Air Quality Assessment - Pacific Terminal

Transcription

1 Air Quality Assessment - Pacific Terminal Requirements Related to Port Metro Vancouver Permitting Process Final Report Submitted by: LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD.

2 LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD Clarke Place Richmond, BC V6V 2H9 T: F: New Brighton Rd Vancouver, BC, V5K 5J7 Attention: Peter Idema, P.Eng., Manager, Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Systems Subject: Air Quality Assessment - Pacific Terminal Dear Mr. Idema: Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) is pleased to submit the attached report to assist with the Air Quality Assessment of the Shiploading System Upgrades and Dust Control Modernization plans for the Pacific Terminal. This report addresses the requirements laid out by Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) in its Preliminary Air Assessment Requirements (PAAR) document. A major part of the report is a comprehensive emissions inventory that has been compiled for the facility, encompassing both the baseline and future conditions. This inventory is based on the best available activity data from and the most appropriate emission models and factors available to-date. In addition to the inventory, the report includes descriptions of the present and future terminal operational activities, comparison to supply chain emissions, an air quality assessment, and a discussion of the planned emission improvement programs as well as a brief description of project construction activities. If you have any questions regarding the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. It has been our great pleasure to work with you and your team on this project and we thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Levelton Consultants Ltd. Per: Ana Booth, M.Sc., Ph.D. Manager, Environment Division, BC Mainland Ph: abooth@levelton.com

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pacific Terminal is located on leased land on the south shore of Burrard Inlet in the Port of Metro Vancouver. The supply chain associated with the facility involves various modes of transport, including marine vessels, rail and trucks, that ship products to and from the terminal. As part of an expanding agricultural export market, intends to modernize the Pacific Terminal to increase its capacity to 5,000,000 metric tonnes per annum. To accomplish this objective and to improve fugitive dust management, is planning to upgrade its shipping system and modernize the facility processing dust control systems. Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) has been retained by (Pacific Terminal) to provide air permitting support services related to their application to Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) for the Shiploading System Upgrades and Dust Control Modernization at the facility. The purpose of this report is to address the requirements outlined by PMV in its Preliminary Air Assessment Requirements (PAAR) document. In this assessment, a facility and a supply chain inventory were prepared for a base and a future year to quantify pollutant emissions associated with current facility operations, its proposed future modifications and the supply chain. The year 2013 was chosen as the base year, which represented the most recent typical year of facility operation, and 2023 as the forecast year which would correspond to the expected maximum throughput year after project completion. The best available activity data from and the most appropriate emission models and factors available to-date were used to compile the facility inventory. To determine the respective supply chain boundaries where emissions account for more than 10% of the total emissions from each mode of goods transport, surrogate parameters, such as the movements of trucks, vessels and rail, were applied. Figure ES-1 shows the facility location and the supply chain boundaries. According to the requirements of the PMV PAAR document, emissions from the following sources were included in this air quality assessment: Facility sources (process and material transfers); Combustion Sources; Electricity; Marine vessels, including ocean-going vessels and tugs; Rail, including manifest and yard locomotives; On-road trucks; and, Non-road diesel equipment. For each of the sources described above, the pollutants that were inventoried included Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs), Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Black Carbon, which is a climate forcer. The CACs of interest were Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NO x), Sulphur Oxides (SO x), Total Particulate Matter (TPM) and its smaller size fractions of PM 10 (< 10µm diameter) and PM 2.5 (<2.5µm diameter), Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Ammonia (NH 3). Carbon Dioxide (CO 2), Methane (CH 4), Nitrous Oxides (N 2O) are the GHGs that were quantified. For reporting purposes, emissions of GHGs and black carbon have been estimated on a CO 2 equivalent tonnes based on the 100-year time horizon (CO 2e 100) and the 20-year time period (CO 2e 20). As part of this air quality assessment, emissions associated with the following facility and supply chain scenarios were also estimated. Page i

4 Terminal Facility: Baseline Facility (2013) - prior to shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; Future Facility (2023) - without shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; Future Facility (2023) - with shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization. Supply Chain: Baseline Supply Chain (2013) - prior to shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; Future Supply Chain (2023) - without shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; Future Supply Chain (2023) - with shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization (the Project). Figure ES-1 Geographic and Supply Chain Boundaries of the Pacific Terminal Tables ES-1 to ES-3 show the overall emission summaries of the pollutants of interest for the 2013 and 2023 operation scenarios for each facility source. For the 2013 base year, the majority of particulate emissions, with the exception of DPM, were attributable to facility processes that were associated with material handling activities during product loading operations. s from marine vessels accounted for most of the releases of the remaining pollutants with the exception of NH 3. Rail was the major contributor of NH 3 emissions. Page ii

5 For the future scenario without the Project, similar trends were observed as shown in Table ES-2. Without the dust control modernization project, particulate emissions from loading operations are expected to increase with the rise in commodity throughput from 2013 levels. For the remaining pollutants, marine vessels remain the dominant source followed by rail with the exception of NH 3 and N 2O emissions where rail is the major contributor. For the 2023 facility emissions with the completion of shiploading improvements and dust control modifications, the particulate emissions from material handling activities decreased by approximately half. s from on-road trucks are also lower due to a decrease in idling time and distance travelled while on site. s from marine vessels, rail and non-road equipment increase slightly due to the increased volumes of product handled. Due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors near the site, there is a potential for the sensitive receptors to be impacted due to s operations in the future with project implementation due to the increase of non-particulate CAC emissions shown in Table ES-1 and ES-3. However, current ambient concentrations of these CACs are commonly well below AAQO, with the exception of isolated short-term NO 2 concentrations. The changes proposed with the project result in an overall reduction in airshed loading of the CACs of highest concern for local air quality impacts (particulate matter fractions) that will likely improve the overall air quality at the nearby sensitive receptors. Table ES-1 Total Annual Facility s for the 2013 Baseline Scenario CAC: Substances Facility Process Sources a Marine Vessels 2013 Facility s (tonnes/year) Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment CO Total TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO , , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e , , CO2e , , a facility process sources include material handling and transfers, combustion sources and electricity. Page iii

6 Table ES-2 Total Annual Facility s for the 2023 without Project Scenario CAC: Substances Facility Process Sources a 2023 Facility s without Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO , , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e , , CO2e , , a facility process sources include material handling and transfers, combustion sources and electricity. Total Table ES-3 Total Annual Facility s for the 2023 with Project Scenario CAC: Substances Facility Process Sources a 2023 Facility s with Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH Total Page iv

7 Substances GHG: Facility Process Sources a 2023 Facility s with Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment CO , , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e , , , CO2e , , a facility process sources include material handling and transfers, combustion sources and electricity. Total The supply chain emission estimates for the base and future year scenarios are shown in Tables ES-4 to ES-6. In this study, the supply chain emissions from on-road trucks have been determined to be negligible when compared to the Port total and therefore were not included. For marine vessels, the supply chain emissions included underway releases during transit through Burrard Inlet as well as ship anchoring emissions at English Bay. rail supply chain emissions accounted for the movements of manifest trains along the rail south corridor to the CP Port Coquitlam Yard. Of the base and future scenarios shown, marine vessels are the more dominant source for most pollutants with the exception of NH 3 emissions. Table ES-4 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2013 Baseline Scenario Substances 2013 Supply-Chain s Baseline (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total CAC: CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO2 3, , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e20 7, , CO2e100 4, , Page v

8 Table ES-5 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2023 without Project Scenario Substances 2023 Supply-Chain s without Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total CAC: CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO2 4, , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e20 7, , CO2e100 5, , Table ES-6 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2023 with Project Scenario Substances 2023 Supply-Chain s with Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total CAC: CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH Page vi

9 Substances 2023 Supply-Chain s with Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total GHG: CO2 6, , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e20 10, , CO2e100 7, , Table ES-7 highlights the reduction trend in emissions to total commodity throughput. This is primarily attributed to the overall facility efficiency improvements that will be implemented in conjunction with the truck and shiploading upgrade and dust control modernization project. Table ES-7 s to Commodity Throughput Ratios for Base and Future Years Substances Facility s/material Throughput (Tonnes/Tonnes) with Project % Change from 2013 CAC: CO 4.61E E-06-60% TPM 7.73E E-05-75% PM E E-06-76% PM E E-07-78% DPM 1.80E E-07-81% NOx 3.26E E-05-60% SO2 1.37E E-07-97% VOC 1.21E E-07-60% NH3 2.14E E-08-49% GHG: CO2 2.78E E-03-59% CH4 2.28E E-08-62% N2O 1.25E E-08-54% Black Carbon 1.11E E-07-77% CO2e E E-03-69% CO2e E E-03-63% Page vii

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i 1 Introduction Project Background Project Description Shiploading Upgrades Dust Control Systems Modernization Baseline and Future Operations Terminal Throughput and Commodity Shipments Shiploading Rates Air Quality and Meteorology Air Quality Summary Meteorological Summary & Nearby Receptors s Inventory Geographic Boundaries Parameters and Scenarios Key Sources and Pollutants of Interest Scenarios Methodologies and Assumptions Facility Inventory Process Sources Material Transfer Points Electricity Combustion Sources Marine Vessels Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment Supply Chain Inventory Marine Vessels Rail Rates Page viii

11 4.4 Inventory Results and Discussions Facility s Process Sources Material Transfer Points Electricity Combustion Sources Marine Vessels Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment Supply Chain s Marine Vessels Rail Overall Scenario s Facility Supply Chain Facility Air Quality Impacts Rates Worst Case Scenario Construction Phase Continuous Improvement Conclusions Appendix A Background Air Quality and Meteorology Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAQOs) Air Quality and Meteorological Station Information Air Quality Data Appendix B s Inventory per Annual Material Tonnage Appendix C Normal and Peak Rates Page ix

