendix A. No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

21 7 Table 2-2 Summary of Throughput Capacities Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

22 8 Figure 2-1 Anticipated Activity and Throughput Levels for Project Case at Capacity No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

23 9 2.4 NO PROJECT CASE ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT SUMMARY In 2020 without the project (2020 Future without Project), the facility activities and product throughputs are anticipated to be less that the 2015 Baseline which was an exceptional year. Based on our current understanding, the existing JV Facility would handle up to a maximum of 650,000 t of agricultural product in 2020 if the Project were to not go ahead. Table 2-3 summarizes the estimated activity and throughput data for the 2020 Future without Project case. Table Future without Project Activity and Throughput Year Number of Vessel Calls Throughput (t) (estimated) 650,000 3 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE 3.1 FACILITY The Proeject will be located adjacent to the existing FSD terminal along the Fraser River on VFPA land. The Project site boundary (fenceline) considered for the assessment as shown in Figure 3-2 was defined within the air dispersion modelling plan submitted to and approved by the VFPA. 3.2 SUPPLY CHAIN The supply chain takes into account the emissions from marine vessels, switch locomotives and trucks that will serve the Project. The supply chain boundaries are shown in Figure 3-1. Detailed emission estimation methodologies for the supply chain are presented in Section 4 and Appendix A. Marine vessels travel through the Strait of Georgia and anchor at one of the anchorages in English Bay before and potentially after loading at the Project. Some of the ocean going vessels may be topped up at a deep water terminal located in Burrard Inlet, such as the Alliance Grain Terminal AGT, if required. Since anchoring emissions are a significant portion of marine emissions, and the supply chain boundary should be large enough to capture this activity, the supply chain boundary for ocean going vessels was set at the boundary of Georgia Strait and English Bay where vessels would be anchoring. For rail, the supply chain boundary was set at the PARY right outside of the Project where railcars are transported to and from the facility by a switch locomotive. The rail supply chain emissions were based on the estimated annual fuel consumption for the switch locomotive operating within the defined supply chain boundary between the Project and the PARY, and within the PARY. The majority of the truck traffic at the Project consists of incoming trucks with empty containers and outgoing trucks loaded with full containers destined for the Deltaport Container Terminal, located less than 30 km away via the South Fraser Perimeter Road. A smaller portion of the truck traffic, around 1% of the total number of trucks movements, distribute shipments by 40 t bulk trucks to local feed millers using different routes. Given the small percentage, the bulk truck emissions were excluded from the truck supply chain inventory. The emissions from the truck supply chain to Deltaport Container Terminal were determined based on the distances travelled and their respective emission rates. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

24 10 Figure 3-1 Facility Location and Marine Supply Chain (blue), Rail Supply Chain (orange), and Truck Supply Chain (purple), for the Project 3.3 RECEIVER IDENTIFICATION AND PROXIMITY Table 3-1 shows the distance to the nearest receiver types from the Project. Figure 3-2 shows the location of the nearest sensitive receiver types (sensitive receptors) to the Project. Table 3-1 Distance to the Nearest Receiver Types Receiver Type Distance to Receiver (m) Name of Receiver Business 0 Business adjacent to the fenceline Residence ~230 Residence to the southeast School ~920 Annieville Elementary Child Care Facility ~1020 Square One Montessori Seniors Facility ~3500 Good Samaritan Victoria Heights Hospital ~5100 Surrey Memorial Hospital Public Area (Park) ~500 Royal Heights Park No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

25 11 Figure 3-2 Facility Location, Fenceline and Nearby Sensitive Receptors Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

26 12 4 EMISSION SOURCES A facility and supply chain emission inventory were prepared for this assessment for the baseline and the future year to quantify emissions associated with current facility operations, its proposed future modifications and the supply chain. As stated previously, the year 2015 was chosen as the baseline (2015 Baseline) and 2020 as the future year (2020 Future with Project and 2020 Future without Project). The baseline (2015 Baseline) and 2020 Future without Project only consider fugitive dust sources from the existing grain loading to vessel operations at the berth and marine activities at the berth at the JV Facility. Emission source data was retrieved from the report Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Coal Transfer Facility: Air Quality Assessment Addendum dated July , and activity data was based on the actual throughput in 2015 and future throughput provided by FSD. The best available activity data for the Project and the most appropriate emission models and factors available to-date were used to estimate the emissions for the 2020 Future with Project. 4.1 PRIMARY SOURCES Emissions from the following sources were included in this air quality assessment: Fugitive Dust Rail Dust collectors Transfer points Ship loader Switcher locomotive Marine Ocean going vessels Tug boats Non-road Equipment Top-picks Forklifts On-road Vehicles Bulk trucks Container trucks Pickup trucks Electricity No Levelton Consultants Ltd., July 2015 APPENDIX 11 Air Quality Assessment Addendum. Accessed from: Assessment-Addendum-Fraser-Surrey-Docks-DTCF-Amendment.pdf Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

27 13 The activity matrices for these primary sources are shown in Table 4-1 through Table 4-10 for the 2015 Baseline, 2020 Future with Project, and 2020 without Project. Specific details regarding the emissions calculations are presented in Appendix A FUGITIVE DUST For the baseline (2015 Baseline) and 2020 Future without Project, agricultural products are loaded onto ships through a covered mobile conveyance system and telescopic ship loader. Fugitive dust is generated from the mobile conveyance system material transfer points and from the ship loader. With the Project (2020 Future with Project), a network of enclosed transfer conveyors equipped with cartridge type aspiration fans and air filters will be installed. In addition, a new travelling ship loader with a special, totally enclosed cascading type loading spout designed for dust suppression will be constructed at the existing FSD berth. A summary of the activity metrics for fugitive dust operations for the 2015 Baseline and 2020 Future with Project, and 2020 Future without Project is shown below in Table 4-1, Table 4-2, and Table 4-3. Table 4-1 Activity Matrix for 2015 Baseline Fugitive Sources Geographic Boundary Description Emission Source Metric Value JV Facility Loading to Vessels Transfer Points Ship Loader Annual Throughput (t/y) Daily Throughput (t/d) Annual Throughput (t/y) Daily Throughput (t/d) 805,543 8, ,543 8,000 Table 4-2 Activity Matrix for 2020 Future with Project Fugitive Sources Geographic Boundary The Project JV Facility Description Receiving Operations Shipping Operations Shipping from FSD Shed One Container Loading Operations Container Charging Operations from Surge Bins Rail or Truck Loading Operations Rail or Truck Charging Operations from Surge Bins Material Transfer to Storage Silos a Electricity Use Loading to Vessels Emission Source Dust Filters Dust Filters Dust Filters Dust Filters Dust Filters Dust Filters Dust Filters Dust Filters Annual Usage Ship Loader Spout Metric Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Annual Operating Time (h/y) Daily Operating Time (h/d) Value Annual Consumption (GWh/a) 19.7 Annual Throughput (t/y) 3,177,600 Daily Throughput (t/d) 39,000 Operating Time (h/y) 2658 a Only the long transfer route for material transfer to the 100 series storage silos was considered for this assessment, as it involves thirteen (13) transfer points as compared to five (5) transfer points for the short transfer route Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

28 14 Table 4-3 Activity Matrix for 2020 Future without Project Fugitive Sources Geographic Boundary Description Emission Source Metric Value JV Facility Loading to Vessels Transfer Points Ship Loader Annual Throughput (t/y) Daily Throughput (t/d) Annual Throughput (t/y) Daily Throughput (t/d) 650,000 8, ,000 8, RAIL The rail carrier will deliver grain-loaded unit trains of up to 112 cars to the nearby PARY. A switcher locomotive will be deployed to separate the unit trains into strings of cars in the PARY. The switcher locomotive will move the rail cars to and from the Project railcar unloading building via the semi-loop track within the facility. It has been assumed for the emissions estimate that the switcher locomotive will operate half of the time within the facility and half of the time in the PARY. The number of trains per year and the daily operating hours were provided by CMC Engineering. A summary of the activity metrics for rail is shown below in Table 4-4. Further details of how the engine fuel consumption was derived is shown in Appendix A. Table 4-4 Activity Matrix for 2020 Future with Project Rail Sources Geographic Boundary Emission Source Metric Value # Engines 1 Engine Fuel Consumption (L/h) The Project Switcher Locomotive Daily Operating Hours (h/d) a 5.25 Operating Hours per Train 3.5 Number of Trains per Year 309 Annual Operating Hours (h/y) 1,081.5 # Engines 1 Engine Fuel Consumption (L/h) Supply Chain Switcher Locomotive Daily Operating Hours (h/d) a 5.25 Operating Hours per Train 3.5 Number of Trains per Year 309 Annual Operating Hours (h/y) 1,081.5 a Based on a 1.5 trains being unloaded in a 24-hour period MARINE The Project will utilize Berth #3 and #4 at FSD for the Project to load grain products onto ocean going vessels (OGVs). Tug boats are used inbound and outbound to maneuver the OGVs at the facility berth. There are three sizes of OGVs which will call on the Project: Handy, Handymax, and Panamax. As a conservative approach for the assessment, it was assumed that all vessel calls would be by Panamax vessels, the largest of the vessels to call on the Project. No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

29 15 While at berth, combustion emissions are released from both the auxiliary engines and boilers of OGVs. It is assumed that vessel emissions occur continuously while at berth. For the 2015 Baseline and 2020 Without Project scenarios, main engines are also considered during vessel warping which is required with the existing ship loader. For the marine supply chain, OGV emissions include: the main engine, auxiliary engines and boilers during underway operations. In addition, auxiliary engines and the boilers emissions are considered while at anchor. A summary of the activity metrics for marine operations is shown below in Table 4-5, Table 4-6, and Table 4-7. Table 4-5 Activity Matrix for 2015 Baseline Marine Sources Geographic Boundary Description Emission Source Metric Value OGV Berthing Auxiliary Engine (4-stroke) Boiler # Vessels per Year 56 Daily Operating Hours (h/d) 24 Operating days per Year (d/y) a 101 Annual Berthing Hours (h/y) b 2,640 Berthing Hours per Vessel 47 # of Vessels per Year 56 Hours of Operation for Vessel Warp 4 JV Facility OGV Berthing (Warping) Main Engine (2-stroke) Maximum Number of Vessel Warps per Day Average Number of Vessel Warps per Ship Loading Operation 2 4 Tug Boats Engine Daily Operating Hours (h/d) 8 Annual Hours of Operation (h/y) 896 # Tug Boat Operations per Year 56 Daily Operating Hours (h/d) c 1.08 Annual Operating Hours (h/y) 61 a Based on the annual 805,543 t/y annual throughput divided by 8,000 t/d b Assumes that the total annual berthing hours is based on 101 operating days at 24 hours per day, and 4 additional hours are required per ship c Calculated from having the tug boats assist for 25 minutes inbound and 40 minutes outbound, for a total of 65 minutes (1.08 hours), gathered from previous assessments for the Fraser Surrey Docks facility, based on a maximum of 1 inbound and 1 outbound vessel per day Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

30 16 Table 4-6 Activity Matrix for 2020 Future with Project Marine Sources Geographic Boundary Description Emission Source Metric Value # Vessels per Year 80.1 The Project OGV Berthing Auxiliary Engine (4-stroke) Boiler Daily Operating Hours (h/d) 24 Operating days per Year (d/y) 111 Annual Berthing Hours (h/y) a 2,984 Berthing Hours per Vessel 37.3 # Tug Boat Operations per Year 80.1 Tug Boats Engine Daily Operating Hours (h/d) b 1.08 Annual Operating Hours (h/y) 87 Main Engine (2-stroke) # Vessels per Year 80.1 Supply Chain OGV Underway Auxiliary Engine (4-stroke) Boiler Annual Underway Hours (h/y) 1,040 OGV Anchoring Auxiliary Engine and Boiler # Vessels per Year 80.1 Annual Anchoring Hours (h/y) c 4,758 a Assumes that the total annual berthing hours is based on 111 operating days at 24 hours per day, and 4 additional hours are required per ship b Calculated from having the tug boats assist for 25 minutes inbound and 40 minutes outbound, for a total of 65 minutes (1.08 hours), gathered from previous assessments for the Fraser Surrey Docks facility, based on a maximum of 1 inbound and 1 outbound vessel per day c The average vessel anchoring time was estimated and provided by PMV 3 for another project. 3 Rigby, Christine, Private Communication regarding Vessel Anchoring Time. September 25, No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

31 17 Table 4-7 Activity Matrix for 2020 Future without Project Marine Sources Geographic Boundary Description Emission Source Metric Value OGV Berthing Auxiliary Engine (4-stroke) Boiler # Vessels per Year 40 Daily Operating Hours (h/d) 24 Operating days per Year (d/y) a 81 Annual Berthing Hours (h/y) b 2,110 Berthing Hours per Vessel 53 # of Vessels per Year 40 Hours of Operation for Vessel Warp 4 JV Facility OGV Berthing (Warping) Main Engine (2-stroke) Maximum Number of Vessel Warps per Day Average Number of Vessel Warps per Ship Loading Operation 2 4 Tug Boats Engine Daily Operating Hours (h/d) 8 Annual Hours of Operation (h/y) 640 # Tug Boat Operations per Year 40 Daily Operating Hours (h/d) c 1.08 Annual Operating Hours (h/y) 43 a Based on the annual 650,000 t/y annual throughput divided by 8,000 t/d b Assumes that the total annual berthing hours is based on 81 operating days at 24 hours per day, and 4 additional hours are required per ship c Calculated from having the tug boats assist for 25 minutes inbound and 40 minutes outbound, for a total of 65 minutes (1.08 hours), gathered from previous assessments for the Fraser Surrey Docks facility, based on a maximum of 1 inbound and 1 outbound vessel per day NON-ROAD EQUIPMENT The container loading operations at the Project will utilize two forklifts for handling of empty containers and two top-picks for handling full and empty containers. A summary of the activity metrics for non-road vehicle operations is shown below in Table 4-8. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