12 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Existing and Proposed Shiploading Systems at Pacific Terminal... 2 Figure 3-1 Comparison of the Percentage of Average, 98 th Percentile, and Maximum Concentrations with Respect to the AAQO... 7 Figure Wind Rose for T06 North Vancouver-Second Narrows... 9 Figure Wind Rose for T24 Burnaby North Figure Wind Rose for T26 North Vancouver-Mahon Park Figure 3-5 Locations of Pacific Terminal Facility, Nearby Meteorological Stations and Potential Receptors Figure 4-1 Geographic and Supply Chain Boundaries of the Pacific Terminal List of Tables Table 2-1 Pacific Terminal 2013 Rail Delivery Summary... 4 Table 2-2 Pacific Terminal 2013 Vessel Shipment Summary... 5 Table 2-3 Pacific Terminal 2013 Truck Shipment Summary... 5 Table 2-4 Future Projections of Movements and Shipments... 6 Table 2-5 Average and Maximum Shiploading Rates... 6 Table 3-1 Summary of the Ambient Air Quality Concentrations Compared to Ambient Air Quality Objectives... 7 Table 4-1 Global Warming Potentials Table 4-2 Black Carbon to PM 2.5 Ratios Table 4-3 Permitted Sources Table 4-4 Projected Permitted Sources 2023 with Project Table 4-5 Ship and Truck Loading Material Transfer Activity Data Table 4-6 Ship and Truck Loading Factors Table 4-7 Electricity Activity Data and Factors Table 4-8 Combustion Sources Activity Data Table 4-9 Propane and Natural Gas GHG Factors Table 4-10 Ship Activity Data and Load Factors Table 4-11 Ship NO x, SO x, and PM Factors Table 4-12 Ship Factors, 2013 Baseline Year (EF act, g/kw-hr) Table 4-13 Ship Factors, 2023 Future Year With and Without Project (EF act, g/kwhr) Table 4-14 Main Engines Low Load Scale Factors Baseline, 2023 With and Without Project Table 4-15 Tug Boat Diesel Engine and Activity Data Table 4-16 Factors for Tugboats Table 4-17 Duty Cycles and Fuel Consumption Rates for the MP15DC and EMD GP-9 Locomotives Table 4-18 CAC Factors for Manifest and Yard Locomotives Table 4-19 GHG and Black Carbon Factors for Manifest and Yard Locomotives Table 4-20 Current and Future Train Traffic and Product Throughputs Table 4-21 Current and Future Truck Traffic Volumes and Distances Page x

13 Table and 2023 Truck Factors (Speed Range 0-4 km/hr) Table 4-23 Current and Future Non-Road Equipment Types and Operations Table 4-24 CAC Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Base Year Table 4-25 GHG and Black Carbon Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Baseline Year Table 4-26 CAC Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Future Year 2023 with and Table 4-27 without Project GHG and Black Carbon Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Future Year 2023 with and without Project Table 4-28 Annual s from Process Sources for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-29 Annual s from Material Transfers for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-30 Annual s from Electricity Sources for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-31 Annual s from Natural Gas and Propane Combustion Sources for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-32 Annual s from Marine Vessel Sources for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-33 Annual s from Rail Sources for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-34 Annual s from On-road Truck Sources for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-35 Annual s from Non-Road Sources for the Facility Scenarios Table 4-36 Annual s from Marine Vessel for the Supply-Chain Scenarios Table 4-37 Annual s from Rail Sources for the Supply-Chain Scenarios Table 4-38 Total Annual Facility s for the 2013 Baseline Scenario Table 4-39 Total Annual Facility s for the 2023 without Project Scenario Table 4-40 Total Annual Facility s for the 2023 with Project Scenario Table 4-41 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2013 Baseline Scenario Table 4-42 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2023 without Project Scenario Table 4-43 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2023 with Project Scenario Table 4-44 s to Commodity Throughput Ratios for Base and Future Years ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, EXCEPT BY WRITTEN PERMISSION OF LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD. Page xi

14 1 INTRODUCTION Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) has been retained by (Pacific Terminal) to provide air permitting support services related to their application to Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) for Shiploading System Upgrades and Dust Control Modernization at the facility. The purpose of this report is to address the requirements raised by PMV in its Preliminary Air Assessment Requirements (PAAR) document. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Pacific Terminal has been operating in the Port of Vancouver since Under the ownership of Federal Grain it was merged with the assets of the original National Harbours Board Terminal Elevator No. 1 in Historically shipping galleries were located on both sides of the Pacific basin, though only the gallery on the PAC1 Jetty side of the facility survives to this day. The original depth of the Pacific basin was 10.7m below Low Water. As part of improvements completed in the segment of the basin adjacent to the PAC1 Jetty was dredged to accomplish Panamax depth of 13.7m below Low Water. In 1998 a Special Commodities Soft Handling Shiploading System was installed on Lapointe Pier in the direct area of the current shiploading system proposal with the ultimate goal of deepening this side of the basin to Panamax depth. However, as the system did not work satisfactorily, it was decommissioned in 2002 with the actual ship loader and yard belt being demolished in The east side of Lapointe Pier has not been operated as an active shiploading berth since 2002; however, it has been used on various occasions for discharge or repair of vessels. Through a series of ownership structures since 1967, the facility was acquired in whole by in Originally designed as a wheat/durum handling facility, in recent years the terminal has been converted to a specialty crop handling facility specializing in the handling of canola, peas, lentils, soybeans and corn. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION As part of an expanding agricultural export market is modernizing the facility to increase its capacity for up to 5,000,000 metric tonnes per annum. To accomplish this objective and to improve fugitive dust management, is planning to upgrade its shipping system and modernize the facility processing dust control systems Shiploading Upgrades This project will provide a new shipping facility along Lapointe Pier as shown in Figure 1-1. The project, however, will require the resetting of the berthing line by moving it 20m east to accommodate new marine structures required for this project. This will reduce the width of the basin from 91m to 71m. Page 1

15 Figure 1-1 Existing and Proposed Shiploading Systems at Pacific Terminal The existing three belt system running through the shipping cross gallery to PACI Jetty will be replaced by a new two-belt 1,400 metric tonnes per hour (mtph) cross gallery conveyor system located in the existing PAC1 and PAC2 infrastructures. These conveyors will discharge to a new Transfer Tower to feed the new Shiploading System. The system will be comprised of a new 72-inch wide yard belt system capable of conveying up to 2800mtph of material. The yard belt will discharge to a travelling linear ship loader via a tripper system. This ship loader will be equipped with a Cleveland Cascade loading chute to deposit material into the vessel holds with the minimum of fugitive dust disturbance. The new shiploader will be a linear shuttling loader with two basic motions, traverse and shuttle. There will be no luffing or slewing motion associated with the loader equipment. The only additional motions on the loader will be associated with the spout controls - spout up/down and spoon rotation (when installed). All operations of the loader will be via deck operated radio control. The boom conveyor belt will be 72 inches wide. A key operational feature of the new shiploading system will be its ability to operate Page 2

16 effectively from geared handy size vessels to post Panamax vessels up to 38m beam with full hatch coverage. As part of the project, a permanent weather station will be installed to support weather logging and wind safety parameters for the ship loader operation in addition to supplying data for reporting purposes. The new shiploader will be operable up to a wind speed of 72kmph exclusive of wind direction Dust Control Systems Modernization The existing shiploading facility at Pacific Terminal is comprised of seven marine spouts operating from a traditional shipping gallery. The current gallery was re-constructed in In addition, spout alterations on three spouts were completed in to increase reach over the hatch. Typical of most of the facilities in the grain export trade, this system was the design of choice and is currently still deployed at three of the five major grain terminals in the Port of Vancouver. The reasons for this design are both rooted in practicality as the industry had traditionally operated with smaller vessels and the system provided maximum flexibility to load vessels quickly and effectively. This was, however, in an era where vessels were predominately handy size or small Panamax size. The advent of full Panamax size vessels began in the early 1970s and only became significant in the trade starting in the 1980s. However, starting in the 1980s and continuing throughout the last two decades average vessel sizes, specifically length, have been on a continuous increase. This pattern has accelerated since the fuel cost crisis of In addition, as bulk vessel fleets adjust to the post Panamax era, an increasing number of vessels are being designed for beam dimensions in excess of the traditional 32m Panamax beam maximum. This results in greater challenges to the effective loading of vessels with the current marine spout design. These challenges have become limiting in both productivity and exposure to fugitive dust emissions. A consequence of these issues combined with a shift in products handled at Pacific Terminal has made fugitive dust control a significant challenge and though specific procedures are currently in place to manage this process, even slight shifts in product quality or environmental conditions can result in nuisance events. The modernization of the shiploading system at Pacific Terminal presents an opportunity to address many of these issues. The shiploader design will utilize a Cleveland Cascade chute system for the loading of pulse crops such as peas, lentils and soybeans. The Cleveland Cascade system is acknowledged as one of the most effective methods of loading dry low moisture materials effectively with minimum dust in large vertical drop scenarios as required in ship, barge or truck loading applications. The principle of operation is relatively simple limit the velocity of the falling material by cascading it downwards through the chute, which provides effective fugitive dust control. Currently within the Port of Vancouver both Kinder Morgan for agricultural and concentrates loading and Neptune Terminals for potash loading operate Cleveland Cascade chutes within their operations. In addition utilizes the Cleveland Cascade chute for its Outer Harbour grain facility in Adelaide, South Australia. A similar ship loading system used in the PMV is the PECO ship loading system operated by Richardson Vancouver Terminal (Richardson). Richardson operates a PECO shiploader and not the PECO version of the Cleveland Cascades spout. The Richardson shiploaders utilize a drop box which does not restrict drop Page 3

17 velocity of the material but is entirely reliant on the material flowing only above the opening, which can be difficult to regulate properly. In contrast, the Cleveland Cascades spout operates by controlled velocity and constraint of the material. Cleveland Cascades shiploading spouts are acknowledged as an effective dust control approach for handling dry bulk materials and are used throughout the world in this type of application. 2 BASELINE AND FUTURE OPERATIONS The Pacific Terminal handles a variety of grain products including peas, lentils, soybeans, canola, nexera, flax, and wheat. These products arrive by rail and are shipped via marine vessels and trucks. For this air quality assessment, the year 2013 was chosen as the base year, which represented the most recent typical year of facility operation, and 2023 as the forecast year which would correspond to the expected maximum throughput year after project completion. These target years are deemed acceptable as the respective emissions baseline and forecast scenario years following discussions with PMV. 2.1 TERMINAL THROUGHPUT AND COMMODITY SHIPMENTS In 2013, approximately 1.9 million tonnes of grain products were brought to the Pacific Terminal via manifest trains. Table 2-1 shows the monthly breakdown of rail delivery to the facility. Table 2-1 Pacific Terminal 2013 Rail Delivery Summary Month 2013 Rail Delivery Unloads (Cars) Equivalent Tonnes January 2, ,748 February 2, ,758 March 1, ,814 April 1, ,957 May 2, ,012 June 1, ,225 July ,697 August ,521 September 2, ,685 October 2, ,018 November 1, ,679 December 1, ,422 Total 20,896 1,901,536 The total vessel and truck shipments at Pacific Terminal amounted to 1,886,656 and 30,672 tonnes, respectively, for a total throughput of approximately 1.9 million tonnes in The monthly shipment summaries by commodity type are provided in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 while future projections of vessel and truck movements and shipment volumes are shown in Table 2-4. The decrease in total rail movements Page 4

18 will be facilitated by increasing the average number of rail cars per train from 35 to 100, for the years 2013 and 2023 (with and without project), respectively. Table 2-2 Pacific Terminal 2013 Vessel Shipment Summary Month Yellow Peas Green Peas 2013 Vessel Shipments (tonnes) Lentils Soybeans Canola Nexera Flax Wheat January 43, , , , , , February 54, , , , , , March 135, , , , , April 78, , , , May 111, , , , , June 73, , , , , July 6, , , August 27, , , , September 184, , , October 101, , , , , November 13, , , , , , December 36, , , , , Total 866, , , , , , , , Table 2-3 Pacific Terminal 2013 Truck Shipment Summary Month 2013 Truck Shipments (tonnes) Feed Peas Feed Lentils GSP Soybeans January 1, , February , March , April 1, , May 1, , June 1, July 1, August September 1, October 1, November , December 1, Total 12, , , , Page 5

19 Table 2-4 Future Projections of Movements and Shipments Year Grain Shipments Ships Truck Rail No. of Ship Movements No. of Truck Movements No. of Rail Movements 2013 Baseline 1,886,656 30,672 1,917, Without Project 4,000,000 65,029 4,065, , With Project 5,000,000 81,286 5,081, , In this assessment, the estimated emissions for the baseline and future year will be presented as a total for all commodities rather than presented separately by product. The emissions from all the products handled by the Pacific Terminal are operation dependent regardless of the commodity handled. 2.2 SHIPLOADING RATES As described in preceding sections, a new shiploading system will be installed at Pacific Terminal. The average and maximum shiploading rates for 2013 and 2023 are shown in Table 2-5. Since the loading rates are dependent on the required commodities being available for loading, supply chain efficiencies are essential to the operation. However, any theoretical increase in shiploading rate beyond the design maximum is unlikely without significant global changes in the supply chain and to the facility. Table 2-5 Average and Maximum Shiploading Rates Year Shiploading Rate (tonnes/hour) Average Maximum 2013 Baseline 332 1, Without Project 956 1, With Project 1,195 2,800 3 AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY 3.1 AIR QUALITY SUMMARY A summary of the ambient air quality concentrations compared to their respective objectives is shown below in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. Appendix A includes more detailed information pertaining to the meteorological stations used, and the years considered in the air quality summary. Page 6

20 Table 3-1 Air Contaminant CO NOx NO2 O3 SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summary of the Ambient Air Quality Concentrations Compared to Ambient Air Quality Objectives Averaging Time Average (µg/m 3 ) 98 th Percentile (µg/m 3 ) Maximum (µg/m 3 ) Ambient Air Quality Objectives (µg/m 3 ) 1-hour ,000 8-hour ,000 1-hour Annual hour Annual hour hour hour Annual hour hour Annual hour Annual hour Annual (6) a a 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. Figure 3-1 Comparison of the Percentage of Average, 98 th Percentile, and Maximum Concentrations with Respect to the AAQO Page 7

21 3.2 METEOROLOGICAL SUMMARY & NEARBY RECEPTORS There are three nearby monitoring stations (T06 North Vancouver-Second Narrows, T24 Burnaby North, and T26 North Vancouver-Mahon Park) that measured wind speed and wind direction. These three stations were used to generate wind roses, which are shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-4. These wind roses are also plotted on a map showing their relative location to the facility in Figure 3-5. The meteorological stations T06 and T24 indicate that the predominant winds are from the east-northeast and east, respectively, corresponding with the alignment of Burrard Inlet. There is also a smaller portion of winds from the northerly directions, likely as a result of the outflow from the North Shore Mountains. Station T26 also has predominant winds from the east, with a greater fraction of winds originating from the north-easterly directions due to the topography of the North Shore Mountains. The majority of the area around the Facility is classified as industrial; however, there is a small area identified as residential, labelled as the Nearest Residential Area in Figure 3-5. This is located approximately 300m away from the facility fenceline. In addition, there are two schools located nearby, the Sir William Macdonald Community School and the Tillicum Community Annex, appropriately labelled in Figure 3-5. The Sir William Macdonald Community School and Tillicum Community Annex are located approximately 700m and 1200m away from the facility fenceline, respectively. Page 8

22 NORTH WEST 5% 25% 20% 15% 10% EAST WIND SPEED (m/s) SOUTH >= Calm s: 0.13% Figure Wind Rose for T06 North Vancouver-Second Narrows Page 9

23 NORTH WEST 5% 25% 20% 15% 10% EAST WIND SPEED (m/s) SOUTH >= Calm s: 0.66% Figure Wind Rose for T24 Burnaby North Page 10

24 NORTH WEST 5% 25% 20% 15% 10% EAST WIND SPEED (m/s) SOUTH >= Calm s: 0.86% Figure Wind Rose for T26 North Vancouver-Mahon Park Page 11

25 Figure 3-5 Locations of Pacific Terminal Facility, Nearby Meteorological Stations and Potential Receptors 4 EMISSIONS INVENTORY As described earlier, a facility and a supply chain inventory, for the 2013 baseline year and the 2023 future year with and without project, were compiled for this assessment. These inventories are presented and discussed in detail in the following sections. 4.1 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES The Pacific Terminal is located on leased land on the south shore of Burrard Inlet in the Port of Metro Vancouver (PMV). The facility boundary has been shown in Figure 1-1. The supply chain inventory takes into account the emissions from the vessels, trucks and rail that transport grain to and from the Terminal. The supply chain boundary extends from the facility to the locations where these sources account for less than 10% of the total emissions of that category source. For this study, surrogate parameters, such as the movements of trucks, vessels and rail, were used to establish the supply chain boundary. Page 12

26 Marine traffic travels to the Pacific Terminal through Georgia Strait and then English Bay before entering Burrard Inlet through the Lion s Gate Bridge. Based on discussions with the PMV, it is understood that anchoring emissions are a significant portion of marine emissions and the supply chain boundary should be large enough to capture this activity. Therefore, the supply chain boundary for ocean going vessels was set at the boundary of Georgia Strait and English Bay where ocean going vessels would be anchoring while within the PMV s navigational jurisdiction. Beyond this point, vessel movements are assumed to be less than 10%. For train traffic, the general direction is along the CP south shore corridor to and from the CP Port Coquitlam Yard. Based on an annual rail car count of 20,896 and an average of 35 cars per train, the number of manifest trains visiting the Pacific Terminal was approximately 597 in 2013, or 23 train movements per week (2 movements per train for arrival and departure). When compared to the simulated weekly train movements along the south shore corridor of 24 to 74 in the PMV Landside s Inventory report 1, the train movements are comparable. Hence, the supply chain boundary was extended to the CP Port Coquitlam Yard where an estimated 192 weekly mainline rail movements 1 occurred on adjacent tracks as well as Yard switching activities at that location. s from the Viterrra rail supply chain were based on estimated fuel consumption for rail transit to and from the CP Yard. When determining the supply chain boundary for trucks, it was assumed that the number of truck movements is directly related to the resulting truck emissions. The total heavy truck movements to and from the Port for 2013 were estimated to be 1,862,640 1 which was based on the commodity growth forecast factor of 110% from 2010 to When compared to the 2013 truck movements of 848, the facility truck movements constitute approximately 0.05% of the Port total. Since the percentage of the truck movements is so low when compared with the Port total, the impact of the truck emissions outside the facility has been assumed to be equally minimal. For this reason, there were no truck emissions assessed as part of the Supply Chain Inventory. Based on the above analysis, the supply chain boundaries were established at the following locations which are shown in Figure SNC-Lavalin, 2012, Port Metro Vancouver 2010 Landside Inventory, March 26. Page 13

27 Figure 4-1 Geographic and Supply Chain Boundaries of the Pacific Terminal Marine vessels along Burrard Inlet to English Bay where vessels anchor; Rail along CP Rail tracks to CP Port Coquitlam Yard. 4.2 EMISSION PARAMETERS AND SCENARIOS Key Sources and Pollutants of Interest According to the requirements of the PMV PAAR document, emissions from the following key sources were included in this air quality assessment: Facility sources (process and material transfers); Combustion sources; Electricity; Marine vessels, including ocean-going vessels and tugs; Rail, including manifest and yard locomotives; On-road trucks; and, Non-road diesel equipment. Page 14

28 For each of the sources described above, the pollutants of interest included the following Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs), Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Black Carbon, which is a climate forcer. Since the size of diesel particulate that is of the greatest health concern is in the fine particulate range, this assessment assumed that the diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions were the same as the PM 2.5 fraction in diesel exhaust. No Air Toxics were evaluated in this study since none of the estimated emissions from related facility sources were significant enough to exceed the reporting criteria stipulated under the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) program. Criteria Air Contaminants: Carbon Monoxide (CO); Nitrogen Oxides (NO x); Sulphur Oxides (SO x), considered as Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2); Total Particulate Matter (TPM); Particle Matter Less than 10 Micrometers in Diameters (PM 10); Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers in Diameter (PM 2.5); Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); and, Ammonia (NH 3). Greenhouse Gases and Climate Forcers: Carbon Dioxide (CO 2); Methane (CH 4); Nitrous Oxides (N 2O); and Black Carbon. For reporting purposes, emissions of GHGs and black carbon were also estimated on a CO 2 equivalent tonnes based on the 100-year time horizon (CO 2e 100) and the 20-year time period (CO 2e 20). The Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), shown in Table 4-1 below, were applied to determine CO 2 equivalent emissions for these two time horizons. For CH 4 and N 2O, the GWPs shown are based on the Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2 and were adopted by BC Environment. For black carbon, the data was from a recent publication 3. Table 4-1 Global Warming Potentials Pollutant 20-year 100-year CH N2O Black Carbon 3, IPCC, 2012, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) - Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. 3 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 Page 15

29 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 PM 2.5 ratios published in a recent US EPA report 4. These ratios are shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 Black Carbon to PM 2.5 Ratios Combustion Source Category 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 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 Scenarios For this air quality assessment, emissions associated with the following facility and supply chain inventories have been estimated. Terminal Facility: Baseline Facility (2013) - prior to shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; Future Facility (2023) - without shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; and, Future Facility (2023) - with shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization. Supply Chain: Baseline Supply Chain (2013) - prior to shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; Future Supply Chain (2023) - without shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization; and, Future Supply Chain (2023) - with shiploading system upgrade and dust control modernization. estimates for each of the above scenarios were prepared based on current facility and design parameters for the proposed future facility as well as emission parameters for the supply chain. 4 US EPA, 2012, Report to Congress on Black Carbon, EPA-450/R , March, Table 4-2, pages Page 16