32 18 Table 4-8 Activity Matrix for 2020 Future with Project Case Non-road Equipment Geographic Boundary Description Metric Value The Project Forklifts Top-picks # Equipment 2 Annual Operating Hours (h/y) 2,530 Daily Operating Hours (h/d) 10 # Equipment 2 Annual Operating Hours 2,530 Daily Operating Hours (h/d) ON-ROAD VEHICLES There are three types of on-road vehicles operating at the Project: bulk trucks, container trucks, and pickup trucks. The bulk and container trucks are used to transport grain from the facility, while the pickup trucks are generally used within the facility fenceline. A summary of the activity metrics for onroad vehicle operations is shown below in Table 4-9. Table 4-9 Activity Matrix for 2020 Future with Project Case On-road Vehicles Geographic Boundary Description Metric Value Throughput (t/y) 30,000 # Trucks per Year 667 Bulk Trucks # Trucks per Day a 2.64 # Trucks per Hour b 2.64 Distance Travelled per Truck on-site (km/truck) 0.52 Throughput (t/y) 600,000 # Trucks per Year 24,000 The Project Container Trucks # Trucks per Day a 94.9 # Trucks per Hour c 9.49 Distance Travelled per Truck on-site (km/truck) 0.35 # Trucks 2 Distance Travelled per Truck on-site (km/truck), per day 10 Pickup Trucks Distance Travelled per Year (km) a 5,060 Distance Travelled per Day (km) 20 Distance Travelled per Hour (km) d 2 Supply Chain Container Trucks # Trucks per Year 24,000 Distance Travelled (km/y) e 1,439,424 a Based on 253 days per year operation b Based on the worst-case situation than 2.64 trucks loaded in a day, are all loaded within the same hour c Based on container trucks being evenly loaded within their 10 hours of operation per day d Based on pickup trucks driven evenly through within their 10 hours of operation per day e Based on a round trip distance of km from the Project to Deltaport No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

33 ELECTRICITY The Project will be an end user of electricity purchased from BC Hydro. According to IPCC Protocols 4 GHG emissions due to electricity consumption are grouped into scope 2 as indirect GHG emissions. Indirect GHG emissions are a consequence of the activities of the reporting entity (the Project), but occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity (BC Hydro). A CO2e emission factor for the production of provincial grid electricity was based on BC s Best Practice Methodology from the BC Ministry of Environment 5 methodology manual. BC Hydro s emission factor has been calculated as an average of BC Hydro s GHG intensities for 2013 through 2015 and adopted for this study. A summary of the anticipated 2020 Future with Project electricity use and emission factor is shown below in Table Table 4-10 Activity Matrix and Emission Factor for 2020 Future with Project Case Electricity Geographic Boundary Emission Source Metric Value The Project Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use (GWh/a) 19.7 Electricity Emission Factor (t CO2e/GWh) EMISSION VARIABILITY Emissions from the facility will vary depending upon a number of parameters, such as: concurrent operations, throughput, scheduling of activities, etc. To assess potential air quality impacts due to emissions variability, short-term (1-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour periods) considered all potential concurrent sources of emissions over each of these time periods operating at peak operational rates. Annual emissions reflect the annual hours of operation for each emission source being considered at the facility based on the proposed terminal operations. 4.3 AIR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN EMISSIONS INVENTORY Air contaminants of potential concern considered for the emission inventory include: Grain Dust Total Particulate Matter (TPM) Inhalable particulate matter (PM10) Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 4 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Accessed from: 5 BC Ministry of Environment, /17 B.C. Best Practices Methodology for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Including Guidance for Public Sector Organizations, Local Governments and Community Emissions. Victoria, B.C. May, Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

34 20 Combustion Ammonia (NH3) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Black Carbon Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Combustion (Greenhouse Gases) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Methane (CH4) Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and black carbon 6, which is a climate forcer 7, have been estimated on a CO2 equivalent tonnes based on a 20-year time horizon (CO2e20) and on a 100-year time horizon (CO2e100). The Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), shown in Table 4-11 below, were applied to determine CO2 equivalent emissions for these two time horizons. For CH4 and N2O, the GWPs shown are based on the Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 8 and were adopted by the BC Ministry of Environment. For black carbon, the data was from a recent publication 9. Table 4-11 Global Warming Potentials Air Contaminant 20-Year 100-Year CH N2O Black Carbon 3, No Black Carbon is a component of fine particulate matter and consists of pure carbon in several linked forms. It is formed through the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel, and biomass, and is emitted in both anthropogenic and naturally occurring soot. 7 Black carbon is a climate forcer warming the Earth by absorbing sunlight and heating the earth. 8 IPCC, 2012, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) - Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Accessed from Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T. K., DeAngelo, B. J., et al., 2013, Bounding the Role of Black Carbon in the Climate System: A Scientific Assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, doi: /jgrd Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

35 21 Since black carbon is a constituent of the particulate released from combustion sources, its emissions have been estimated by applying source specific black carbon to PM2.5 ratios published in a recent US EPA report 10. These ratios are shown in Table Table 4-12 Black Carbon to PM2.5 Ratios Source Black Carbon/PM2.5 Ratio On-road Diesel 0.74 Non-road Diesel 0.77 Non-road Liquefied Petroleum Gas a 0.1 Locomotive 0.73 Commercial Marine (C1 & C2 categories) 0.77 Commercial Marine (C3 category) 0.03 Natural Gas Combustion 0.38 Distillate Oil Combustion b 0.1 a Combustion source category was approximated from the Non-road Gasoline Category b Ship boiler emissions used the Distillate Oil Combustion source category, which are based off fuels with a lower sulphur fuel percentage than marine distillate oil 4.4 AIR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN DISPERSION MODELLING Air contaminants of potential concern considered for the air dispersion modelling and assessment include: Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs) Total Particulate Matter (TPM) Inhalable particulate matter (PM10) Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 10 US EPA, 2012, Report to Congress on Black Carbon, EPA-450/R ,Table 4-2, pages Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

36 22 5 CURRENT CONDITIONS 5.1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES The federal and provincial governments, as well as Metro Vancouver, have developed ambient air quality objectives (AAQOs) to promote long-term protection of public health and the environment for most criteria air contaminants (CACs). The Metro Vancouver AAQOs are used in this assessment along with the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) objectives for TPM as Metro Vancouver does not have AAQOs for TPM. As with the federal and provincial AAQOs, Metro Vancouver establishes AAQOs that are based on the current knowledge regarding air quality and health science. A summary of the ambient air quality objectives considered for this assessment are shown below in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Ambient Air Quality Objectives Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Air Contaminant Averaging Time AAQOs (µg/m 3 ) Regulatory Agency Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TPM) a b 1-Hour 30,000 Metro Vancouver 8-Hour 10,000 Metro Vancouver 1-Hour 200 Metro Vancouver Annual 40 Metro Vancouver 1-Hour 196 a Metro Vancouver 24-Hour 125 Metro Vancouver Annual 30 Metro Vancouver 24-Hour 50 Metro Vancouver Annual 20 Metro Vancouver 24-Hour 25 Metro Vancouver Annual 8 (6) b Metro Vancouver 24-Hour 120 BC MOE Annual 60 BC MOE Interim SO 2 objective and is intended to apply to all applications for new or significantly modified discharge authorizations on or after May 15, 2015, but is not intended to apply to existing facilities. Annual PM 2.5 objective of 8 µg/m 3 and a planning goal of 6 µg/m 3 which is a longer term aspiration target to support continuous improvement. 5.2 BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Metro Vancouver operates an extensive network of ambient air quality monitoring stations shown in Figure 5-1. Data from three monitoring stations (T06 North Vancouver Second Narrows, T013 North Delta, and T018 Burnaby South) were used to characterize the background air quality in the vicinity of the Project. The yellow circles identify the stations used and the yellow star identifies the location of the Project. The monitoring stations were chosen based on the representativeness, proximity to the facility and the air quality parameters monitored. No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

37 23 Figure 5-1 Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Network 11 Three years of data from 2012 to 2014 from T06 North Vancouver Second Narrows, T013 North Delta, and T018 Burnaby South were analyzed. At the time of writing this assessment data was not available for all air quality parameters for 2015 from Metro Vancouver. Table 5-2 presents the ambient air quality monitoring station information and instrument measurement heights. Table 5-2 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station Information and Measurement Heights Station ID Station Name Location (Lat., Long.) Measurement Height Above Ground (m) NO2 NOx CO SO2 PM2.5 PM10 T06 North Vancouver Second Narrows N, W T13 North Delta N, W T18 Burnaby South N, W Metro Vancouver, Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Report. November, Accessed from: Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

38 24 The data is summarized in Table 5-3 below for each averaging time corresponding to the averaging times for the AAQOs. In addition, the 98 th percentile concentrations were determined for 1-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour averaging periods, with the exception of 1-hour SO2 where the 99 th percentile was used in accordance with guidance from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment 12. The 98 th percentile values are used to characterize the background ambient air quality as these values are less extreme than the maximum observed concentrations, and are considered to be more representative of the expected background air quality, while being more conservative than using the arithmetic mean average. The methodology used to estimate the background air quality concentrations is consistent with the British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline (AQMG 13 ). Table 5-3 Summary of the Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations Air Contaminant Stations(s) Included in Averages Averaging Time Background Levels (µg/m 3 ) Calculation Basis CO NO2 NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TPM North Vancouver Second Narrows (T6) Burnaby South (T18) North Vancouver Second Narrows (T6) North Delta (T13) Burnaby South (T18) North Vancouver Second Narrows (T6) North Delta (T13) Burnaby South (T18) North Vancouver Second Narrows (T6) Burnaby South (T18) Burnaby South (T18) North Vancouver Second Narrows (T6) North Delta (T13) Burnaby South (T18) Burnaby South (T18) a 1-Hour th Percentile 8-Hour th Percentile 1-Hour th Percentile Annual 26-1-Hour th Percentile 1-Hour th Percentile 24-Hour th Percentile Annual Hour th Percentile Annual Hour th Percentile Annual Hour 50.7 a 98 th Percentile Annual 21.7 a - a TPM background values calculated using the ratio of TPM/PM 10 from the US EPA 14 No BC MOE, Dispersion Modelling Guidance for 1-hour NO2 and SO2 Interim Ambient Air Quality Objectives. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Accessed from: 13 BC MOE, British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Division, Environmental Standards Branch, Clean Air Section. Victoria, British Columbia. November,2015. Accessed from: 14 US EPA, Procedures for Estimating Probability of Nonattainment of a PM10 NAAQS Using Total Suspended Particulate or PM10 Data. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Planning Standards, Monitoring Data Analysis Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December, Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

39 METEOROLOGICAL INFLUENCES Atmospheric conditions that contribute to the dispersion of air contaminants are complex. In particular, the dispersion modelling assessment uses a meteorological model to represent threedimensional meteorological fields, defining key atmospheric processes such as wind speed and direction, temperature, atmospheric mixing heights, and stability. In order to create the meteorological dataset for the dispersion modelling, the meteorological model uses information from the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) and surface meteorological stations that record hourly weather data. Details on the observed surface station meteorology in the region around the Project is provided in Appendix B. 6 FUTURE CONDITION 6.1 HORIZON YEAR RATIONALE It is anticipated that the Project will be operational in the year The year 2020 was been chosen as the horizon year for this assessment considering the maximum throughput for the facility with the current design. 6.2 DESIGN CAPACITY LIMITATION The design capacity limitations for the project are limited rail capacity both onsite at the Project and upstream rail, the throughput capacity of the handling, system and the limits imposed by the grain storage capacity. 7 EMISSION ESTIMATES For this air quality assessment, emissions associated with the following facility and supply chain scenarios were estimated. Facility Scenarios 2015 Baseline 2020 Future with Project 2020 Future without Project Supply Chain Scenarios 2020 Future with Project 7.1 BASELINE CASE The 2015 Baseline emissions include: particulate matter from the mobile conveyance system material transfer points, and the ship loader; and combustion emissions from vessels and tug boats operating at the berth. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

40 26 A summary of the 2015 Baseline emissions from facility sources is shown in Table 7-1. Table Baseline Emissions Facility Sources Air Contaminant Fugitives (t/y) Marine Vessels (t/y) All Sources (t/y) CO NOx SO VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO2-2, , CH N2O CO2e20-3, , CO2e100-2, , FUTURE PROJECT CASE The 2020 Future with Project facility emissions include: particulate matter from dust filters used for the receiving, transfer, storage, shipping and loading operations; and combustion emissions from the switch locomotive, ocean going vessels, tug boats, non-road equipment, on-road vehicles, and electricity. The 2020 Future with Project supply chain emissions include: combustion emissions from the switch locomotive operating between the facility and the PARY and in the PARY, on-road vehicles travelling round trip between the Project and Deltaport, and ocean going vessels while at anchor in English Bay and in transit round trip between the anchorage and the Project. A summary of the 2020 Future with Project emissions from the facility and the supply chain is shown in Table 7-2 and Table 7-3, respectively. No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