30 4.3 METHODOLOGIES AND ASSUMPTIONS The following sections detail the emissions quantification methods used and the assumptions applied for each facility as well as supply chain source categories. Facility sources consist of process baghouses, material handling and loading operations, combustion equipment, electricity use and product transfers within facility boundary. Supply chain sources are made up of rail and marine vessel transport. As mentioned previously, truck emissions were not assessed as part of the Supply Chain Inventory since the number of truck movements (and hence emissions) is negligible when compared with the Port total Facility Inventory Process Sources The Pacific Terminal facility process emission sources are reported to Metro Vancouver (MV) and they are primarily associated with the ventilation from grain processing units including conveyors, dumper and surge pits, collectors, scales, cleaners and others. Dust laden exhausts from these processes are controlled by baghouses prior to releasing into the atmosphere. For process sources described above, their respective baseline and future particulate emissions are conservatively estimated based on their current and projected annual total discharge and the permitted maximum particulate concentration of 20mg/m 3. Although future particulate limits for grain handling sources may become more stringent, the use of the likely higher current limit of 20mg/m 3 for future 2023 particulate emissions is considered conservative. Historically, the Pacific railcar receiving pits have not been listed as an emission source by Metro Vancouver reporting requirements. The pits are fully aspirated (fugitive dust collected into the dust control system) and the product is discharged from the cars at a low velocity (<40fpm). In addition, the receiving operation is conducted indoors so wind losses are not a factor. The net result is effectively no emissions outside the receiving operations; therefore these receiving pits were not considered in this emissions inventory. A listing of current permitted sources, 2013 operating hours, and permitted pollutant concentrations are provided in Table 4-3. Based on the facility data, the annual 2013 base year pollutant emissions for each individual source were calculated as the product of its exhaust discharge rate, the reported unit operating hours in 2013 and the corresponding permitted particulate concentration. For the forecast scenarios, with and without the facility shiploading and dust control modifications, emissions were estimated based on the same approach described above for the base year. For the 2023 emissions scenario without the modifications, the maximum permitted operating hours of 8,760 hours/year and exhaust flowrates were applied to reflect future increases in facility throughput without any changes to current facility equipment configuration. For the future scenario with the equipment and facility modifications, emissions were based on the anticipated list of equipment and their associated operating parameters as provided by. The parameters for this scenario are shown in Table 4-4. To speciate the particulate releases into the PM 10 and PM 2.5 size fractions, proration factors of 0.53 and were applied to the total particulate emissions. These proration factors were derived from the Page 17

31 ratios of the respective PM 10 and PM 2.5 emission factors to that of the total particulate for grain handling processes 5. s from current permitted Sources #20 and #26 and future Sources #22 and #26 are fugitive in nature and arise from material transfers during grain loading onto marine vessel and trucks. Releases from Source #30 are from the combustion of natural gas to meet facility steam and heating requirements. Further details on these fugitive and combustion sources are provided in the next sections. Table 4-3 Permitted Sources 2013 Source Number 01 Location Description Comment PELLET PLANT PELLET PLANT 02 PAC1 Current Permit (m 3 /min) Operating Hours (hours/year) Total Discharge (m 3 /year) Permit Particulate Limit (mg/m 3 ) Pellet Plant Unit New ,430 37,135, Ground Screenings Tank Bin Vent 1F20 Unit #1 Roadside New ,430 2,558, ,739 6,468 1,063,121, PAC2 1F4 Unit Ax BTR 1,196 6, ,017, PAC1 06 PAC1 12 PAC1 13 PAC1 1F2 Unit #1 Gallery 1F4 Unit (Transfer) #1 BTR West Wall Unit 1F10 Bag #1 SF South Wall Unit 1F10 StF 487 6, ,901, , ,722, ,194 6, ,468, ,674 6, ,624, PAC1 WAB #1 TSR North 425 6, ,934, PAC1 16 PAC1 17 PAC DOCK - BERTH 2 TRUCK LOADOUT 1F1 Unit #1 TSR South 1F1 Unit #1 TSR Center 1F1 Unit #1 TSR North s from Vessel Loading s from Truck Loading 241 6,468 93,352, ,468 93,352, ,468 93,352, Displaced Volume Displaced Volume 29 PAC2 WAB Ax BTR 357 6, ,381, PAC1 PAC2 Pacific 1 Vacuum System Pacific 2 Vacuum System 30 Pellet Plant 95 HP Boiler Vent 85 6,468 32,947, ,468 32,947, US EPA (2003), Grain Elevators and Processes, Chapter 9.9.1, AP42 Manual, April Page 18

32 Table 4-4 Projected Permitted Sources 2023 with Project Source Number Location Description Comment PELLET PLANT PELLET PLANT 03 PAC PAC PAC1-2 Discharge Rate (m 3 /min) Operating Hours (hours/year) Total Discharge (m 3 /year) Particulate Limit (mg/m 3 ) Pellet Plant Unit New ,645 55,702, Ground Screenings Tank Bin Vent Bin and Distributing Floors Section 300 Cleaners Annex 1 Basement and Cross Gallery New ,645 3,837, New , ,702, New , ,276, New , ,869, PAC1-2 Bintop Conveyors New , ,489, PAC PAC1-2 Section 100 and 200 Cleaners Workhouse Basement New , ,007, New , ,498, PAC1-2 Reclaim Systems New , ,276, PAC1-2 Garners and Scales New , ,294, PAC PAC PAC1-2 Bin and Distributing Floors Annex 2 Basement and Cross Gallery Receiving Transport Filter New , ,091, New , ,007, New ,344 18,705, RECEIVING Receiving New , ,043, SHIPPING 17 PAC1 18 PAC2 Ship Loader Tripper System Pacific 1 Vacuum System Pacific 2 Vacuum System New ,048 51,347, ,880 14,670, ,880 14,670, DOCK - BERTH 4 s from Vessel Loading Reactivate in 2016 Displaced Volume 26 TRUCK LOADOUT s from Truck Loading Activate in 2016 Displaced Volume 30 Pellet Plant 95 HP Boiler Vent Cleaver Brooks Model GJ 17 Page 19

33 Material Transfer Points There are two main different loading areas at the Pacific site, one for loading marine vessels, and one for loading trucks. As mentioned above, the rail unloading area is an enclosed area and it is not considered an emission source for the purposes of this inventory. factors were taken from the US EPA AP-42, Chapter Grain Elevators and Processes 6. The activity data associated with the 2013 base case and future 2023 loading operations is presented in Table 4-5, and the particulate size-specific emission factors used are provided in Table 4-6. The 4,000,000 tonnes ship loading throughput associated with the 2023 year without project is representative of the maximum capacity that can handle without the project implementation. An estimated control efficiency of 75% 6 was applied to the future scenario with project, as plans to install a Cleveland Cascade Chute System equipped with telescope chutes for ship loading and a Dust Suppression Hopper (DSH) System for truck loading. Table 4-5 Ship and Truck Loading Material Transfer Activity Data Parameter 2013 Baseline Year 2023 Future Year Without Project 2023 Future Year With Project Truck Goods Loading Throughput (tonnes/yr) 30,672 65,029 81,286 Ship Goods Loading Throughput (tonnes/yr) 1,886,656 4,000,000 5,000,000 Table 4-6 Ship and Truck Loading Factors Factor TPM PM10 PM25 Grain Receiving, Straight Truck (kg/mg) Grain Receiving, Ships (kg/mg) Electricity is an end user of electricity purchased from BC Hydro. According to IPCC protocols 7, 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 (), but occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity (BC Hydro). A CO 2e emission factor for the production of provincial grid electricity was based on BC s Best Practice Methodology from the BC Ministry of Environment 8 methodology manual. BC Hydro s emission factor has been calculated as an average of BC Hydro s GHG intensities for 2010 through 2012 and adopted for this study. A summary of 2013 and 2023 activity data and emission factor is shown below in Table AWMA (2000), Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, Air & Waste Management Association, Edited by Wayne T. Davis, page 694, Table 4. 7 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at: 8 BC Ministry of Environment (2013) B.C. Best Practices Methodology for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas s. Including Guidance for Public Sector Organizations, Local Governments and Community s. Victoria, B.C. December, Page 20

34 Table 4-7 Electricity Activity Data and Factors 2013 Electricity Usage (kwh) 2023 Electricity Usage Without Project (kwh) 2023 Electricity Usage With Project (kwh) Factor (tco2/gwh) 14,288,000 23,200,000 29,000, Combustion Sources There are three main types of combustion fuel used on the Pacific site, namely: diesel, propane, and natural gas. Diesel fuel is combusted in number of different sources, such as the rail, on-road truck, and non-road equipment, and their emissions were considered in the corresponding sections. Propane and natural gas, however, are primarily used for the generation of heat and steam, respectively. A 95hp pellet mill boiler consumes the majority of the natural gas used, while the rest is used for heat generation. The 2013 Natural Gas Combustion s Calculator 9, developed by the Canadian Energy Partnership for Environmental Innovation for National Pollutant Reporting Inventory (NPRI) purposes, was used to calculate the CAC emissions from natural gas combustion. Propane combustion emissions were determined using the propane heaters spreadsheet provided by the NPRI Toolbox 10, which utilizes the emission factors for TPM, CO, and NO x as indicated in Chapter 1.5 of the US EPA AP The activity data, based on s 2013 operations, used for the calculators is shown in Table 4-8. The forecasted growth used for natural gas or propane sources was assumed to be proportional to the increased material throughput. GHG emission factors for both the propane and natural gas combustion sources came from the US EPA Factors from Greenhouse Gas Inventories 12. The GHG Factors used are shown below in Table 4-9, and the overall emissions for CO 2e and Black Carbon follow the factors described in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Table 4-8 Combustion Sources Activity Data Parameter 2013 Base Case 2023 Year Without Project 2023 Year With Project Propane Combusted (lbs) Natural Gas Combusted (GJ) Environment Canada (2013), Canadian Energy Partnership for Environmental Innovation. Natural Gas Combustion s Calculator. Available at: 10 Environment Canada (2008), General National Pollutant Release Inventory Reporting Tools. 6. Information on Fuel Combustion, Fugitive s and Other Sources. Propane Heaters (spreadsheet). Available at: 11 US EPA (2008), AP42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 1.5: Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion. July US EPA (2014). Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Table 1 Stationary Combustion Factors. April, Page 21

35 Table 4-9 Propane and Natural Gas GHG Factors Factor CO2 CH4 N2O Stationary Propane Combustion 5.72 kg/gal 0.27 g/gal 0.05 g/gal Stationary Natural Gas Combustion kg/scf g/scf g/scf Marine Vessels There are two types of marine vessels used for routine operations, merchant bulk ship vessels, and tug boats. The majority of grains arriving at the Pacific Terminal are shipped by bulk vessels while tug boats are used to maneuver the ships into the berths. Ocean Going Vessels Ship emissions were calculated following the methodology used to calculate the 2010 National Marine s Inventory for Canada 13, 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 was considered to occur when the ship is idling at the onset of English Bay from the Georgia Strait. The underway emissions consider only the travel from the anchoring position to the berth, while the berthing emissions occur as the ship is docked at the berth. There are three main sources of emissions from the ship: the main engines, used only during underway; and the auxiliary engines and the boilers, used during berthing, anchoring and underway. The following general equation was used to calculate emissions from ships. where: E = ME * LLF * LF * T * EF act + AE * LF * T * EF act + BO * T * EF fuel * M adj E = s 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 EF act = Factor activity based factors in g/kwh EF fuel = Factor fuel based factors in kg/tonne fuel BO = Boiler fuel consumption in tonnes/hr T = Time (hours) M adj = Conversion factor from kg to grams 13 SNC-Lavalin Environment (2012), 2010 National Marine s Inventory for Canada. Prepared for: Environment Canada. March 31, Page 22

36 A list of the ship activity data and load factors used is listed in Table Estimation for Black Carbon emissions was based on the black carbon to PM 2.5 ratios provided previously in Table 4-2. The average dead weight tonnage, total berthing hours, total loading hours, and total number of port calls were based on 2013 activity data and 2023 projected data provided by. The anchorage hours were determined based on an average of 59.4 hours at anchor per call for the Pacific terminal provided by the PMV for the 2005 year 14. The future 2023 anchoring hours without project were calculated assuming the same average dead weight tonnage and average loading rate, but with all other factors prorated by 4 million metric tonnes divided by 5 million metric tonnes, the respective throughputs for 2023 without and with project. The rest of the parameters were gathered or calculated from the methodology developed for the 2010 National Marine s Inventory for Canada 13, assuming that the underway load factor is based on low speed maneuvering. The emission factors and low load adjustment factors used to estimate emissions for the base and future years are tabulated in Table 4-11 to Table 4-13 and these are based on the Marine Inventory report referenced above 13 for marine engines using marine distillate oil. The NO x, SO x and Particulate emission factors were based on the correlation equations listed in Table The NO x modifications as part of the IMO Nitrogen Oxides (NO x) Regulation were not considered as the Tier III NOx limits are based on the ship s constructed date, for Tier III, this would be on or after 1 January As a conservative measure and for lack of more precise data, we assumed that the ships operating past 2023 may still be of similar manufacture date as the ships calling in The fuel Sulphur percentage used in the 2013 baseline calculations was 1.00%, and 0.10% was used in the 2023 calculations based on the maximum allowable fuel Sulphur percentage in an s Controlled Areas (ECAs) Personal Communication via with Rigby, Christine, September 25, International Maritime Association (IMO,2015a). Nitrogen Oxides (NO x) Regulation 13. Accessed from: %E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx 16 International Maritime Association (IMO, 2015b). Sulphur Oxides (SO x) Regulation 14. Accessed from: %E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx Page 23

37 Table 4-10 Ship Activity Data and Load Factors Parameter 2013 Baseline Year 2023 Year Without Project 2023 Year With Project Unit of Measure Average Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT) 58,590 61,810 61,810 tonnes Auxiliary Engine Capacity (AE) 1,795 1,811 1,811 kw Main Engine Capacity (ME) 9,139 9,328 9,328 kw Total Berthing Hours 6,914 4,702 5,877 hours Total Loading Hours 6,393 4,348 5,434 hours Total Number of Port Calls Average Loading Rate a tonnes/hr Estimated Underway Hours b hours Estimated Anchoring Hours 4,633 7,746 9,862 hours ME Underway Load Factor AE Underway Load Factor AE Anchoring Load Factor AE Berthing Load Factor Boiler Fuel Consumption (BO) tonnes/hr a The average loading rates were calculated by dividing the annual material throughput by the total ship loading hours. These loading rates are slightly different than the information given in Table 2-5, which corresponds to the specifications for an average case. Even if the data sources are different, the final numbers are within close range. b The underway hours were calculated using the ratio of berthing/underway hours for Merchant Bulk Vessels from the Environment Canada 2010 Marine s Inventory for Canada. Table 4-11 Ship NO x, SO x, and PM Factors Source Engine EF (g/kwh) or Boiler EF (kg/tonne) Particulate Fractions NOx a SOx b TPM b PM10/TPM Ratio PM2.5/PM10 Ratio Main/Auxiliary Engines 45*n (S) (S) Boilers (S) 1.17(S) a n is the Engine rpm, where n is from b S is the Sulphur content of fuel in % Page 24

38 Table 4-12 Ship Factors, 2013 Baseline Year (EF act, g/kw-hr) a Pollutant Main Engines EFact, (g/kw-hr, 2-stroke) Auxiliary Engines EFact, (g/kw-hr, 4-stroke) Boiler EFfuel, (kg/tonne fuel) CO NOx a b 12.3 SOx 4.2 c 4.2 c 20 VOCs TPM c c c PM PM DPM NH CO CH N2O NO x emission factor based on IMO NO x limit with an rpm of 164 rpm b NO x emission factor based on IMO NO x limit with an rpm of 1000 rpm c factors based on a sulphur content of 1.00% Table 4-13 Ship Factors, 2023 Future Year With and Without Project (EF act, g/kw-hr) Pollutant Main Engines EFact, (g/kw-hr, 2-stroke) Auxiliary Engines EFact, (g/kw-hr, 4-stroke) Boiler EFfuel, (kg/tonne fuel) CO NOx a b 12.3 SOx 0.42 c 0.42 c 2 VOCs TPM c c c PM PM DPM NH CO CH N2O a NO x emission factor based on IMO NO x limit with an rpm of 164 rpm b NO x emission factor based on IMO NO x limit with an rpm of 1000 rpm c factors based on a sulphur content of 0.10% Page 25

39 Table 4-14 Main Engines Low Load Scale Factors Baseline, 2023 With and Without Project Pollutant Low Load Adjustment Factor CO 2.00 NOx 1.22 SOx 1.00 VOCs 2.83 TPM 1.38 PM PM DPM 1.38 NH CO CH N2O 1.00 CO2e 1.00 Tug Boats CAC and GHG emissions were estimated based on the following equation for diesel fuel-fired engines for harbour tug boats. Black Carbon emissions were calculated using the correlations given in Table 4-2. where: E m = EC * LF * EF m * T adj E m = rate of a given pollutant from a tug boat engine (g/s) EC = Engine capacity (kw) LF = Engine load factor (fraction) EF m = Activity-based emission factors for a given pollutant (g/kwh) T adj = Conversion factor from seconds to hours The following Table 4-15 summarizes the engine information for tug boats, as recommended by Environment Canada 17. The estimated tug boat activity data was provided by Seaspan 18 and, which were assumed for both baseline and future scenarios. SO x and PM emission factors follow the same correlation equations as indicated previously in Table 4-11 for Ship Vessels, and are shown below in Table Personal Communication via with Ly, Jim. Environment Canada, July 4, Personal Communication via Telephone with Stewart, Laurie. Seaspaon. September 3, Page 26

40 Table 4-15 Tug Boat Diesel Engine and Activity Data Motor Category Parameters Tier Level Tier 0 Power Rating Load Factor C1 1,400 HP (1,065 kw) 0.79 a Number of Tugs per Vessel Movement 2.5 Tug Operating Hours per Vessel Movement Baseline Total Number of Vessel Movements Baseline Total Hours of Operation Without Project Total Number of Vessel Movements Without Project Total Hours of Operation With Project Total Number of Vessel Movements With Project Total Hours of Operation 1630 a The range of load factors contained in the literature vary from 0.3 to 0.79, and a conservative value was used Page 27

41 Table 4-16 Factors for Tugboats Contaminant Factor (g/kwh) CO NOx SOx a VOCs TPM a PM PM DPM NH CO CH N2O a factors based on a sulphur content of 15ppm Although the anticipated reductions to the marine vessel s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), as adopted by the International Maritime Organization 19, are expected to reduce ship CO 2 emissions, it is not known how anticipated reductions to CO 2 would affect CAC emissions. Furthermore, the EEDI program contains exemption clauses for developing countries, certain ship classes and capacities, and also allows a certain percentage of the international community to opt out 19. Due to the uncertainties outlined above, the emission factors for Marine Vessels have been assumed to remain unchanged from 2013 for the forecast 2023 scenarios Rail Air pollutants are emitted from rail due to the combustion of diesel fuel in incoming manifest trains as well as by on-site yard locomotives used to assemble and disassemble rail cars. The general equation below is used to calculate rail engine emissions. Er = FC * EF r * C where: Er = s 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 tonne/g) 19 International Maritime Organization (IMO) Note by the International Maritime Organization to the thirty-fifth session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBBSTA 35). Agenda item 9(a) s from fuel used for international aviation and maritime transport. Technical and operational measures to improve the energy efficiency of international shipping and assessment of their effect on future emissions. November Page 28