41 27 Table Future with Project Emissions Facility Sources Air Contaminant Fugitives (t/y) Rail (t/y) Marine Vessels (t/y) Non-road Equipment (t/y) On-road Vehicles (t/y) Electricity (t/y) All Sources (t/y) CO NOx SO VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO , , CH N2O CO2e , , CO2e , a 3, a Electricity CO 2e 20 assumed to be equivalent to CO 2e 100 Table Future with Project Emissions Supply Chain Air Contaminant Rail (t/y) Marine Vessels (t/y) Trucks (t/y) All Sources (t/y) CO NOx SO VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO , , CH N2O CO2e , , CO2e , , Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

42 NO PROJECT CASE The 2020 without Project case emissions include: particulate matter from the mobile conveyance system material transfer points, and the ship loader; and combustion emissions from vessels and tug boats operating at the berth. A summary of the 2020 future without Project emissions from facility sources is shown in Table 7-4. Table Future without Project Facility Sources Air Contaminant Fugitives (t/y) Marine Vessels (t/y) All Sources (t/y) CO NOx SO VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO2-1, , CH N2O CO2e20-2, , CO2e100-1, , No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

43 29 8 LEVEL 2 DISPERSION MODELLING 8.1 OVERVIEW OF MODELLING APPROACH A Port of Vancouver Level 2 comprehensive assessment was required for the proposed Project. The purpose of a Level 2 assessment is to estimate the potential impacts of air emissions from the facility within the study area. Air dispersion modelling was used to predict air contaminant concentrations within the study area based on the estimated emissions from the facility. Predicted air contaminant concentrations were then added to the background ambient air quality and compared to the AAQOs. The modelling assessment followed the recommended guidance from the AQMG in addition to guidance 1 from the Port of Vancouver. This section presents a summary of the modelling methodology and results. Further details on the modelling methodology and contour plots of the model predicted air contaminant concentrations are provided in Appendix B. 8.2 CALPUFF The CALPUFF modelling suite was used for assessing potential air quality impacts. CALPUFF is a suite of numerical models (CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST) that are used in series to determine the potential impact of emissions in the vicinity of a source or group of sources. Detailed three-dimensional meteorological fields were produced by the diagnostic computer model CALMET Version (Level ), based on surface meteorological data, digital land use data, terrain data, and prognostic meteorological data. The three-dimensional meteorological fields produced by CALMET were used by CALPUFF Version (Level ), a three-dimensional, multi-species, non-steady-state Gaussian puff dispersion model that can simulate the effects of time and space varying meteorological conditions on air contaminant transport. Finally post-processing utilities CALSUM, CALRANK, CALPOST and CALAVE were used to post-process and summarize the modelling output from CALPUFF. The three-dimensional CALMET meteorological fields were generated using meteorological data from numerous surface stations, prognostic meteorological data from the WRF model, and digital terrain and land use data. The model was used to predict ambient air concentrations for the air contaminants and averaging periods outlined in Table 5-1. Emission rates were developed from the emissions inventory by selecting representative rates for: 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour and annual averaging periods as follows: 1-hour: the peak hourly emission rate for combustion sources was determined and assessed for each hour of the modelling period; 8-hour: the peak hourly (CO) emission rate for combustion sources was determined and assessed for the 8-hour averaging period for each hour of the modelling period; 24-hour: the daily average emission rates were determined based on assumed maximum daily process throughputs and combustion source activity and were distributed over all hours of the day for each hour of the modelling period; and, Annual: the annual emission totals based on the annual activity summarized in Section 7 were distributed evenly throughout all hours of the 1-year modelling period. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

44 MODEL RESULTS PROJECT CASE Model results for the air contaminants considered in the modelling assessment are summarized below for the 2020 Future with Project case in Table 8-1. As an estimate of potential cumulative air quality impacts from the facility, the table also presents background ambient air quality concentrations which are added to predicted model results and compared to the AAQOs. Table Future with Project Predicted Maximum Air Contaminant Concentrations Air Contaminant Averaging Time AAQO (µg/m 3 ) Air Contaminant Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Background Predicted Maximum Total (Background + Predicted Maximum) % of AAQO CO 1-hour 30, % 8-hour Rolling 10, % NO2 (100% NOx) 1-hour ,970 2,035 n/a NO2 (100% NOx) Annual n/a NO2 (ARM) 1-hour a b b 56% NO2 (75% NOx) Annual % 1-hour % SO2 24-hour Rolling % Annual % 24-hour Rolling % PM2.5 PM10 TPM Annual % 24-hour Rolling % Annual % 24-hour Rolling c % Annual c % a Background NO x b Ambient Ratio Method (ARM) includes background concentration. c TPM background values calculated using the ratio of TPM/PM 10 from the US EPA 14 The predicted results plus background were below AAQOs with the exception of the following: NO2 Annual Maximum (75% conversion of NOx to NO2): Four fenceline receptors were predicted to exceed the AAQO The maximum was predicted to be 41.5 µg/m 3 (or 104% of the AAQO) The receptors which were predicted to exceed the AAQO are located adjacent to the switch locomotive and top-pick operations. All other receptors, aside from the four fenceline receptors, were below the AAQO No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

45 31 See Appendix B for the contour plot PM10 24-hour Rolling Maximum One fenceline receptor was predicted to exceed the AAQO The maximum was predicted to be 53.0 µg/m 3 (or 106% of the AAQO) The maximum occurs adjacent to the railcar unloading operations All other receptors were below the AAQO See Appendix B for the contour plot TPM 24-hour Rolling Maximum One fenceline receptor was predicted to exceed the AAQO The maximum was predicted to be µg/m 3 (or 112% of the AAQO) The maximum occurs adjacent to the railcar unloading operations All other receptors were below the AAQO See Appendix B for the contour plot Table 8-2 provides an indication of the dispersion of air contaminants away from the facility at the nearby sensitive receptors. Table Future with Project Particulate Matter Concentrations Predicted at Nearest Residence and Select Nearest Sensitive Receptors Air Contaminant Averaging Time AAQO (µg/m 3 ) Air Contaminant Concentration (Background + Predicted Maximum) (µg/m 3 ) Nearest Residence Annieville Elementary Royal Heights Park Max % of AAQO PM2.5 PM10 24-hour Rolling % Annual % 24-hour Rolling % Annual % Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

46 32 9 MITIGATION POTENTIAL 9.1 USE OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY NOT ENTAILING EXCESSIVE COST In the development of the design of the Project, care has been taken to choose engineering techniques that best minimize the environmental impact. Both the emission estimates and the predicted impact to ambient particulate matter concentrations demonstrate the effect that these measures will have on air quality near the facility. Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEC) was selected for all grain handling operations for the project, key features being: Replacement of FSD s existing ship loader with a new travelling ship loader with a cascading type telescoping loading spout with special dust suppression to further minimize dust emissions and eliminating the requirement for vessel warping at berth, mitigating marine combustion emissions associated with repositioning during warping activities; Utilizing a completely enclosed grain handling terminal design to minimize the points of exposure of the grain product and the potential for fugitive dust creation potential; Reducing the maximum speed of belt conveyors and drop heights of transfer points to reduce grain breakage and dust creation potential; Installation of cartridge type air filters to control dust emissions where aspiration points are required throughout the facility, located where positive pressure occurs, due to turbulence from transfer points or filling of enclosed bins or hoppers; and, Installation of truck and railcar loading spouts that control and mitigate fugitive dust. Further details of the BATNEC systems can be seen in Appendix IA of the Fraser Grain Terminal Project Description and Description of Operations. 9.2 APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE PROCEDURES Following the installation of the above described technologies and measures, the majority of effort will be spent on good engineering and operational best practices that are consistent with equipment design requirements. The main document Fraser Grain Terminal Project Description and Description of Operations provides a detailed description of the application of best available procedures. In addition, information contained within the supporting application documents such as the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D), Energy Efficiency (Appendix I), and Rail Service System (Appendix P) associated with the Project will allow for the efficient movement of grain and will assist in minimizing emissions from the facility and the associated supply chain. The Construction Environmental Management Plan contained in Appendix L of the Fraser Grain Terminal Project Description and Description of Operations, also specifically outlines mitigation measures and best management practices for air quality during the construction phase of the Project. No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

47 33 10 IMPACT POTENTIAL 10.1 COMPARE BASELINE CASE TO FUTURE PROJECT CASE Table 10-1 shows an overall emission summary of air contaminant emissions for the 2015 Baseline and 2020 Future with Project scenarios. For the 2015 Baseline, the particulate emissions were mainly attributable to the ship loader currently being used at FSD. With the implementation of the BATNEC techniques with the Project, including the new travelling ship loader, a significant decline in particulate emissions in the 2020 Future with Project scenario has been observed as shown in Table For combustion-related emissions, emissions associated with marine vessel operations have also decreased when comparing the 2015 Baseline and the 2020 Future with Project scenarios. These decreases are attributable to the elimination of marine warping activities and related combustion emissions, due to the use of the new travelling ship loader. Table 10-1 Emissions Comparison of Baseline to Future with Project Case Facility Sources Air Contaminant 2015 Baseline (t/y) 2020 with Project (t/y) Change from Baseline (%) CO % NOx % SO % VOCs % TPM % PM % PM % NH % DPM % Black Carbon % CO2 2, , % CH % N2O % CO2e20 3, , % CO2e100 2, , % 10.2 COMPARE BASELINE TO FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CASE Table 10-2 shows an overall emission summary of air contaminant emissions for the 2015 Baseline and 2020 Future without Project Scenarios. Comparing the 2015 Baseline and 2020 Future without project scenarios, there is a 20 27% decrease in all air contaminants due to the decrease in annual throughput. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

48 34 Table 10-2 Emissions Comparison of Baseline to Future without Project Case Facility Sources Air Contaminant 2015 Baseline (t/y) 2020 with Project (t/y) Change from Baseline (%) CO % NOx % SO % VOCs % TPM % PM % PM % NH % DPM % Black Carbon % CO2 2, , % CH % N2O % CO2e20 3, , % CO2e100 2, , % 10.3 COMPARE PROJECT CASE TO BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY The proposed project control technologies and facility efficiency measures are considered the best available currently according to industry standard. The effectiveness of these controls and measures are demonstrated in the significant emission reductions for the Project as shown in Table CONCLUSION The Environmental Air Assessment Report for the Project evaluated the change in emissions and the potential impact on air quality due to the Project and the modified activities at the current JV Facility. The engineering design of the Project was developed to mitigate and minimize air emissions to the environment from the facility by selecting BATNEC for grain handling terminal operations. With the implementation of BATNEC for the Project, in particular the new travelling ship loader, a significant decrease in particulate matter emissions was estimated when comparing the 2020 Future with Project to the 2015 Baseline, even with a significant increase in throughput. Combustion emissions have also decreased when comparing the 2020 Future with Project to the 2015 Baseline. The new travelling ship loader eliminates the need for warping of vessels while at berth, thereby eliminating the combustions emissions associated with warping activities. Using conservative assumptions to predict potential air quality impacts at receptors in the study area, the following conclusions have been drawn for the 2020 Future with Project Scenario: No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

49 35 Predicted air quality impacts including ambient background at sensitive receptors and within residential neighbourhoods in the vicinity of the Project are generally low and remain below all Ambient Air Quality Objectives. The predicted air contaminant concentrations quickly diminish as emissions disperse further away from the proposed Project. For all air contaminants and averaging periods, there were no predicted exceedances of the Ambient Air Quality Objectives with ambient background added beyond the facility fenceline. Exceedance of the Ambient Air Quality Objectives were predicted for NO2 (Annual) at four fenceline receptors, PM10 (24-hour rolling) at one fenceline receptor, and TPM (24-hour rolling) at one fenceline receptor. Further details can be found in Section and Appendix B (Contour Plots). Considering the predicted reductions in particulate matter and combustion emissions with the Project, it would be anticipated that the air quality surrounding the Project will have the potential to improve with the Project. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

50

51 Appendix A ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES

52

53 REPORT N O FRASER GRAIN TERMINAL EXPORT FACILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL AIR ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT APPENDICES CONFIDENTIAL JUNE 2017

54

55 FRASER GRAIN TERMINAL EXPORT FACILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL AIR ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT APPENDICES Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. Confidential Project no: Date: Canada Inc West Broadway Vancouver, BC, Canada V6J 4Y3 Phone: Fax:

56

57 i TABLE OF CONTENTS A ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES... A-1 A.1 FACILITY SOURCES... A-1 A.2 MATERIAL HANDLING AND TRANSFERS... A-2 A.3 RAIL... A-6 A.4 MARINE... A-7 A.5 NON-ROAD EQUIPMENT...A-11 A.6 ON-ROAD VEHICLES...A-13 A.7 SUPPLY CHAIN...A-14 A.7.1 RAIL... A-14 A.7.2 MARINE VESSELS... A-14 A.7.3 CONTAINER TRUCKS... A-15 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

58 ii T A B L E S TABLE A-1 SUMMARY OF FACILITY EMISSION SOURCES... A-1 TABLE A-2 MANUFACTURER EXPECTED FILTER LOADINGS FOR THE DONALDSON-TORIT CP SERIES... A-2 TABLE A-3 MANUFACTURER EXPECTED CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR THE DONALDSON-TORIT CP SERIES... A-2 TABLE A-4 DUST COLLECTOR EMISSION RATES FOR THE 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT SCENARIO... A-3 TABLE A-5 MATERIAL HANDLING PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR BASELINE 2015 AND 2020 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT... A-5 TABLE A-6 EFFICIENCIES OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND MEASURES... A-5 TABLE A-7 CAC EMISSION FACTORS FOR LOCOMOTIVES (G/L)... A-6 TABLE A-8 GHG AND BLACK CARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR LOCOMOTIVES (G/L)... A-6 TABLE A-9 BLACK CARBON TO PM2.5 RATIOS... A-7 TABLE A-10 PANAMAX SHIP PARAMETERS AND LOAD FACTORS... A-8 TABLE A-11 SHIP EMISSION FACTORS FOR 2015 BASELINE, 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT, 2020 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT... A-9 TABLE A-12 SOX AND PM EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS... A-10 TABLE A-13 TUG ACTIVITY DATA BY VESSEL TYPE FOR THE 2015 BASELINE, 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT, AND 2020 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT... A-10 TABLE A-14 TUG EMISSION FACTORS FOR 2015 BASELINE AND 2020 FUTURE WITH / WITHOUT PROJECT... A-11 TABLE A-15 TABLE A-16 TABLE A-17 TABLE A-18 FORKLIFT AND TOP PICKER ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS AND ASSOCIATED NONROAD MODEL EMISSION FACTORS... A-12 MOVES MODEL EMISSION FACTORS FOR PICKUP TRUCKS (G/VKMT)... A-13 MOVES MODEL EMISSION FACTORS FOR SHORT-HAUL BULK AND CONTAINER TRUCKS (G/VKMT)... A-14 MOVES MODEL EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTAINER TRUCKS (G/VKMT)... A-15 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

59 A-1 A ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES The following sections detail the emissions quantification methods used and the assumptions applied for each primary emissions source category for the baseline and future scenarios for the Project Environmental Air Assessment. Primary sources consist of facility processes, including material handling and loading operations, non-road vehicles and equipment, on-road vehicles, marine vessel and rail activities within the facility boundary. A.1 FACILITY SOURCES Emissions are released from a variety of facility sources which are shown in Table A-1 for the 2015 Baseline, 2020 Future without Project, and 2020 Future with Project. Table A-1 Summary of Facility Emission Sources Year Emission Category Source Source Description 2015 Baseline Fugitive Emissions Grain Products 2020 Future (without Project) 2020 Future (with Project) Fugitive Emissions Fugitive Emissions Combustion Emissions Grain Products Grain Products Rail Marine Non-Road Equipment On-road Vehicles Ship Loading Transfer Points Ship Loader Ship Loading Transfer Points Ship Loader Rail Receiving and Transfer Points to Storage Silos Ship Loading Transfer Points Container Truck Loading Rail / Bulk Truck Loading Silo Transfer Operations Ship Loader Switcher Locomotive Tug Boats Vessel Auxiliary Engines Vessel Boilers Forklifts Top Pickers Bulk Trucks Container Trucks Pickup Trucks Details on the emissions quantification methodologies used for each of the source types listed in Table A-1 are presented in the following sections. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

60 A-2 A.2 MATERIAL HANDLING AND TRANSFERS As shown in Table A-1, there are a variety of material handling and transfer points within the facility where grain products are handled. These include: rail receiving and transfer points to storage silos, ship loading transfer points, container truck loading, rail / bulk truck loading, silo transfer operations, and ship loading. The fugitive dust released from these sources was estimated based on the following general equation: where: Ei = Emissions of pollutant i EFi = Emission factor for pollutant i Activity = Ei = EFi * Activity * (1 CE) Quantity of materials handled/processed, or airflow handled CE = Control equipment efficiency (fraction) DUST COLLECTORS For the 2020 Future with Project scenario, a number of filter units are proposed to control dust emission sources either at the point of use with a bin vent, or using stand-alone dust collectors complete with a hopper and rotary air lock. Proposed for the project are the Donaldson-Torit PowerCore CPVs for the bin vents, and Donaldson-Torit PowerCore CPCs for the stand alone dust collectors. Expected untreated particulate loadings per volume of air and expected filtration efficiencies were provided by CMC Engineering (CMC Engineering obtained this information directly from the manufacturer Donaldson for their Donaldson-Torit CP Series). These values are shown below in Table A-2 and Table A-3. Resulting treated emission levels for all filters modelled in this assessment are shown in Table A-4. Not all filters associated with the project are shown in this table; filters that will be part of the running process, but not simultaneously operating when the other equipment is in operation, were not considered for the purposes of this assessment. Table A-2 Manufacturer Expected Filter Loadings for the Donaldson-Torit CP Series Activity TPM (g/m 3 ) PM10 (g/m 3 ) PM2.5 (g/m 3 ) Reference Untreated Filter Loading Donaldson Manufacturer Specifications Table A-3 Manufacturer Expected Control Efficiencies for the Donaldson-Torit CP Series Control Efficiency TPM (%) PM10 (%) PM2.5 (%) Reference Donaldson-Torit CP Expected Filtration Efficiency Donaldson Manufacturer Specifications No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

61 A-3 Table A-4 Dust Collector Emission Rates for the 2020 Future with Project Scenario Equipment Tag Equipment Description Operation Description Air Flow (m 3 /h) TPM (g/h) PM10 (g/h) PM2.5 (g/h) F1-REL1 RECEIVING LEG 1, RECEIVING CONVEYOR 1, RECEIVING HOPPER 1 Receiving 43, F2-REL1 RECEIVING LEG 1 Receiving 5, F1-TRL1 TRANSFER LEG 1 Receiving, Transfer to Silos 5, F2-TRL1 - - a Receiving, Transfer to Silos 5, F1-REW1 RECEIVING BULK WEIGHER 1 Receiving, Transfer to Silos 5, F1-SHW1 SHIPPING BULK WEIGHER 1 Shipping 5, F1-SHL1 SHIPPING LEG 1 Shipping 5, F2-SHL1 - - a Shipping 5, F1-RMC63 RECLAIM CONVEYOR 63 Shipping, Transfer to Silos 4, F1-TRC1 TRANSFER CONVEYOR 1 Receiving, Transfer to Silos 4, F1-TRC2 TRANSFER CONVEYOR 2 Receiving, Transfer to Silos 4, F1-TRC3 TRANSFER CONVEYOR 3 (SHUTTLE) Receiving, Transfer to Silos 6, F3-TRC3 - - a Receiving, Transfer to Silos 6, F1-TRC10 TRANSFER CONVEYOR 10 (SHUTTLE), STORAGE BINS Transfer to Silos 2, F3-TRC10 TRANSFER CONVEYOR 10 (SHUTTLE) Transfer to Silos 3, F1-TRC30 TRANSFER CONVEYOR 30 (SHUTTLE), STORAGE BINS Receiving 9, F3-TRC30 TRANSFER CONVEYOR 30 (SHUTTLE) Receiving 7, F4-TRC a Receiving 7, F1-RMC11 RECLAIM CONVEYOR 11 Rail/Truck Loading 1, F1-RMC20 RECLAIM CONVEYOR 20 Shipping, Transfer to Silos 4, F1-RMC40 RECLAIM CONVEYOR 40 Shipping 4, F1-RML1 RECLAIM LEG 1, RECLAIM CONVEYOR 61 Shipping, Transfer to Silos 9, F2-RML1 RECLAIM LEG 1 Shipping, Transfer to Silos 5, F1-SHC1 SHIPPING CONVEYOR 1 Shipping 4, F1-SHC2 SHIPPING CONVEYOR 2 Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 8, Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

62 A-4 Equipment Tag Equipment Description Operation Description Air Flow (m 3 /h) F2-SHC2 - - a Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 5, F1-SHC3 SHIPPING CONVEYOR 3 Shipping from Shed One 5, F1-SHC4 SHIPPING CONVEYOR 4 (SHUTTLE) Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 11, F2-SHC4 - - a Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 11, F3-SHC4 - - a Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 8, F4-SHC4 - - a Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 8, F5-SHC4 - - a Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 8, F6-SHC4 - - a Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 8, F1-SHL2 SHIPPING LEG 2 Shipping from Shed One 2, F2-SHL2 - - a Shipping from Shed One 2, F1-SLC1 SHIPLOADER CONVEYOR 1 Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 9, F1-SLC2 SHIPLOADER CONVEYOR 2 (BOOM), SHIPLOADER LOADING SPOUT 1 Shipping, Shipping from Shed One 11, F1-CLL1 CONTAINER LOADING LEG 1, RECLAIM CONVEYOR 10 Container Bin Charging 2, F2-CLL1 CONTAINER LOADING LEG 1 Container Bin Charging 1, F1-CLC1 CONTAINER LOADING CONVEYOR 1 Container Bin Charging 1, F1-CLS1 CONTAINER LOADING SPOUT 1, CONTAINER LOADING SURGE BIN Container Loading 8, F1-TRL2 TRANSFER LEG 2, TRANSFER CONVEYOR 5, WEIGH BACK CONVEYOR Rail/Truck Bin Charging 2, F2-TRL2 TRANSFER LEG 2 Rail/Truck Bin Charging 1, F1-RTC1 RC/T LOADING CONVEYOR 1 Rail/Truck Bin Charging F1-RTW1 RC/T LOADING BULK WEIGHER 1 Rail/Truck Bin Charging F1-RTS1 RAIL LOADING SPOUT 1, RAIL LOADING SPOUT 2, RAILCAR/TRUCK LOADING BINS , TRUCK LOADING SPOUTS 3-4 a Same equipment description as the equipment listed above TPM (g/h) PM10 (g/h) Rail/Truck Loading 7, PM2.5 (g/h) No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

63 A-5 TRANSFER POINTS AND SHIP LOADING The material handling activity data associated with the 2015 Baseline, 2020 Future without Project, and 2020 Future with Project, has been presented in the main body of the report while the emission factors for agricultural goods handling and ship loading are shown in Table A-5. These factors were primarily taken from the US EPA AP-42, Chapter Grain Elevators and Processes 1 and Chapter Crushed Stone Processing & Pulverized Mineral Processing 2. Control efficiencies used for the material transfer points and ship loader are shown below in Table A-6. These material transfer points are only considered in the 2015 Baseline and the 2020 Future without Project scenario, as in the 2020 Future with Project scenario these material transfer points will be modified with the dust collectors installed as shown above Section A.2. The ship loader, with the telescopic chute, is also reflective of the 2015 Baseline and 2020 Future without Project scenarios, as this is the current ship loader that is used at the existing FSD facility. A special loading spout will be installed with the proposed project, and an engineering estimate of a 98% control efficiency was based on the following consideration from the project description Fraser Grain Terminal Project Description and Description of Operations : the loading spout proposed for this project gently supports the product being loaded all the way down the vertical length of the chute and thus maintains a constant low velocity and keeps the material in a mass-flow form that entraps and holds the dust within; material travelling at low velocity does not pull down with it and therefore, if there is no air to escape, there is no dust emission. Table A-5 Material Handling Particulate Emission Factors for Baseline 2015 and 2020 Future without Project Activity TPM (kg/mg) PM10 (kg/mg) PM2.5 (kg/mg) Reference Material Transfer Points AP-42 Chapter Ship Loader a a a AP-42 Chapter a The emission factors shown reflect the use of telescopic chute. Table A-6 Efficiencies of Control Equipment and Measures Equipment/Measure Control Efficiency (%) 3 Vent to Fabric Filter 99 Ship Loader (Telescopic Chute) Special Ship Loading Spout a The emission factor used reflects the use of telescopic chute. b Engineering estimate. 0 a 98 b 1 US EPA, Grain Elevators and Processes, Chapter 9.9.1, AP-42 Manual. May, US EPA, Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing, Chapter , AP-42 Manual. August, AWMA, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition. Air & Waste Management Association. Edited by Wayne T. Davis. Page 694, Table Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

64 A-6 A.3 RAIL Rail emissions at the Project arise from the combustion of diesel fuel from switcher locomotives while operating at the facility. The general equation below is used to calculate rail engine emissions. where: Er = FC * EFr * C E r = emissions of a given pollutant from a locomotive engine (t/y) FC = fuel consumption rate (L/y) EF r = fuel-based locomotive emission factors for a given pollutant (g/l fuel) C = unit conversion factor to tonnes (10-6 t/g) Grain products will be brought into the proposed terminal by first having unit trains hauling long strings of rail cars brought into the adjacent PARY. Subsequently, they are broken down into smaller strings of railcars, and brought into the Project with the use of a switcher locomotive. An adopted fuel consumption of litres/hour was used, representing an average fuel consumption rate of an EMD GD9 and a MP15DC locomotive, a commonly used switcher locomotive in the Port of Vancouver area 4. Published fuel-based emission factors from the Railway Association of Canada s (RAC) Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (LEM) Program 2013 were used to estimate CAC and GHG emissions from the switcher locomotive. These factors are shown in Table A-7 and Table A-8. Since the diesel sulphur content representative of the 2013 Canadian locomotive fleet was 15 ppm, no adjustments to the SOx and particulate emission factors were required. Black Carbon is a constituent of the PM2.5 particulate from rail engine combustion; therefore a ratio of 0.73, as shown in Table A-9, was applied to the PM2.5 factor to determine the emission factor for Black Carbon for rail. Table A-7 CAC Emission Factors for Locomotives (g/l) Source CO NOx SOx VOCs TPM PM10 PM2.5 DPM NH3 Switcher Locomotive Table A-8 GHG and Black Carbon Emission Factors for Locomotives (g/l) Source CO2 CH4 N2O Black Carbon CO2e20 CO2e100 Switcher Locomotive 2, , , SNC-Lavalin, Port of Metro Vancouver 2010 Landside Emission Inventory March 26, No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