42 There are two yard locomotives on-site, including a Tier 3 NRE locomotive and a model year 1967 Hunslet unit. Their respective fuel consumption and operating hours for the base year were provided by. For the manifest locomotives, their fuel consumptions for 2013 were not readily available. Consequently, fuel use for the manifest locomotive was estimated based on the average of the fuel use profiles of a MP15DC and an EMD GP-9 switch locomotive, both of which were used in handling bulk commodities in the PMV area and their duty cycles have been determined to be representative of that of the national average 1. These profiles are given in Table Since the manifest locomotives typically remain running while on-site, the average fuel rate of L/h for the idling mode was applied. The operating hours of the manifest trains have been estimated by to be 1,348 for 2013 (20,896 cars received/(35 cars average per spotting activity) x (2.25 hour spotting + pickup)). Table 4-17 Duty Cycles and Fuel Consumption Rates for the MP15DC and EMD GP-9 Locomotives Engine Mode HP Facility Loco MP15DC Facility Loco EMD GP9 Average Profile Duty cycle % Fuel Use (L/h) HP Duty cycle % Fuel Use (L/h) Fuel Use (L/h) DB Idle N N N N N N N N Duty Cycle Average The same set of published fuel-based emission factors from the Railway Association of Canada s (RAC) Locomotive s Monitoring (LEM) Program were used to estimate CAC and GHG emissions from the manifest train and yard locomotive engines given the similarity in their operations. The use of these factors, shown in Tables 4-18 and Table 4-19 below, were deemed to be reasonable for 2013 since they were based on data collected for railways operating in Canada, including the Lower Fraser Valley where the Pacific Terminal is located. Since black carbon is a constituent of the PM 2.5 particulate from rail engine combustion, a ratio of 0.73, as shown in Table 4-2, was applied to the PM 2.5 to determine the emission factor for black carbon for rail. According to the federal Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations, the maximum sulphur limit for locomotive diesel is 15ppm (or mg/kg) effective The SO x emission factors shown in Table 4-16 reflect this diesel sulphur content instead of the reported 106ppm reported in the RAC LEM 2011 report. Consequently, an adjustment factor of 0.14 (15ppm / 106ppm) has been applied to the SO x emission factors given in the 20 RAC, 2014, Locomotive s Monitoring Program 2011, April 4. Page 29

43 RAC LEM report to reflect the lower fuel sulphur content. For future years, it is anticipated that locomotive diesel sulphur content will remain at the 15 ppm level in conformance with the regulatory sulphur limit for the production or import of locomotive diesel in Canada. Table 4-18 CAC Factors for Manifest and Yard Locomotives Rail Locomotive Factor (g/l) Source CO NOx SOx VOCs TPM PM10 PM2.5 DPM NH3 Manifest/Yard Table 4-19 GHG and Black Carbon Factors for Manifest and Yard Locomotives Rail Locomotive Factor (g/l) Source CO2 CH4 N2O Black Carbon CO2e20 CO2e100 Manifest/Yard Although future facility rail emissions may decrease in compliance with more stringent emission limits through fleet rollover and the accompanying introduction of cleaner locomotive engines, it has been reported in the PMV 2010 LEI study 1 that significant emission improvements would only be expected by 2025 and beyond. Hence for this assessment, it has been assumed conservatively that the pollutant emission factors shown in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19 will remain unchanged in Current and future train traffic and product throughputs are summarized in Table For 2023, the projected fuel consumption for the NRE yard locomotive was estimated by. Since forecast data for the Hunslet is not available, the same fuel consumption for 2013 was assumed for The number of rail cars on the manifest trains is expected to increase with the growth in facility throughput in Table 4-20 shows these anticipated activity changes. The number of locomotive engines on each train has been assumed the same at two for the base and future case. The total fuel consumed by the manifest locomotives was estimated based on using the same idling fuel rate of L/h and the 2023 manifest train operating hours of 652 and 815 as estimated by, for the future years without and with project, respectively. Table 4-20 Current and Future Train Traffic and Product Throughputs Parameter 2013 Base Case 2023 Future Year Without Project 2023 Future Year With Project Car Spots per Train Throughput (tonnes/yr) 1,917,328 4,065,029 5,081,000 Page 30

44 On-road Trucks As described previously, grain products from the Pacific Terminal are also shipped by trucks. In 2013, monthly truck shipments have been summarized in Table 2-3 and the annual truck shipment totalled 30,672 tonnes. s for trucks were estimated based on the following: E i = EF i * H * TM * C where: E i EF i H TM C = s of a given pollutant (t/y) = factor for a given pollutant i and for a specific speed range (g/hr travelled) = Hours travelled per truck movement = Total annual truck movements = Unit conversion factor to tonnes (10-6 tonne/g) Table 4-21 shows the estimated 2013 base case and forecast 2023 truck movements, time and distances travelled within the facility boundary, as provided by. The facility distance travelled in 2023 with project is 100 feet less than the distance considered in the base case and 2023 without project scenarios. With the completion of the project, the trucks expected idling time while on-site will also be reduced from approximately 50 minutes to 20 minutes. Table 4-21 Current and Future Truck Traffic Volumes and Distances Parameter Base Case Future Scenario Without Project Future Scenario With Project Number of Truck Movements 848 1,512 1,890 Distance per Truck Movement 1,500 feet 1,500 feet 1,400 feet Hours per Truck Movement a hrs hrs hrs a The hours were estimated based on the distance travelled, average speed of 5 km/hr plus the average idling hours per truck while on-site The factors for the trucks were provided by the PMV from their Smart Fleet Trucking Program. They were originally determined using the US EPA Motor Vehicle s Simulator (MOVES) computer modelling program. The model generates emission factors for the most common fuels types, including diesel. It also accounts for the effects on emissions of changes in vehicle emission standards, changes in vehicle populations and activity and variation in local conditions such as temperature, humidity, pressure, and fuel quality. The Model also takes into account improvements in vehicle emission systems and technologies as newer technologies slowly penetrate the vehicle fleets and when newer vehicles with improved performance replace older ones. These vehicle technologies are mainly designed to improve fuel efficiency, and reduce emissions, as well as improving the general safety of the driver. Page 31

45 MOVES provides emission factors for each vehicle type and for a variety of vehicle speeds. The vehicle speeds can affect the ratios of fuel/air being combusted in the engine and thus affecting the mix of pollutants being released through the tailpipe. It is important to select the most appropriate speed ranges so the results are reflective of actual project conditions. For both the base case and future scenarios, the speed range considered within the facility boundary was from 0 to 4 km/hr. This speed range accounts for a mix of low speeds and idling periods. The emission factors used are shown in Table The emission factors were developed for drayage trucks and has a number of lighter trucks as part of their fleet. Therefore, the use of these emission factors will provide a conservative estimation of this emission source. Table and 2023 Truck Factors (Speed Range 0-4 km/hr) Substances EF 2013 (g/hr) EF 2023 (g/hr) CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH CO CH N2O Black Carbon a CO2e20 27, , CO2e100 22, , a same as elemental carbon Non-road Equipment Non-road emission sources include vehicles or pieces of equipment that operate exclusively within the site and are not licensed to travel on public roads. Sources at the project site include: bobcats, forklifts, aerial lifts, air compressors, pumps, and generator sets. Non-road vehicle classifications, horsepower ratings, and estimated hours of operation were provided by. Page 32

46 The US EPA NONROAD2008 model was used to determine the CAC emission factors for each source type. The default technological distributions for the years 2013 and 2023 within NONROAD2008 were used as input parameters. The emission factors from this model are expressed in grams per horsepower-hour and are derived from meteorological information from Whatcom County, Washington, which is representative of the meteorology observed in Vancouver. A diesel sulphur content of 15ppm was assumed based on the maximum allowable sulphur in the diesel fuel sulphur regulations 21. A summary of the nonroad equipment and their corresponding NONROAD classifications are shown in Table 4-23 while the NONROAD emission factors used in this assessment are provided in Tables 4-24 through Tables The future scenario without project hours of operation were pro-rated based on a ratio of throughputs with and without project. Table 4-23 Current and Future Non-Road Equipment Types and Operations Type of Equipment Bobcat (Owned/Leased) Forklift (Owned/Leased) Telehandler (Owned/Leased) Manlifts (Rentals) Fuel Type Equipment Horsepower (hp) 2013 Operating Hours 2023 Without Project 2023 With Project SCC Code Load Factor NONROAD HP Classification Diesel < HP <= 50 NONROAD Equipment Type Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes LPG < HP <= 75 Forklifts Diesel < HP <= 175 Aerial Lifts Diesel < HP <= 75 Aerial Lifts Forklift (Rentals) LPG < HP <= 75 Forklifts Mobile Compressors (Rentals) Fire Pump (PAC1) Fire Pump (PAC2) Diesel Diesel Diesel Main Generator Diesel Main Generator Diesel < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= 600 Air Compressors Pumps Pumps Generator Sets Generator Sets 21 Environment Canada (2014). Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations. Maximum Sulphur Limits for Diesel Fuel. Accessed from: Page 33

47 Table 4-24 CAC Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Base Year 2013 SCC Code NONROAD Equipment Type Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes NONROAD HP Classification Load Factor Factors (g/hp-hr) CO NO x SO x VOCs TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NH 3 40 < HP <= Forklifts 50 < HP <= Aerial Lifts 100 < HP <= Aerial Lifts 50 < HP <= Forklifts 50 < HP <= Air Compressors Pumps Generator Sets Generator Sets 175 < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= Table 4-25 GHG and Black Carbon Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Baseline Year 2013 SCC Code NONROAD Equipment Type Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes NONROAD HP Classification Load Factor CO 2 CH 4 N 2O Factors (g/hp-hr) Black Carbon CO 2e 20 CO 2e < HP <= , , Forklifts 50 < HP <= Aerial Lifts 100 < HP <= , Aerial Lifts 50 < HP <= , , Forklifts 50 < HP <= Air Compressors 175 < HP <= Pumps 100 < HP <= , Generator Sets 175 < HP <= , Generator Sets 300 < HP <= , Page 34

48 Table 4-26 CAC Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Future Year 2023 with and without Project SCC Code NONROAD Equipment Type Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes NONROAD HP Classification Load Factor Factors (g/hp-hr) CO NO x SO x VOCs TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NH 3 40 < HP <= Forklifts 50 < HP <= Aerial Lifts 100 < HP <= Aerial Lifts 50 < HP <= Forklifts 50 < HP <= Air Compressors Pumps Generator Sets Generator Sets 175 < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= Table 4-27 GHG and Black Carbon Factors for Non-Road Equipment, Future Year 2023 with and without Project SCC Code NONROAD Equipment Type Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes NONROAD HP Classification Load Factor CO 2 CH 4 N 2O Factors (g/hp-hr) Black Carbon CO 2e 20 CO 2e < HP <= Forklifts 50 < HP <= Aerial Lifts 100 < HP <= Aerial Lifts 50 < HP <= Forklifts 50 < HP <= Air Compressors Pumps Generator Sets Generator Sets 175 < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= < HP <= Page 35