65 A-7 Table A-9 Black Carbon to PM2.5 Ratios Combustion Source Category Black Carbon/PM2.5 Ratio 5 On-road Diesel 0.74 Non-road Diesel 0.77 Non-road Liquefied Petroleum Gas a 0.1 Locomotive 0.73 Commercial Marine (C1 & C2 categories) 0.77 Commercial Marine (C3 category) 0.03 Natural Gas Combustion 0.38 Distillate Oil Combustion b 0.1 a Combustion source category was approximated from the Nonroad Gasoline Category b Ship boiler emissions used the Distillate Oil Combustion source category, which are based off fuels with a lower sulphur fuel percentage than marine distillate oil A.4 MARINE Ocean going vessels are engaged in routine product shipment operations while tug boats are used to maneuver the ships to and from the facility berths. Vessels and tug emissions arise from the combustion of fuel during their respective operations. For marine vessels, fuel is used by the auxiliary engines and boilers while at berth. The methodologies used to estimate emissions from marine vessels and tug boats are outlined below. OCEAN GOING VESSELS Ship emissions were calculated following the methodology used to calculate the 2010 National Marine Emissions Inventory for Canada 6, where ship emissions are divided into three categories: anchoring, berthing, and underway. Anchoring activities occur when a ship is stationary not at an identifiable berth, berthing activity occurs when the ship is at berth, and underway activity include all movements of the ship. For the purposes of this assessment, anchoring and underway emissions were considered supply chain emissions and described in Section A.7.2 as these releases do not occur within the facility boundary. Only berthing emissions were considered within the facility boundary, which occur as the ship is docked at the berth and are defined as any emissions released while the ship is sitting idle, or undergoing warping activities, at the berth at the facility. The methodology for estimating ocean going vessel emissions is described below. There are three main sources that contribute to the ship s overall emissions: the main engines, the auxiliary engines, and the ship s boiler. The following general equation is used to calculate the emissions released by ships. E = ME * LLF * LF * T * EFact + AE * LF * T * EFact + BO * T * EFfuel * Madj 5 US EPA, Report to Congress on Black Carbon. Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, March, SNC-Lavalin Environment, National Marine Emissions Inventory for Canada. Prepared for: Environment Canada. March 31, Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

66 A-8 where: E = Emissions (g) ME = Main engine capacity (maximum continuous rating or MCR) in kw AE = Auxiliary engine capacity in kw LF = Engine load factor (fraction) LLF = Engine low load adjustment factor EFact = Emission factor activity based factors in g/kw-h EFfuel = Emission factor fuel based factors in kg/tonne fuel BO = Boiler fuel consumption in tonnes/h T = Time (h) Madj = Conversion factor from kg to grams The activity data used to calculate the ship emissions are summarized in Table A-10 for a representative Panamax vessel. Engine capacities were estimated based on information provided by CMC Engineering and information gathered for previous assessments for the Fraser Surrey Docks facility. The load factors and boiler fuel consumption are based on factors used in the Canadian 2010 National Marine Emissions Inventory 12. Tier 1 ships were assumed as a conservative measure. Table A-10 Panamax Ship Parameters and Load Factors Ship Engine Parameters 2015 Baseline, 2020 Future with Project, and 2020 Future Without Project Main Engine Auxiliary Engine Boiler Engine Capacity (kw) 9,500 1, Max Fuel S (%) Berthing Load Factor Underway Load Factor Boiler Fuel Use (t/h) The emission factors used to estimate emissions are tabulated in Table A-11 and these are based on the Marine Inventory report referenced above 6 for marine engines using marine distillate oil. SOx, and PM emission factors are calculated based on the maximum allowable fuel sulphur percentage of 0.1% in an Emissions Controlled Area (ECA) 7 and according to the equations shown in Table A-12. For the purposes of this assessment, all SOx from ship exhaust is assumed to be released in the form of SO2. The NOx emission factor was calculated based on limits 8 established by the International 7 International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2015a. Sulphur oxides (SOx) Regulation 14. Accessed from: %28SOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx. 8 International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2015b. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Regulation 13. Accessed from: %28NOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx. No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

67 A-9 Maritime Organization for Tier 1 vessels. Low load adjustment factors from the Marine Emissions Inventory report have been incoporated to the main engine emission factors shown. Estimation for Black Carbon emissions was based on the Black Carbon to PM2.5 ratios provided previously in Table A-9. Table A-11 Ship Emission Factors for 2015 Baseline, 2020 Future with Project, 2020 Future without Project Pollutant Main Engines (g/kwh) c 2-stroke Auxiliary Engines (g/kwh) 4-stroke Boiler EFfuel (kg/t) fuel CO NOx a SOx b VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO ,188 CH N2O CO2e ,325 3,381 CO2e ,261 a n=164 rpm for main engine and n=1,000 rpm for auxiliary engine b S=0.1% for ECA area c Low load factors incorporated Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

68 A-10 Table A-12 SOx and PM Emission Factor Equations Source Engine EF (g/kwh) or Boiler EF (kg/t) Particulate Fractions NOx a SOx b TPM b PM10/TPM Ratio PM2.5/PM10 Ratio Main Engines 45*n^(-0.2) 4.2(S) (S) Auxiliary Engines 45*n^(-0.2) 4.2(S) (S) Boilers (S) 1.17(S) a n is the Engine rpm, where n is from for Tier 1 b S is the Sulphur content of fuel in % TUG BOATS Tug boats are used to assist barges and ships in docking at the Project and to assist them in departing from the facility once grain loading is complete. The engine power rating, counts and operational hours are based on information provided by CMC Engineering and information gathered for previous assessments for the Fraser Surrey Docks facility. Tug engine characteristics are shown in Table A-13. A vessel movement is considered as assisting an ocean going vessel inbound and outbound from the Project. Table A-13 Tug Activity Data by Vessel Type for the 2015 Baseline, 2020 Future with Project, and 2020 Future without Project Tug Engine Parameter Value Combined Tugboat Engine Capacity (2 tug boats, kw) 3,357 Tug Boats per Vessel Movement 2 Load Factor 0.79 The CAC and GHG emissions were estimated based on the following equation for diesel fuel-fired engines for harbour tug boats. where: Em = EC * LF * EFm / Tadj Em = Emission rate of a given pollutant from a tug boat engine (g/s) EC = Engine capacity (kw) LF = Engine load factor (fraction) EFm = Activity-based emission factors for a given pollutant (g/kwh) Tadj = Conversion factor (s/h) Tug combustion emission factors from the Environment Canada (EC) Canadian 2010 National Marine Emissions Inventory were adopted for this study and are shown in Table A-14. For SO2 and PM, their respective emission factor equations and particulate size distribution for auxiliary engines are shown in Table A-12. For the purposes of this assessment, all SOx from tug exhaust is assumed to be released in the form of SO2. A fuel sulphur content of 15 ppmw (mg/kg) was used in the corresponding emission factor calculations according to the level stipulated in the Regulations Amending the Sulphur No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

69 A-11 in Diesel Fuel Regulations 9 (2012) for diesel fuel produced, imported or sold for use in vessel engines after May 31, Black Carbon emissions were calculated using the ratio given in Table A-9 while GHG emission factors followed those from the previously referenced Canadian 2010 Marine Emissions Inventory. Table A-14 Tug Emission Factors for 2015 Baseline and 2020 Future with / without Project Pollutant Emission Factor (g/kwh) CO 1.6 NOx a 10 SOx b VOCs 0.27 TPM 0.35 PM PM NH DPM 0.33 Black Carbon 0.25 CO2 670 CH N2O CO2e20 1,482 CO2e A.5 NON-ROAD EQUIPMENT Non-road emission sources include vehicles or pieces of equipment that operate exclusively within the facility and are not licensed to travel on public roads. Diesel-fired non-road equipment at the Project consists of two (2) forklifts and two (2) top pickers used to move full and empty containers during operation. The equipment type, age, horsepower ratings, and equipment operating hours were estimated based on facility information provided by CMC Engineering. Emissions for these equipment were estimated based on the following: where: Ei = EFi * HP * LF * H * TM * C Ei = Emissions of a given pollutant (t/y) 9 Canada Gazette, Regulations Amending the Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations, June 20, Accessed from: Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

70 A-12 EFi = EPA NONROAD Model emission factor for a given pollutant i and for a specific non-road equipment category (g/hph) HP = Equipment horsepower rating (HP) LF = Engine loading factor (fraction) H = Equipment operating hours (h/y) TM = Total equipment count C = Unit conversion factor to tonnes (10-6 t/g) Table A-15 shows the engine characteristics and NONROAD model emission factors applied for each non-road equipment type operating at the Project for the 2020 Future with Project. For diesel fuel combustion, the PM10 emission factor has been assumed to be the same as the TPM factor while the PM2.5 emission factor has been approximated to be 97% of the PM10 factor. The diesel particulate emission factor was assumed to be the same as the factor for PM2.5. Black Carbon is a constituent of the PM2.5 particulate from diesel engine combustion; therefore a ratio of 0.77 was applied to the PM2.5 factor to determine its emission factor, as shown in Table A-9. Table A-15 Forklift and Top Picker Engine Characteristics and Associated NONROAD Model Emission Factors Parameter Forklifts Top Picker 1 Top Picker 2 Engine HP Rating Model Toyota 8FG(D)U32 Hyster Model H360HD2-EC4 Hyster Model H1050HD-CH Age/Model Year Number of Units Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel Annual Hours of Operation (each unit) 2,530 2,530 2,530 Load Factor Emission Factors (g/hph): CO NOx SO VOCs TPM PM PM NH3 N/A N/A N/A DPM Black Carbon CO CH N2O N/A N/A N/A CO2e CO2e No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

71 A-13 A.6 ON-ROAD VEHICLES There are three types of on-road vehicles operating at the Project: pickup trucks, bulk commercial trucks, and container trucks. The emission factor approach used to estimate vehicle fuel combustion emissions resulting from the operation of these vehicles are provided below. LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES The Project will have a total of two (2) pickup trucks that will be operating within the facility boundary. The total vehicle kilometres travelled (VkmT) for these pickup trucks were based on estimates from CMC Engineering, and have been presented in the main body of the report. The emission factors used for light duty vehicles were generated from the US EPA MOVES model 10, using the Gasoline Light Commercial Truck category at a 10 km/h speed as shown in Table A-16 below. Table A-16 MOVES Model Emission Factors for Pickup Trucks (g/vkmt) Pollutant 2020 Future with Project CO NOx SOx VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO CH N2O CO2e CO2e US EPA, MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator), Version 2014a. Accessed from: Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

72 A-14 BULK AND CONTAINER TRUCKS Bulk and container trucks are also used to transport grain products from the facility. A summary of the activity metrics for these trucks, including the number of trucks per year and average distance travelled, has been provided in the main body of the report. Similar to the light duty vehicles, emissions factors were generated from MOVES using the category Diesel Combination Short-Haul Truck category at a 10 km/h speed as shown in Table A-17. Table A-17 MOVES Model Emission Factors for Short-Haul Bulk and Container Trucks (g/vkmt) Pollutant 2020 Future with Project CO NOx SOx VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO2 1,815.4 CH N2O CO2e20 1,901.0 CO2e100 1,842.1 A.7 SUPPLY CHAIN The supply chain consists of rail, marine vessel, and truck transportation modes for the shipment and delivery of grain products to the Project. A.7.1 RAIL Emissions are released from the rail supply chain due to fuel combustion by the switcher locomotive diesel engines operating in the PARY when transporting strings of railcars to and from the Project. Similar to the emissions estimation methodology presented in Section A-3, the same set of published fuel-based emission factors from the RAC LEM Program 2013, as shown in Table A-7 and Table A-8, were used to estimate CAC and GHG supply chain emissions from the switcher locomotive operations in the PARY. A.7.2 MARINE VESSELS For marine vessels, the supply chain emissions include the anchoring operations in English Bay, and the underway emissions travelling to and from the mouth of English Bay to the Project and are inclusive of releases from the main engines, auxiliary engines, and boilers. The marine vessel supply No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

73 A-15 chain emissions are dependent on the number of ship calls, the time required to travel the 61 km distance between the Project and English Bay and anchoring duration. To determine the underway travel time for the Project vessels, a ratio, based on the total regional marine traffic underway time to berthing time 6, was applied to the total vessel berthing hours used in Section A-4. The average vessel anchoring time was estimated and provided by PMV 11 for another project. Based on the above activity information, the same emission factors, as shown in Section A-4, were applied in estimating emissions from the vessel main and auxiliary engines as well as the ship boiler during transit to and from the mouth of English Bay to the Project and while at anchor in English Bay. A.7.3 CONTAINER TRUCKS Emissions are released from the truck supply chain due to fuel combustion from container trucks travelling to and from the Project and Deltaport. Similar to the facility-wide emissions from container trucks, emissions factors were generated from MOVES using the category Diesel Combination Short-Haul Truck category at an assumed speed of 80 km/h speed, based on the posted speed limit of South Fraser Perimeter Road connecting the two locations, as shown in Table A-18. Table A-18 MOVES Model Emission Factors for Container Trucks (g/vkmt) Pollutant 2020 Future with Project CO NOx SOx VOCs TPM PM PM NH DPM Black Carbon CO CH N2O CO2e CO2e Rigby, Christine, Private Communication regarding Vessel Anchoring Time. September 25, Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

74

75 Appendix B DISPERSION MODELLING METHODOLOGY

76

77 i TABLE OF CONTENTS B MODELLING METHODOLOGY... B-1 B.1 MODEL SELECTION... B-1 B.2 WRF... B-1 B.3 CALMET... B-3 B.3.1 CALMET MODELLING DOMAIN... B-3 B.3.2 TERRAIN ELEVATION AND LAND USE DATA... B-5 B.3.3 METEOROLOGICAL DATA... B-8 B.3.4 CALMET MODEL OPTIONS... B-10 B.4 CALPUFF...B-11 B.4.1 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS... B-12 B.4.2 MODEL DOMAIN AND RECEPTORS... B-13 B.4.3 BUILDING DOWNWASH... B-16 B.4.4 NO TO NO2 CONVERSION... B-18 B.4.5 CALPUFF SOURCE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS... B-19 B.4.6 CALPUFF MODELLING RESULTS (CONTOUR PLOTS)... B-35 B.5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT...B-43 B.5.1 GEOPHYSICAL INPUT DATA... B-43 B.5.2 METEOROLOGICAL INPUT DATA... B-43 B.5.3 WRF OUTPUT... B-51 B.5.4 CALMET OUTPUT... B-58 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

78 ii T A B L E S TABLE B-1 HEIGHTS OF CALMET MODEL VERTICAL LAYERS... B-3 TABLE B-2 SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS USED FOR CALMET INPUT... B-8 TABLE B-3 SELECTED CALMET MODEL OPTIONS... B-10 TABLE B-4 SELECTED CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS... B-12 TABLE B-5 BUILDING HEIGHTS USED IN DOWNWASH CALCULATIONS... B-16 TABLE B-6 TABLE B-7 TABLE B-8 TABLE B-9 TABLE B-10 TABLE B-11 TABLE B-12 TABLE B-13 POINT SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT) DUST FILTERS PART 1... B-20 POINT SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT) - DUST FILTERS PART 2... B-21 POINT SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT) - DUST FILTERS PART 3... B-22 POINT SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT) - DUST FILTERS PART 4... B-23 POINT SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT) MARINE... B-24 AREA SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT)... B-27 VOLUME SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT)... B-30 ROAD SOURCE PARAMETERS AND MODELLED EMISSION RATES (2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT)... B-32 F I G U R E S FIGURE B-1 WRF, CALMET, AND CALPUFF MODELLING DOMAINS... B-2 FIGURE B-2 CALMET AND CALPUFF MODELLING DOMAINS... B-4 FIGURE B-3 TERRAIN DATA USED IN CALMET... B-6 FIGURE B-4 LAND USE DATA USED IN CALMET... B-7 FIGURE B-5 SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS USED IN CALMET... B-9 FIGURE B-6 FIGURE B-7 CALPUFF RECEPTOR GRID GRIDDED AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS... B-14 CALPUFF RECEPTOR GRID FENCELINE, GRIDDED AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS... B-15 FIGURE B-8 BUILDINGS USED IN DOWNWASH CALCULATIONS... B-17 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

79 iii FIGURE B-9 NO2/NOX RATIO VERSUS 1-HOUR AVERAGE NOX OBSERVATIONS FROM METRO VANCOUVER STATION T18 (BURNABY SOUTH)... B-19 FIGURE B-10 MODELLED POINT SOURCES... B-26 FIGURE B-11 MODELLED AREA SOURCES... B-29 FIGURE B-12 MODELLED VOLUME SOURCES... B-31 FIGURE B-13 MODELLED ROAD SOURCES... B-34 FIGURE B-14 FIGURE B-15 FIGURE B-16 FIGURE B-17 FIGURE B-18 FIGURE B-19 FIGURE B-20 FIGURE B-21 FIGURE B-22 CONTOUR PLOT OF 1-HOUR MAXIMUM PREDICTED NO2 (ARM METHOD) CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-35 CONTOUR PLOT OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM PREDICTED NO2 (75% CONVERSION) CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-36 CONTOUR PLOT OF 24-HOUR MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-37 CONTOUR PLOT OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-38 CONTOUR PLOT OF 24-HOUR MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM10 CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-39 CONTOUR PLOT OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM10 CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-40 CONTOUR PLOT OF 24-HOUR MAXIMUM PREDICTED TPM CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-41 CONTOUR PLOT OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM PREDICTED TPM CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2020 FUTURE WITH PROJECT... B-42 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T4 BURNABY KENSINGTON PARK... B-43 FIGURE B-23 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T6 NORTH VANCOUVER SECOND NARROWS... B-44 FIGURE B-24 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T9 PORT MOODY... B-44 FIGURE B-25 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T13 NORTH DELTA... B-45 FIGURE B-26 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T14 BURNABY MOUNTAIN... B-45 FIGURE B-27 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T15 SURREY EAST... B-46 FIGURE B-28 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T17 RICHMOND SOUTH... B-46 FIGURE B-29 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T18 BURNABY SOUTH... B-47 FIGURE B-30 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T20 PITT MEADOWS... B-47 FIGURE B-31 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T22 BURNABY BURMOUNT... B-48 FIGURE B-32 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T23 BURNABY CAPITOL HILL... B-48 FIGURE B-33 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T24 BURNABY NORTH... B-49 FIGURE B-34 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T26 NORTH VANCOUVER MAHON PARK... B-49 FIGURE B-35 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T31 RICHMOND AIRPORT... B-50 FIGURE B-36 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T32 COQUITLAM... B-50 FIGURE B-37 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT T38 ANNACIS ISLAND... B-51 FIGURE B-38 OBSERVED WIND ROSES AT VANCOUVER YVR AIRPORT... B-51 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.. No

80 iv FIGURE B-39 WRF GRID POINTS... B-52 FIGURE B-40 DIURNAL TEMPERATURE PLOT AT WRF GRID POINTS... B-53 FIGURE B-41 FIGURE B-42 FIGURE B-43 FIGURE B-44 FIGURE B-45 FIGURE B-46 FIGURE B-47 FIGURE B-48 FIGURE B-49 FIGURE B-50 ANNUAL WIND ROSE AT WRF EXTRACTED SITE GRID POINT (TOP, MID, SURFACE)... B-54 ANNUAL WIND ROSE AT WRF EXTRACTED BURNABY GRID POINT (TOP, MID, SURFACE)... B-55 ANNUAL WIND ROSE AT WRF EXTRACTED YVR GRID POINT (TOP, MID, SURFACE)... B-56 ANNUAL WIND ROSE AT WRF EXTRACTED NORTH DELTA GRID POINT (TOP, MID, SURFACE)... B-57 MONTHLY TEMPERATURE VARIATION OBSERVED AT METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS AND EXTRACTED NEAREST POINT FROM CALMET... B-58 DIURNAL VARIATION OBSERVED AT METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS AND EXTRACTED NEAREST POINT FROM CALMET... B-59 WIND SPEED FREQUENCY OBSERVED AT METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS AND EXTRACTED NEAREST POINT FROM CALMET... B-59 CALMET EXTRACTED WIND ROSES NEAR VANCOUVER YVR AIRPORT... B-60 CALMET EXTRACTED WIND ROSES NEAR T13 NORTH DELTA... B-61 CALMET EXTRACTED WIND ROSES NEAR T18 BURNABY SOUTH... B-61 FIGURE B-51 CALMET EXTRACTED WIND ROSES AT SITE... B-61 FIGURE B-52 CALMET WIND FIELD PLOTS FOR THE SURFACE LEVEL ON JUNE 4TH, 2012 AT 03:00... B-62 FIGURE B-53 FIGURE B-54 FIGURE B-55 FIGURE B-56 FIGURE B-57 FIGURE B-58 FIGURE B-59 CALMET WIND FIELD PLOTS FOR THE MID LEVEL ON JUNE 4TH, 2012 AT 03:00... B-63 CALMET WIND FIELD PLOTS FOR THE TOP LEVEL ON JUNE 4TH, 2012 AT 03:00... B-64 CALMET WIND FIELD PLOTS FOR THE SURFACE LEVEL ON FEBRUARY 27TH, AT 18:00... B-65 CALMET WIND FIELD PLOTS FOR THE MID LEVEL ON FEBRUARY 27TH, AT 18:00... B-66 CALMET WIND FIELD PLOTS FOR THE TOP LEVEL ON FEBRUARY 27TH, AT 18:00... B-67 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STABILITY CLASSES FROM CALMET EXTRACTED POINTS... B-68 CALMET EXTRACTED MONTHLY MIXING HEIGHT VARIATION... B-69 FIGURE B-60 CALMET EXTRACTED DIURNAL MIXING HEIGHT VARIATION... B-70 FIGURE B-61 CALMET EXTRACTED MIXING HEIGHTS FOR JUNE 12 TH, B-71 FIGURE B-62 CALMET EXTRACTED MIXING HEIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 8 TH, B-71 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

81 v FIGURE B-63 CALMET EXTRACTED MIXING HEIGHT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION... B-72 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.. No

82

83 B-1 B MODELLING METHODOLOGY B.1 MODEL SELECTION B.2 WRF CALPUFF is a suite of numerical models (CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST) that are used in series to assess the impact of emissions in the vicinity of a source or group of sources. Detailed three-dimensional meteorological fields are produced by the diagnostic computer model CALMET, based on inputs such as: surface, marine and upper air meteorological data, digital land use data and terrain data, and prognostic meteorological data. The three-dimensional fields produced by CALMET are used by CALPUFF, a three-dimensional, multi-species, non-steady-state Gaussian puff air dispersion model that can simulate the effects of time and space varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport. Finally CALPOST, a statistical processing program, is used to summarize and tabulate the pollutant concentrations calculated by CALPUFF. Three-dimensional prognostic meteorological data from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Non-hydrostatic Mesoscale Model (NMM) was used as an initial guess field for the CALMET model. WRF-NMM prognostic data used for this dispersion modelling analysis was run by Exponent and provided as CALMET ready for the 2012 calendar year. Exponent ran WRF-NMM in analysis mode, using historical data snapshots from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) North American Mesoscale (NAM) Model as initial and boundary conditions. This historical data includes all available observations, such as satellite, radar, balloon borne, surface, and tower observations. WRF-NMM was run with an approximately 145 km by 132 km domain encompassing the CALMET domain with a 4 km grid resolution as show in Figure B-1 below. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

84 B-2 Figure B-1 WRF, CALMET, and CALPUFF Modelling Domains No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

85 B-3 B.3 CALMET CALMET Version (Level ), an updated version of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) approved CALMET Version (Level ), was run to calculate meteorological fields for the modelled time period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, Three-dimensional prognostic meteorological data from WRF-NMM was used in order to improve the performance of the CALMET model. In addition, meteorological input data was also used from 17 surface stations within the CALMET domain. The meteorological data and CALMET output for this modelling period were assessed following the Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures outlined in Section 9 of the British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guidelines (AQMG 1 ). A description of the CALMET methods and data sets follows. B.3.1 CALMET MODELLING DOMAIN The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM, NAD 83) coordinate system was used for this model application. The CALMET domain is a 35 km by 35 km area, as shown in Figure B-2. The WRF domain incorporated into the CALMET modelling extends well beyond the CALMET domain. The CALMET model was run with a 200 m grid resolution. The modelling domain and grid resolution were chosen to encompass the main topographical features for generating the CALMET three-dimensional diagnostic meteorological fields. In the vertical axis, 11 vertical layers were chosen, the height of which are given in Table B-1. Table B-1 Vertical Layer Number Heights of CALMET Model Vertical Layers Height at Top of Layer (m) , , , , ,000 1 BC MOE, British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Division, Environmental Standards Branch, Clean Air Section. Victoria, British Columbia. November,2015. Accessed from: Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

86 B-4 Figure B-2 CALMET and CALPUFF Modelling Domains No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

87 B-5 B.3.2 TERRAIN ELEVATION AND LAND USE DATA Digital terrain and land use data covering the model domain was included in the CALMET input data set. Digital terrain files with a 1:50,000 scale were used to generate inputs for each CALMET grid point. Land use characteristics for each grid cell based on LandData BC data sets were used. The BC land use class codes were translated into the land use class codes used by CALMET according to the procedures in the AQMG 1.Plots of the digital terrain and land use data used in CALMET are shown in Figure B-3 and Figure B-4 respectively. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

88 B-6 Figure B-3 Terrain Data Used in CALMET No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

89 B-7 Figure B-4 Land Use Data Used in CALMET Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

90 B-8 B.3.3 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Surface meteorological stations that record hourly data include those operated by Environment and Climate Change Canada, and Metro Vancouver. Data from 17 surface stations, listed in Table B-2 and shown in Figure B-5, were used as input to the CALMET model. Upper air data was not used as the prognostic data contains the necessary upper air information within the CALMET domain and no upper air stations are located in or near the CALMET modelling domain. CALMET requires a measured data value for every hour from at least one meteorological station in order to simulate the three-dimensional fields. Missing data procedures were implemented, when required, as per the AQMG 1. As a supplement to the observational data, three-dimensional meteorological fields from the WRF prognostic model were used. The WRF prognostic data was used as input into CALMET as the initial guess field. The "initial guess" wind field is calculated by interpolating the winds to the fine CALMET scale and then adjusting for terrain and land use effects. The wind fields are then adjusted based on the observed meteorological fields from the 17 surface stations. Table B-2 Surface Meteorological Stations Used for CALMET Input Surface Meteorological Station T4 Burnaby Kensington Park T6 North Vancouver Second Narrows T9 Port Moody T13 North Delta T14 Burnaby Mountain T15 Surrey East T17 Richmond South T18 Burnaby South T20 Pitt Meadows T22 Burnaby Burmount T23 Burnaby Capitol Hill T24 Burnaby North T26 North Vancouver Mahon Park T31 Richmond Airport T32 Coquitlam T38 Annacis Island Vancouver Airport (YVR) Operated By Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Environment and Climate Change Canada No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