49 4.3.2 Supply Chain Inventory The supply chain consists of marine vessels and on-road trucks for the shipment of products as well as rail deliveries to Pacific Terminal. As discussed previously in Section 4.1, facility truck movements, and hence emissions, are negligible when compared to the truck supply chain movements within the Port. Therefore on-road truck supply chain analysis was not included in this assessment. The rationale used in the establishment of the supply chain boundaries, as shown in Figure 4-3, has also been provided in Section 4.1 while the approaches used in estimating supply chain releases by marine vessels and rail are described below Marine Vessels Marine traffic travels through to the Port through Georgia Strait and then Burrard Inlet, passing under the Lion s Gate Bridge. Based on discussions with the PMV, it is understood that anchoring emissions are a significant portion of marine emissions and the supply chain boundary should be large enough to allow for the inclusion of this activity. Therefore, the supply chain boundary for ocean going vessels was determined to be at the boundary of Georgia Strait and Burrard Inlet, as in a conservative estimate, ocean going vessels would be anchoring at the boundary which is also the boundary of the PMV s navigational jurisdiction. The methodology applied to estimate emissions was described in Section Rail For rail, fuel consumption was the parameter used to estimate the emissions from rail activities at the Pacific Terminal and train transit to the CP Port Coquitlam Yard. The fuel-based emission factors shown in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19 were then applied to these fuel estimates to determine the supply chain rail emissions. For train movements between the Pacific Terminal and the CP Yard, the average fuel consumption rate of L/h for a full engine duty cycle (Table 4-17) was adjusted for each train movement based on the transit time to the CP Yard. The transit time was calculated based on an assumed average train speed of 30 km/h and an estimated distance of 24.7km from to the CP Yard. The total number of train movements along this south shore supply chain corridor was determined based on rail traffic data provided by. For the forecast year of 2023 with and without project, the same approach was applied in determining the supply chain rail emissions Rates As stipulated in the PAAR, inventory results are to be expressed by commodity throughput, on an annual basis and as average and peak emission rates. Since the emissions from all the products handled by the Pacific Terminal are operation dependent regardless of the commodity handled, the annual combined commodity throughput for all products handled for 2013 and 2023 was used. The annual emissions for each pollutant were determined based on the operating hours of the given source in the year. In determining the average and peak emission rates, an approach consistent with dispersion modelling practices was adopted. The peak rate was derived based on dividing the annual emission tonnage by the Page 36

50 total source operation time in the given year whereas the same quantity of annual emissions were spread evenly over the entire year (365 d/y) to obtain the average emission rate regardless of the source-specific annual operating hours. 4.4 INVENTORY RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Based on the emissions quantification methodologies described in preceding sections, emission estimates for the pollutants of interest from facility and supply chain sources are presented and discussed in the sections below Facility s s from the Pacific Terminal consist of releases from facility process sources, material transfer operations, electricity use, combustion sources as well as from engines on marine vessels, haul trucks, non-road equipment and rail that are running while on-site. results are summarized in Tables 4-28 to 4-35 for the base year and the with and without project scenarios for the 2023 forecast year. s to throughput ratios are presented in Appendix B Process Sources s from permitted process sources on-site are summarized in Table 4-28 below. The majority of these sources are associated with baghouses which were installed for dust control. Particulate releases are projected to increase by 38% with the growth in facility throughput from 1.9 million tonnes in 2013 to about 4 million tonnes in 2023 if the current dust control system is still being used in the forecast year. However, with the implementation of the dust control system modernization project by 2023, particulate emissions are projected to decrease by 2% when compared to 2013 levels. Table 4-28 Annual s from Process Sources for the Facility Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline TPM % % PM % % PM % % Material Transfer Points Table 4-29 below shows significant reduction in particulate emissions with the improvement in shiploading system including the installation of a Cleveland Cascade loading chute to deposit material into the vessel holds with the minimum of fugitive dust disturbance, and a Dust Suppression Hopper System for truck loading. Without this project, particulate emissions are projected to approximately double that Page 37

51 of the releases in With the shiploading and truck improvements in place, the 2023 emissions are expected to be reduced by 34% for TPM, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Table 4-29 Annual s from Material Transfers for the Facility Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline TPM % % PM % % PM % % Electricity Electricity consumption is projected to increase from 2013 baseline values by 62% and 103%, due to the projected electricity use in 2023 without and with project, respectively. Hence the associated GHG emissions are also projected to increase accordingly as shown in Table Table 4-30 Annual s from Electricity Sources for the Facility Scenarios GHG: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CO % % CO2e20 a % % CO2e % % a electricity CO 2e 20 assumed to be equivalent to CO 2e Combustion Sources The majority of the releases shown in Table 4-31 can be attributed to natural gas combustion and these emissions with project are expected to increase by % in 2023 when compared to 2013 levels as a result of expected increases in fuel consumption to meet future steam and energy requirements on-site based on increased material throughput levels without the project are projected to increase from 105% - 112% due to the same reasons. Page 38

52 Table 4-31 Annual s from Natural Gas and Propane Combustion Sources for the Facility Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CO % % TPM % % PM % % PM % % NOx % % SO % % VOC % % GHG: CO % % CH % % N2O % % Black Carbon % % CO2e % % CO2e % % Marine Vessels Marine vessel emissions include those from vessel main and auxiliary engines and boilers while at berth. s from tugboats are also included in the estimates shown in Table Without the project implementation all CAC and GHG emissions are expected to decrease. With the project implementation, all CAC and GHG emissions are also expected to decrease when compared with 2013 levels, with the exception of NO x and CO which are projected to increase by 1% and 3% respectively. The decrease in CAC and GHG emissions in the scenarios with and without project implementation can be attributed to the less hours at berth required due to increased efficiencies at the Port, in addition to the lower fuel sulphur content in the forecast year which will decrease the SO 2 and particulate matter related emission factors. Page 39

53 Table 4-32 Annual s from Marine Vessel Sources for the Facility Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CO % % TPM % % PM % % PM % % DPM % % NOx % % SO % % VOC % % NH % % GHG: CO2 4, , % 4, % CH % % N2O % % Black Carbon % % CO2e20 11, , % 8, % CO2e100 6, , % 5, % Rail Annual estimated rail emissions from the Pacific Terminal for the 2013 and future 2023 scenario years are shown in Table Forecast emissions of pollutants increased 15% and 44% over 2013 levels, for the 2023 future year without and with project, respectively, due to the overall increase in diesel consumption in train operations as a result of the increase in future facility throughput. Page 40

54 Table 4-33 Annual s from Rail Sources for the Facility Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CO % % TPM % % PM % % PM % % DPM % % NOx % % SO % % VOC % % NH % % GHG: CO % % CH % % N2O % % Black Carbon % % CO2e % 1, % CO2e % % On-road Trucks Annual estimated truck emissions from the Pacific Terminal for the 2013 and future 2023 scenario years are shown in Table The forecast emissions of most substances decrease over 2013 levels as a result of newer and more efficient trucks being introduced in the vehicle fleet. The decrease in emissions ranges from 9 to 73%. The only substances that have higher emissions in the future scenario without project over 2013 are SO 2, NH 3, CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O. Although the emission factors for SO 2, CO 2 and NH 3 do not increase in the future, the reduction in emission factors is not enough to offset the growth in the number of trucks in The increase in emission factors for N 2O and CH 4 has resulted in the increase in these emissions in the future years. This may be due to adverse effects that some of the newer diesel technologies have in the emission of these substances. Page 41

55 In 2023 with project scenario all the substance emissions decrease when compared to the 2023 without project. This decrease is due to shorter distances travelled by the trucks in the facility boundary and reduced idling periods after project completion. Table 4-34 Annual s from On-road Truck Sources for the Facility Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CO % % TPM % % PM % % PM % % DPM % % NOx % % SO % % VOC % % NH % % GHG: CO % % CH % % N2O % % Black Carbon % % CO2e % % CO2e % % Non-road Equipment estimates for on-site non-road equipment are shown in Table All CACs and GHGs are expected to decrease in the 2023 future scenario without project, while there are varied increases and decreases in the 2023 future scenario with project. This is due to changes in equipment and hours of operations that were used in the 2013 baseline year and the future scenarios, in addition to changes in the emission factors generated by the US EPA model NONROAD2008A. Page 42

56 Table 4-35 Annual s from Non-Road Sources for the Facility Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CO % % TPM % % PM % % PM % % DPM % % NOx % % SO % % VOC % % GHG: CO % % CH % % Black Carbon % % CO2e % % CO2e % % Supply Chain s summaries for each mode of supply chain transport for the base and forecast scenarios are shown in Table 4-36 for marine vessels and in Table 4-37 for rail Marine Vessels Marine vessel emissions included the anchoring operations in English Bay, and the underway emissions travelling from the mouth of English Bay to the Port, inclusive of: main engine, auxiliary engines, and boiler emissions. The majority of CACs and GHGs are expected to increase in the future scenarios with and without project due to the increased anchorage hours required with increased product throughput and traffic; however, the SO 2 and particulate matter related emissions decrease due to decreases in fuel sulphur levels in Page 43

57 Table 4-36 Annual s from Marine Vessel for the Supply-Chain Scenarios CAC: Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CO % % TPM % % PM % % PM % % DPM % % NOx % % SO % % VOC % % NH % % GHG: CO2 3, , % 6, % CH % % N2O % % Black Carbon % % CO2e20 7, , % 10, % CO2e100 4, , % 7, % Rail Rail emissions from the supply chain included train transit from Pacific Terminal to the CP Port Coquitlam Yard. As shown in Table 4-37, pollutant emissions decreased by 26% and 8% in 2023 without and with project implementation, respectively, when compared to 2013 levels. Although the facility throughput would increase in 2023, the estimated manifest train traffic was expected to be slightly lower in the 2023 future scenarios since each train would be pulling approximately 100 railcars instead of 35 in Page 44

58 Table 4-37 Annual s from Rail Sources for the Supply-Chain Scenarios Substances 2013 Baseline Scenario (tonnes/yr) 2023 Future Scenario without Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline 2023 Future Scenario with Project (tonnes/yr) % change from Baseline CAC: CO % % TPM % % PM % % PM % % DPM % % NOx % % SO % % VOC % % NH % % GHG: CO % % CH % % N 2O % % Black Carbon % % CO 2e % % CO 2e % % Overall Scenario s Tables 4-38 to 4-40 show the overall emissions contribution from facility sources while the overall emission results for the supply chain are given in Tables 4-41 to 4-42 present the overall emission results for the supply chain Facility For the 2013 base year (Table 4-38), the majority of particulate emissions, with the exception of DPM, were attributable to facility processes that were associated with material handling activities during product loading operations. s from marine vessels accounted for most of the releases of the remaining pollutants with the exception of NH 3. Rail was the major contributor of NH 3 emissions. Page 45