91 B-9. Figure B-5 Surface Meteorological Stations Used in CALMET Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

92 B-10 B.3.4 CALMET MODEL OPTIONS The CALMET model has a number of user-specified input switches and options that determine how the model handles terrain effects, interpolation of observational input data, etc. The differences in the modelled and measured meteorological fields were examined, and this analysis was used to determine which model options were appropriate for modelling period. Table B-3 outlines the CALMET options used in modelling. The AQMG 1 default parameters were used whenever applicable. Table B-3 Selected CALMET Model Options CALMET Model Option Parameter Option Selected AQMG Default Wind field model selection variable IWFCOD 1 (Yes) Compute Froude number adjustment effects? IFRADJ 1 (Yes) Compute kinematic effects? IKINE 0 (No) Use O Brien procedure for adjustment of the vertical velocity? IOBR 0 (No) Compute slope flows? ISLOPE 1 (Yes) Extrapolate surface wind observations to upper layers? IEXTRP 1 x Extrapolate calm winds aloft? ICALM 0 (No) Layer-dependent biases BIAS 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 No default Minimum distance between upper air station and surface station for which extrapolation of surface winds will be allowed Gridded prognostic wind field model output fields Use varying radius of influence? Maximum radius of influence over land of the surface layer RMIN2 IPROG LVARY -1 (Set to -1 for IEXTRP = +/- 4) 14 (Yes, use wind fields from MM5/3D.dat file as initial guess field) F (No, if stations outside RMAX1 are definitely not wanted) RMAX1 4 km No default Maximum radius of influence over land aloft RMAX2 20 km No default Maximum radius of influence over water RMAX2 50 km No default Minimum radius of influence used in the wind field interpolation RMIN 0.1 Radius of influence of terrain features TERRAD 10 km No default Distance from a surface station at which the station observations and 1 st guess field are equally weighted Distance from an upper air station at which the observations and 1 st guess field are equally weighted R1 1.3 km No default R2 5 km No default No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

93 B-11 CALMET Model Option Parameter Option Selected Relative weighting of the prognostic wind field data Maximum acceptable divergence in the divergence minimum procedure. Maximum number of iterations in the divergence minimum procedure. AQMG Default RPROG 0 No default DIVLIM 5*10-6 NITER 50 Number of passes in the smoothing procedure NSMTH 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 Maximum number of stations used in each layer for the interpolation of data to a grid point NINTR2 99 Critical Froude number CRITFN 1 Empirical factor controlling the influence of kinematic effects Multiplicative scaling factor for extrapolation of surface observations to upper layers Number of barriers to interpolation of the wind fields X and Y coordinates of barriers Diagnostic module surface temperature option Diagnostic module domain-averaged lapse rate option Diagnostic module upper air station to use for lapse rate to use Depth through which the domain-scale lapse rate is computed ALPHA 0.1 FEXTR2 Unused NBAR Unused XBBAR, YBBAR, XEBAR, YEBAR IDIOPT1 IDIOPT2 Unused 0 (Compute internally from hourly surface observations or prognostic fields) 0 (Compute internally from (at least) twice-daily upper air observations or prognostic fields) IUPT Unused ZUPT 200 Initial guess field wind components IDIOPT3 0 Upper air station to use for domain-scale winds IUPWND Unused Bottom and top of layer through which the initial guess winds are computed ZUPWND 1,1000 B.4 CALPUFF CALPUFF Version (Level ), an updated version of the US EPA approved CALPUFF Version (Level ), was run for the modelled time period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, The CALPUFF model was used to simulate dispersion of emissions from the various emission sources at the proposed Project, based on the meteorological fields developed by CALMET. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

94 B-12 B.4.1 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS Table B-4 outlines dispersion options used in the CALPUFF modelling. Unless otherwise stated in Table B-4, the applicable default regulatory options recommended in the AQMG 1 were used as those were the regulatory options in effect at the time the modelling plan was developed. Table B-4 Selected CALPUFF Model Options Option Parameter Option Selected AQMG Default Vertical distribution used in the near field MGAUSS 1 (Gaussian) Terrain adjustment method MCTADJ 3 (Partial plume path adjustment) Subgrid-Scale complex terrain module flag MCTSG 0 (Not Modelled) Near-field puffs modelled as elongated? MSLUG 0 (No) Transitional Plume Rise modelled? MTRANS 1 (Yes) Stack tip downwash? MTIP 1 Method selected to compute plume rise for point sources not subject to downwash. MRISE 1 Method used to simulate building downwash? MBDW 2 (Prime) Vertical wind shear modelled above stack top? MSHEAR 0 (No) Puff splitting allowed? MSPLIT 0 (No) Chemical Transformation Scheme? MCHEM 0 (Not Modelled) Aqueous phase transformation flag (only used in MCHEM =1 or 3) MAQCHEM Unused Wet removal modelled? MWET 0 (No) Dry deposition modelled? MDRY 0 (No) Method used to compute dispersion coefficients MDISP 2 (Dispersion coefficients from internally calculated sigma v, sigma w using micrometeorological variables (u*, w*, L, etc.) Sigma measurements used? MTURBVW 3 (Use both sigma- (v/theta) and sigma-w from PROFILE.DAT to compute sigma-y and sigma-z) No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

95 B-13 Option Parameter Option Selected AQMG Default Back-up method used to compute dispersion when measured turbulence data are missing MDISP2 3 (PG dispersion coefficients for RURAL areas (computed using the ISCST multisegment approximation) and MP coefficients in urban areas) PG sigma y,z adjusted for roughness MROUGH 0 (Yes) Partial plume penetration of elevated inversion? MPARTL 1 (Yes) Strength of temperature inversion provided in PROFILE.DAT extended records? Probability Distribution Function used for dispersion under convective conditions? MTINV 0 (No) MPDF 1 (Yes) Sub-grid TIBL module used for shore line? MSGTIBL 0 (No) Boundary conditions (concentration) modelled? MBCON 0 (No) Configure for FOG Model output? MFOG 0 (No) Test options specified to see if they conform to regulatory values? MREG 0 (No) B.4.2 MODEL DOMAIN AND RECEPTORS A 20 km x 20 km subset of the CALMET domain was used for the CALPUFF modelling. The receptor grid spacing is as follows: 20 m receptor spacing along the facility fence line 50 m spacing within 1 km of the facility 250 m spacing within 2 km of the facility 500 m spacing within 5 km of the facility 1000 m spacing beyond 5 km of the facility Sensitive receptors (e.g. hospitals, schools, senior care residences, parks, and day care centres) were also added to the receptor grid. A 1.5 meter receptor height was used to simulate the average height of human air intake for predicting maximum concentrations. The CALPUFF receptors are shown in Figure B-6 and Figure B-7. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

96 B-14 Figure B-6 CALPUFF Receptor Grid Gridded and Sensitive Receptors No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

97 B-15 Figure B-7 CALPUFF Receptor Grid Fenceline, Gridded and Sensitive Receptors Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

98 B-16 B.4.3 BUILDING DOWNWASH Buildings or other solid structures, such as ships at berth, may impact air pollution plume flows in the vicinity of a source due to the formation of turbulent eddies on the downwind side of the building. On the downwind side of a structure, a recirculating cavity of air forms and it does not mix with other air efficiently. This cavity has the potential to reduce plume rise and impact dispersion. The flow that is affected by the obstruction is known as the wake. The CALPUFF model accounts for building downwash with enhanced plume dispersion coefficients due to the turbulent wake and reduced plume rise caused by a combination of the descending streamlines in the lee of the building and the increased entrainment on the wake. Building downwash was considered in this assessment using the US EPA Building Profile Input Program (BPIP-PRIME). Buildings / structures considered for building downwash are presented in Figure B-8. The corresponding building heights are presented in Table B-5. Table B-5 Building Heights used in Downwash Calculations Building/Structure Name Height (m) Office Building 5.8 Maintenance Shop Building 6.9 Railcar and Truck Loading Building (Railcar) 13.6 Railcar and Truck Loading Building (Truck) 7.7 Railcar and Truck Loading Transfer Tower 23.3 Railcar Unloading Building T Storage Silos T Storage Silos 25.8 Berth #4 Vessel 18.3 Container Loading Building 29.8 Railcar Unloading Transfer Tower 29.8 Existing Electrical Room 4.0 Existing Agricultural Railcar Unloading Shed (Level 1) 7.7 Existing Agricultural Railcar Unloading Shed (Level 2) 13.0 FSD Shed One 10.7 FSD Shed Two 14.0 FSD Shed Western Cleanwood (Building 1) 10.0 Western Cleanwood (Building 2) 10.0 Western Cleanwood (Building 3) 14.0 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

99 B-17 Figure B-8 Buildings used in Downwash Calculations Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

100 B-18 B.4.4 NO TO NO2 CONVERSION AAQOs refer to NO2 (not NOx), and the CALPUFF model as applied does not account for NOx to NO2 conversion. In accordance with the preferred conversion method in the AQMG 1, if 100% NOx conversion leads to exceedances of the AAQO, the Ambient Ratio Method (ARM) should be implemented to convert predicted NOx concentrations into NO2 concentrations. This approach is applicable to the short-term (1-hour) averaging period. The ARM method utilizes representative hourly NOx and NO2 monitoring data to characterize the NO2/NOx ratio given the ambient NOx concentration. The method then applies this ratio to the model predicted NOx concentrations with the NOx background included. Ambient air quality data from Metro Vancouver station T18 Burnaby South was used to calculate the ratio of NO2/NOx. For the 1-hour averaging period, an exponential equation of the form y = ax b was fit to the upper envelope of observed NO2/NOx versus NOx, where a and b are empirically determined constants. The resulting equation was used to determine the ratio of NO2/NOx for NOx values where the corresponding NO2/NOx ratio is less than 1. To account for the background NO2 concentrations, a background NOx concentration was added to the model predicted NOx concentrations before applying the ARM method. For cases where the NO2/NOx ratio is less than 1, a 100% conversion from NOx to NO2 is assumed. Figure B-9 illustrates the relationship of the NO2/NOx ratio to the NOx ambient air quality concentrations. The ARM method was not developed for the annual averaging period due to the limited number of data points (years) available to develop a relationship. An alternative method considered was the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM); however the annual concentrations are too low for the OLM method to reduce the concentrations. The US EPA 2 recommends a 75% conversion to convert annual NOx model predictions to estimate annual NO2. Therefore, a 75% conversion has been applied and is considered in the analysis when comparing to the AAQOs. In addition, the 100% conversion results are presented and analyzed for comparative purposes. However, it should be noted the 100% conversion is overly conservative. 2 US EPA, Guidelines on Air Quality Models (GAQM) Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51. Section No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

101 B-19 Figure B-9 NO2/NOx Ratio versus 1-hour Average NOx Observations from Metro Vancouver Station T18 (Burnaby South) B.4.5 CALPUFF SOURCE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS This section details the modelling parameters and emission rates used for the point, area, volume and road sources. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

102 B-20 B POINT SOURCES Table B-6 Point Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) Dust Filters Part 1 Parameter Metric Receiving Leg 1, Receiving Conveyor1, Receiving Hopper 1 Receiving Leg 1 Transfer Leg 1 Transfer Leg 1 Receiving Bulk Weigher 1 Shipping Bulk Weigher 1 Shipping Leg 1 Shipping Leg 1 Reclaim Conveyor 63 Transfer Conveyor 1 Transfer Conveyor 2 Equipment Tag F1-REL1 F2-REL1 F1-TRL1 F2-TRL1 F1-REW1 F1-SHW1 F1-SHL1 F2-SHL1 F1-RMC63 F1-TRC1 F1-TRC2 Stack Orientation Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Stack Location (UTM NAD 83) (me) (mn) Base Elevation (m) Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Stack Exit Volumetric Flow (m 3 /s) Stack Exit Velocity (m/s) Stack Exhaust Gas Temperature Daily Emission Rate (K) (g/s) Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly TPM 5.58E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Annual Emission Rate (g/s) TPM 1.36E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-04 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

103 B-21 Table B-7 Point Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) - Dust Filters Part 2 Parameter Metric Transfer Conveyor 3 (Shuttle) Transfer Conveyor 3 (Shuttle) Transfer Conveyor 10 (Shuttle), Storage Bins Transfer Conveyor 10 (Shuttle) Transfer Conveyor 30 (Shuttle), Storage Bins Transfer Conveyor 30 (Shuttle) Transfer Conveyor 30 (Shuttle) Reclaim Conveyor 11 Reclaim Conveyor 20 Reclaim Conveyor 40 Reclaim Leg 1, Reclaim Conveyor 61 Reclaim Leg 1 Equipment Tag F1-TRC3 F3-TRC3 F1-TRC10 F3-TRC10 F1-TRC30 F3-TRC30 F4-TRC30 F1-RMC11 F1-RMC20 F1-RMC40 F1-RML1 F2-RML1 Stack Orientation Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Stack Location (UTM NAD 83) (me) (mn) Base Elevation (m) Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Stack Exit Volumetric Flow Stack Exit Velocity (m 3 /s) (m/s) Stack Exhaust Gas Temperature (K) Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Daily Emission Rate (g/s) TPM 8.52E E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Annual Emission Rate (g/s) TPM 2.88E E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