59 Table 4-38 Total Annual Facility s for the 2013 Baseline Scenario Substances CAC: Facility Process Sources Marine Vessels 2013 Facility s (tonnes/year) Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO , , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e , , CO2e , , Total For the future scenario without the Project, similar trends were observed as shown in Table Without the dust control modernization project, particulate emissions from loading operations are expected to increase with the rise in commodity throughput from 2013 levels. For the remaining pollutants, marine vessels remain the dominant source followed by rail with the exception of NH 3 and N 2O emissions where rail is the major contributor. Page 46

60 Table 4-39 Total Annual Facility s for the 2023 without Project Scenario CAC: Substances Facility Process Sources 2023 Facility s without Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Onroad Trucks Non-road Equipment CO Total TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO , , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e , , CO2e , , Table 4-40 shows the facility emissions for 2023 with the completion of shiploading improvements and dust control modifications that resulted in reducing the particulate emissions from material handling activities by approximately half. s from on-road trucks are also lower due to reduced idling times and distances travelled while on site. s from marine vessels, rail and non-road equipment increase slightly due to the increase in volumes of product handled. Page 47

61 Table 4-40 Total Annual Facility s for the 2023 with Project Scenario CAC: Substances Facility Process Sources 2023 Facility s with Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail On-road Trucks Non-road Equipment CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO , , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e , , , CO2e , , Total Supply Chain The supply chain emission estimates for the base and future year scenarios are shown in Tables 4-41 to Of all the scenarios shown, marine vessels are the more dominant source when compared to rail. Page 48

62 Table 4-41 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2013 Baseline Scenario Substances 2013 Supply-Chain s Baseline (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total CAC: CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH GHG: CO2 3, , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e20 7, , CO2e100 4, , Table 4-42 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2023 without Project Scenario Substances 2023 Supply-Chain s without Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total CAC: CO TPM PM PM DPM NOx SO VOC NH Page 49

63 Substances 2023 Supply-Chain s without Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total GHG: CO2 4, , CH N2O Black Carbon CO2e20 7, , CO2e100 5, , Table 4-43 Total Annual Supply-Chain s for the 2023 with Project Scenario Substances 2023 Supply-Chain s with Project (tonnes/year) Marine Vessels Rail Total CAC: CO TPM PM PM DPM NO x SO VOC NH GHG: CO 2 6, , CH N 2O Black Carbon CO 2e 20 10, , CO 2e 100 7, , Facility Air Quality Impacts Without the implementation of the project, TPM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are expected to increase. However, with the implementation of the project and related dust mitigation equipment, there are noticeable decreases in in these substances in the 2023 year compared to 2013 (Table 4-41, Table 4-39). Furthermore, these are the CACs with the highest current annual average ambient concentration fractions of their respective AAQO (Table 3-1), not considering O 3 which was not quantified as there was no major source of O 3 from the facility. Page 50

64 Nonetheless, due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors identified in Section 3.2, there is a potential for the sensitive receptors to be impacted due to s operations in the future with project implementation due to increases in other CACs. However, current ambient concentrations of these other CACs are commonly well below AAQO, with the exception of isolated short-term NO 2 concentrations. The changes proposed for the project results in an overall reduction in airshed loading of the CACs of highest concern for local air quality impacts (particulate matter fractions) that will likely improve the overall air quality at the nearby sensitive receptors Rates The changes in emissions as a function of throughput increases for the base to forecast years have been calculated. The following Table 4-44 highlights the reduction trend in emissions to throughput ratios due to overall facility efficiency improvements that are going to be implemented in conjunction with the shiploading upgrade and dust control modernization projects. Detailed tables are provided in Appendix B. For the peak and average rate estimates, these are included in Appendix C. Table 4-44 s to Commodity Throughput Ratios for Base and Future Years Substances Facility s/material Throughput (Tonnes/Tonnes) with Project % Change from 2013 CAC: CO 4.61E E-06-60% TPM 7.73E E-05-75% PM E E-06-76% PM E E-07-78% DPM 1.80E E-07-81% NOx 3.26E E-05-60% SO2 1.37E E-07-97% VOC 1.21E E-07-60% NH3 2.14E E-08-49% GHG: CO2 2.78E E-03-59% CH4 2.28E E-08-62% N2O 1.25E E-08-54% Black Carbon 1.11E E-07-77% CO2e E E-03-69% CO2e E E-03-63% Page 51

65 4.4.6 Worst Case Scenario A worst case scenario for facility emissions may potentially occur when all emitting sources on-site are operating at their peak emission rates simultaneously. Although unlikely, this condition may arise over a short span of time when the following activities occur on-site at the same time: Process sources: when all units are operating at maximum simultaneously. Marine vessels: vessel engines and boilers are running fulltime. Rail: when the NRE Tier 3 locomotive is out of service and the old Hunslet unit is being used to perform all switching functions while the number of manifest trains arriving on-site reaches the maximum. Trucks: when the number of trucks on-site reaches the maximum. 5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE The construction phase is expected to start in Each project is expected to last less than one year. The number of construction vehicle movements during this period is anticipated to be more than 50 per day and the combined power of construction equipment, such as front-end loaders, would be more than 500 kw. Although there are several nearby receptors to the facility, including the Sir William Macdonald Community School and the Tillicum Community Annex as discussed in Section 3.2, is committed to the implementation of traffic and dust control measures, if warranted, during these several months of construction to mitigate and minimize any potential impacts to these receptors. 6 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT The process of dust control at the Pacific Terminal is managed through the aspiration of material handling systems primarily at transfer and processing points. This is handled through good engineering practice consistent with ASHRAE design practices and applicable NFPA codes. The technology used for the collection of particulate material is managed through bag house or cartridge filter collection systems. These are currently capable of emission efficiencies of a maximum of grains/dscf of air based on PM 10 and grains/dscf of air based on PM 2.5. These provide effective efficiencies greater than 99.5% based on normal dust loadings per dscf. Normal life expectancy for Bag House and Cartridge Filter technology would be years based on good maintenance practices including: regular inspection and service of diaphragms; replacement of polyester socks at appropriate maximum static loss 2.5 WG; replacement of system cartridges at appropriate maximum static loss; general routine maintenance of associated fans to ensure no loss of handling volume; general routine maintenance of associated blowers, rotary valves and collection ducting. Primary sources of fugitive dust will be handled through the improved technologies of the proposed truck loading spout and ship loading system. Good maintenance practices are to be followed. To measure on-going effectiveness of dust emissions a monthly sampling program for dust-fall measurements at key property locations will be maintained on an ongoing basis. Page 52

66 There is no expectation that technologies installed in 2015 and 2016 will be changed between completion in 2016 and Focus will remain on good maintenance practices throughout the period. Opportunities for improvements may exist if actual polyester bag systems improve or alternate fabric designs become available with improved PM 10 and PM 2.5 characteristics that exhibit similar static losses across the bags. These technologies would be explored should this develop. The majority of effort post installation would be spent on ensuring consistent use of the technologies provided below to manage fugitive dust and that represent the majority of the dust emissions. proper use of Cleveland Cascades spout for loading operations; proper operation of DSH Spout. 7 CONCLUSIONS As the commodity throughput at the Pacific Terminal increases from 1.9 million tonnes in 2013 to approximately 5 million tonnes in 2023, corresponding emissions from facility and supply chain sources are also expected to rise if the current facility operation and configuration remain unchanged. However, with the implementation of the proposed truck and shiploading upgrade and dust control system modernization, the inventory results suggest that the reduction in particulate emissions from material handling operations, which is most dominant source of particle emissions from the facility, will be significant and by as much half. In addition, the emissions per unit throughput have been estimated to decrease by 49 to 71% for most pollutants, together with a 94% reduction in SO 2 emission due to a more stringent fuel sulphur limit in the future. Nonetheless, due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors identified in Section 3.2, there is a potential for the sensitive receptors to be impacted due to s operations in the future with project implementation due to increases in other CACs. However, current ambient concentrations of these other CACs are commonly well below AAQO, with the exception of isolated short-term NO 2 concentrations. The changes proposed for the project result in an overall reduction in airshed loading of the CACs of highest concern for local air quality impacts (particulate matter fractions) that will likely improve the overall air quality at the nearby sensitive receptors. Page 53

67 APPENDIX A BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY Page 54

68 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES (AAQOS) 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. Federally, up to three objective values have been recommended using the categories "maximum desirable", "maximum acceptable", and "maximum tolerable". The "maximum desirable objective is the most stringent standard. British Columbia has established similar sets of objective values, designated as levels A, B and C, with level A being the most stringent. Level A is typically applied to new and proposed discharges to the environment, and is usually the same as the federal "maximum desirable" objective. As with the federal and provincial AAQOs, Metro Vancouver establishes AAQOs that are based on the current knowledge regarding air quality and health science. Objectives from other jurisdictions around the world, as well as the ability to achieve the objectives within Metro Vancouver, are also considered. Table A-1 summarizes Metro Vancouver s AAQOs. British Columbia s AAQOs for Ozone (O 3) have been summarized in Table A-1 for the 24-hour and annual averaging periods as Metro Vancouver does not have objectives for these averaging periods. Table A-1 Metro Vancouver s Ambient Air Quality Objectives 22 Air Contaminant Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Ozone (O3) Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Averaging Time Ambient Air Quality Objectives (µg/m 3 ) 1-hour 30,000 8-hour 10,000 1-hour 200 Annual 40 1-hour hour 125 Annual 30 1-hour hour hour a 50 Annual a hour 50 Annual hour 25 Annual a Based on British Columbia s Ambient Air Quality Objectives b 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. 8 (6) a 22 MV (2011), Metro Vancouver Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, October, ( Plan-October2011.pdf) Page 55

69 AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGICAL STATION INFORMATION Metro Vancouver operates an extensive network of ambient air quality monitoring stations (Figure A-1). Data from four monitoring stations (T01 Vancouver-Downtown, T06 North Vancouver-Second Narrows, T24 Burnaby North, and T26 North Vancouver-Mahon Park) were used for characterizing the air quality and meteorology in the area surrounding s location. The yellow circles identify the stations and the yellow star identifies the approximate location of s facility. The monitoring stations were chosen based on their representativeness, proximity to s facility and the air quality and meteorological parameters monitored. Figure A-1 Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Network 23 Five years of data from 2008 through 2012 from Vancouver-Downtown (T01), North Vancouver-Second Narrows (T06), Burnaby North (T24), and North Vancouver-Mahon Park (T26) were analysed. Of the air contaminants of interest for this study, the following Tables A-2 and A-3 indicate the parameters that were included in the ambient air quality data analysis, and their respective ambient air quality monitoring station information. 23 MV (2011), Metro Vancouver 2011 Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Report (April, 2013) Page 56