104 B-22 Table B-8 Point Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) - Dust Filters Part 3 Parameter Metric Shipping Conveyor 1 Shipping Conveyor 2 Shipping Conveyor 2 Shipping Conveyor 3 Shipping Conveyor 4 (Shuttle) Shipping Conveyor 4 (Shuttle) Shipping Conveyor 4 (Shuttle) Shipping Conveyor 4 (Shuttle) Shipping Conveyor 4 (Shuttle) Shipping Conveyor 4 (Shuttle) Shipping Leg 2 Shipping Leg 2 Equipment Tag F1-SHC1 F1-SHC2 F2-SHC2 F1-SHC3 F1-SHC4 F2-SHC4 F3-SHC4 F4-SHC4 F5-SHC4 F6-SHC4 F1-SHL2 F2-SHL2 Stack Orientation Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Stack Location (UTM NAD 83) (me) (mn) Base Elevation (m) Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Stack Exit Volumetric Flow Stack Exit Velocity Stack Exhaust Gas Temperature Daily Emission Rate (m 3 /s) (m/s) (K) (g/s) Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly TPM 6.10E E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Annual Emission Rate (g/s) TPM 1.13E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E-05 Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

105 B-23 Table B-9 Point Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) - Dust Filters Part 4 Parameter Metric Shiploader Conveyor 1 Shiploader Conveyor 2 (Boom), Shiploader Loading Spout 1 Container Loading Leg 1, Reclaim Conveyor 10 Container Loading Leg 1 Container Loading Conveyor 1 Container Loading Spout 1, Container Loading Surge Bin Transfer Leg 2, Transfer Conveyor 5, Weight Back Conveyor Transfer Leg 2 RC/T Loading Conveyor 1 RC/T Loading Bulk Weigher 1 Rail Loading Spout 1, RAIL Loading Spout 2, Railcar/Truck Loading Bins , Truck Loading Spout 3-4 Equipment Tag F1-SLC2 F1-CLL1 F2-CLL1 F1-CLC1 F1-CLS1 F1-TRL2 F2-TRL2 F1-RTC1 F1-RTW1 F1-RTS1 F1-SLC2 Stack Orientation Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Stack Location (UTM NAD 83) (me) (mn) Base Elevation (m) Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Stack Exit Volumetric Flow Stack Exit Velocity (m 3 /s) (m/s) Stack Exhaust Gas Temperature (K) Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Ambient Hourly Daily Emission Rate (g/s) TPM 1.23E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-03 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Annual Emission Rate (g/s) TPM 3.74E E E E E E E E E E E-04 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-04 PM E E E E E E E E E E E-05 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

106 B-24 Table B-10 Point Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) Marine Parameter No Metric Berth #4 Ocean Going Vessel Exhaust Berth #4 Tug Boat Exhaust Stack Orientation Vertical Vertical Stack Location (UTM NAD 83) (me) (mn) Base Elevation (m) Stack Height (m) Stack Diameter (m) Stack Exit Volumetric Flow (m 3 /s) Stack Exit Velocity (m/s) Stack Exhaust Gas Temperature Hourly Emission Rate (K) (g/s) CO 2.53E E+00 NO x 1.82E E+00 SO x 1.02E E-03 VOCs 6.32E E-01 TPM 5.23E E-01 PM E E-01 PM E E-01 Daily Emission Rate (g/s) CO 2.53E E-02 NO x 1.82E E-01 SO x 1.02E E-04 VOCs 6.32E E-03 TPM 5.23E E-02 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

107 B-25 Parameter Metric Berth #4 Ocean Going Vessel Exhaust Berth #4 Tug Boat Exhaust PM E E-02 PM E E-02 Annual Emission Rate (g/s) CO 8.61E E-02 NO x 6.20E E-02 SO x 3.47E E-05 VOCs 2.15E E-03 TPM 1.78E E-03 PM E E-03 PM E E-03 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

108 B-26 Figure B-10 Modelled Point Sources No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

109 B-27 B AREA SOURCES Table B-11 Area Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) Parameter Metric Forklift Top-Pick (350 HP) Area Orientation Polygon Polygon Base Elevation (m) 9 8 Release Height (m) Initial Sigma z 0 (m) Hourly Emission Rate (g/m 2 /s) Top-Pick (155 HP) CO 1.203E E E-06 NO x 8.575E E E-06 SO x 1.120E E E-08 VOCs 3.979E E E-07 TPM 7.709E E E-07 PM E E E-07 PM E E E-07 Daily Emission Rate (g/m 2 /s) CO 5.012E E E-07 NO x 3.573E E E-06 SO x 4.668E E E-09 VOCs 1.658E E E-07 TPM 3.212E E E-07 PM E E E-07 PM E E E-07 Annual Emission Rate (g/m 2 /s) CO 3.474E E E-07 NO x 2.477E E E-06 SO x 3.235E E E-09 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

110 B-28 Parameter Metric Forklift Top-Pick (350 HP) Top-Pick (155 HP) VOCs 1.149E E E-07 TPM 2.226E E E-07 PM E E E-07 PM E E E-07 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

111 B-29 Figure B-11 Modelled Area Sources Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

112 B-30 B VOLUME SOURCES Table B-12 Volume Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) Parameter Metric Ship Loader Spout (me) Source Location (UTM NAD 83) (mn) Base Elevation (m) 6 Effective Height (m) 20.0 Initial Sigma y0 (m) 4.7 Initial Sigma z0 (m) 3.6 Daily Emission Rate (g/s) TPM 2.17E-01 PM E-02 PM2.5 Annual Emission Rate TPM PM10 PM2.5 (g/s) 9.93E E E E-03 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

113 B-31 Figure B-12 Modelled Volume Sources Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

114 B-32 B ROAD SOURCES Table B-13 Road Source Parameters and Modelled Emission Rates (2020 Future with Project) Note: Emissions from pickup trucks have been apportioned to both the container truck route and bulk truck route road sources for modelling. Parameter Metric Switch Rail Route Container Truck Route Bulk Truck Route Number of Road Segments (m) Total Distance of Road Segments (m) Effective Height (m) Initial Sigma y0 (m) Initial Sigma z0 (m) Hourly Emission Rate (g/s) CO 7.42E E E-05 NO x 6.94E E E-05 SO x 2.02E E E-07 VOCs 4.05E E E-05 TPM 1.51E E E-05 PM E E E-05 PM E E E-06 Daily Emission Rate (g/s) CO 1.62E E E-05 NO x 1.52E E E-06 SO x 4.41E E E-08 VOCs 8.85E E E-06 TPM 3.31E E E-06 PM E E E-06 PM E E E-07 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

115 B-33 Parameter Metric Switch Rail Route Annual Emission Rate (g/s) Container Truck Route Bulk Truck Route CO 9.16E E E-05 NO x 8.57E E E-06 SO x 2.49E E E-08 VOCs 5.00E E E-06 TPM 1.87E E E-07 PM E E E-07 PM E E E-07 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

116 B-34 Figure B-13 Modelled Road Sources No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

117 B-35 B.4.6 CALPUFF MODELLING RESULTS (CONTOUR PLOTS) Figure B-14 Contour Plot of 1-hour Maximum Predicted NO2 (ARM Method) Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

118 B-36 Figure B-15 Contour Plot of Annual Maximum Predicted NO2 (75% Conversion) Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

119 B-37 Figure B-16 Contour Plot of 24-hour Maximum Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

120 B-38 Figure B-17 Contour Plot of Annual Maximum Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

121 B-39 Figure B-18 Contour Plot of 24-hour Maximum Predicted PM10 Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

122 B-40 Figure B-19 Contour Plot of Annual Maximum Predicted PM10 Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

123 B-41 Figure B-20 Contour Plot of 24-hour Maximum Predicted TPM Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

124 B-42 Figure B-21 Contour Plot of Annual Maximum Predicted TPM Concentrations for 2020 Future with Project No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

125 B-43 B.5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT This section summarizes the QA/QC conducted for the modelling of the Project. B.5.1 GEOPHYSICAL INPUT DATA Plots of the topography (Figure B-3) and land use (Figure B-4) were provided earlier. The plots show that the topographical and land use information is representative of the modelling domain. B.5.2 METEOROLOGICAL INPUT DATA The annual and seasonal wind roses for each of the surface meteorological stations provided below generally correspond with expected wind flows in the region with each station s wind patterns also accounting for topographical effects on wind near the station. Figure B-22 Observed Wind Roses at T4 Burnaby Kensington Park Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

126 B-44 Figure B-23 Observed Wind Roses at T6 North Vancouver Second Narrows Figure B-24 Observed Wind Roses at T9 Port Moody No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

127 B-45 Figure B-25 Observed Wind Roses at T13 North Delta Figure B-26 Observed Wind Roses at T14 Burnaby Mountain Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

128 B-46 Figure B-27 Observed Wind Roses at T15 Surrey East Figure B-28 Observed Wind Roses at T17 Richmond South No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

129 B-47 Figure B-29 Observed Wind Roses at T18 Burnaby South Figure B-30 Observed Wind Roses at T20 Pitt Meadows Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

130 B-48 Figure B-31 Observed Wind Roses at T22 Burnaby Burmount Figure B-32 Observed Wind Roses at T23 Burnaby Capitol Hill No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

131 B-49 Figure B-33 Observed Wind Roses at T24 Burnaby North Figure B-34 Observed Wind Roses at T26 North Vancouver Mahon Park Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

132 B-50 Figure B-35 Observed Wind Roses at T31 Richmond Airport Figure B-36 Observed Wind Roses at T32 Coquitlam No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

133 B-51 Figure B-37 Observed Wind Roses at T38 Annacis Island Figure B-38 Observed Wind Roses at Vancouver YVR Airport B.5.3 B WRF OUTPUT WRF TEMPERATURES The WRF output was evaluated at four grid points from the WRF data set labelled as: Site (the Porject), Burnaby South Station, YVR Station, and North Delta Station in Figure B-39. Hourly temperatures from these points were extracted and compared on a diurnal basis (Figure B-40). The Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

134 B-52 diurnal patterns at each of the grid points is deemed reasonable, with the YVR Station grid point showing a weaker diurnal variation in temperature. Given that this grid point is closer to the Georgia Straight than the other three locations, it is reasonable to see a weaker variation due to the influence of the water. Figure B-39 WRF Grid Points No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

135 B-53 Figure B-40 Diurnal Temperature Plot at WRF Grid Points B WRF WIND ROSES The following figures present the wind roses at the WRF extracted grid points at surface, mid and top levels of the domain. As expected, WRF captures the higher wind speeds in the layers aloft as well as a shift of winds primarily from the west, which is expected given the flow of the jet stream in those layers. Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

136 B-54 Figure B-41 Annual Wind Rose at WRF extracted Site Grid Point (Top, Mid, Surface) No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

137 B-55 Figure B-42 Annual Wind Rose at WRF extracted Burnaby Grid Point (Top, Mid, Surface) Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

138 B-56 Figure B-43 Annual Wind Rose at WRF extracted YVR Grid Point (Top, Mid, Surface) No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

139 B-57 Figure B-44 Annual Wind Rose at WRF extracted North Delta Grid Point (Top, Mid, Surface) Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

140 B-58 B.5.4 B CALMET OUTPUT TEMPERATURE Figure B-45 shows the average monthly surface temperature at observed and CALMET extracted points. Figure B-46 shows the average hourly temperature (binned into intervals) at the same points. Both plots show good agreement between the predicted and observed values. Figure B-45 Monthly Temperature Variation Observed at Meteorological Stations and Extracted Nearest Point from CALMET No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

141 B-59 Figure B-46 Diurnal Variation Observed at Meteorological Stations and Extracted Nearest Point from CALMET B WIND SPEED The frequency distribution of wind speed at the observed and CALMET extracted points CALMET are shown below in Figure B-47. The modelled wind speeds show good agreement with the observed data. Figure B-47 Wind Speed Frequency Observed at Meteorological Stations and Extracted Nearest Point from CALMET Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

142 B-60 B WIND ROSES The following figures show wind roses extracted from CALMET at the nearest point to the selected referenced meteorological station. The wind roses show good agreement with the observed wind roses presented in section B.5.2. Figure B-48 CALMET Extracted Wind Roses near Vancouver YVR Airport No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

143 B-61 Figure B-49 CALMET Extracted Wind Roses near T13 North Delta Figure B-50 CALMET Extracted Wind Roses near T18 Burnaby South Figure B-51 CALMET Extracted Wind Roses at Site Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

144 B-62 B CALMET WIND FIELDS Representative CALMET wind fields for two 24-hour periods are presented in this section. The 24-hour periods were chosen based on having light winds and stable conditions, with one of the periods during the summer season and the other during the winter season. Wind fields are presented at the surface, mid-level, and upper-level layers. Wind field plots for the selected periods indicate that at surface CALMET is resolving terrain effects and the introduction of the surface observations produces a reasonable wind field. CALMET winds in the layers aloft tend to be more uniform with higher wind speeds. Figure B-52 CALMET Wind Field Plots for the Surface Level on June 4th, 2012 at 03:00 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

145 B-63 Figure B-53 CALMET Wind Field Plots for the Mid Level on June 4th, 2012 at 03:00 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

146 B-64 Figure B-54 CALMET Wind Field Plots for the Top Level on June 4th, 2012 at 03:00 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

147 B-65 Figure B-55 CALMET Wind Field Plots for the Surface Level on February 27th, at 18:00 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No

148 B-66 Figure B-56 CALMET Wind Field Plots for the Mid Level on February 27th, at 18:00 No Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd.

149 B-67 Figure B-57 CALMET Wind Field Plots for the Top Level on February 27th, at 18:00 Fraser Grain Terminal Ltd. No