APPENDIX R. Environmental Air Assessment. G3 Terminal Vancouver Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Application APPENDIX R

Transcription

1 APPENDIX R Environmental Air Assessment APPENDIX R G3 Terminal Vancouver Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Application

2 Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver Document type Environmental Air Assessment Date November 12, 2015 G3 WESTERN GRAIN TERMINAL ENVIRONMENTAL AIR ASSESSMENT

3 G3 WESTERN GRAIN TERMINAL ENVIRONMENTAL AIR ASSESSMENT Revision 1 Date 12/11/2015 Made by Taylor Roumeliotis, PhD, PEng Checked by Rakesh Singh, PhD, PEng Approved by Paul Geisberger, PEng Description Environmental Air Assessment Ref Ramboll Environ 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard Suite 100 Mississauga, ON L5N 6S2 Canada T F

4 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Facility Overview 1 2. PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Overview Baseline Case Activity and Throughput Summary Project Case Activity and Throughput Summary No Project Case Activity and Throughput Summary 6 3. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE Facility Supply Chain Receiver Identification and Proximity 7 4. EMISSION SOURCES Primary Sources Baseline Case Project Case Emission Variability Baseline Case Project Case Pollutants of Concern CURRENT CONDITIONS Air Quality Background Concentrations Meteorological Influences Historical Trends: Facility Throughput FUTURE CONDITIONS Horizon Year - Rationale Design Capacity Limitation EMISSION ESTIMATES Baseline Case Project Case LEVEL 2 DISPERSION MODELLING Scope of Modelling Dispersion Model and Input Parameters Model Results MITIGATION POTENTIAL Use of Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost Stationary and Fugitive Dust Emission Sources Application of Best Available Procedures Locomotive Emission Sources IMPACT POTENTIAL Comparison of Baseline Case to Project Case Incremental Change in Port Emissions Comparison of Project Case to Best Available Techniques Dispersion Modelling Conclusion REFERENCES 55

5 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. HISTORICAL ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT DATA FOR BASELINE CASE TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED ACTIVITY AND THROUGHPUT LEVELS FOR PROJECT CASE AT CAPACITY TABLE 3. DISTANCES TO NEAREST RECEIVERS BY RECEIVER TYPE TABLE 4. ACTIVITY METRICS FOR BASELINE CASE MARINE EMISSION SOURCES TABLE 5. ACTIVITY METRICS FOR BASELINE CASE LONG-HAUL TRUCK EMISSION SOURCES TABLE 6. ACTIVITY METRICS FOR BASELINE CASE NON-ROAD EMISSION SOURCES TABLE 7. ACTIVITY METRICS FOR PROJECT CASE STATIONARY AND FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES TABLE 8. ACTIVITY METRICS FOR PROJECT CASE RAIL EMISSION SOURCES TABLE 9. ACTIVITY METRICS FOR PROJECT CASE MARINE EMISSION SOURCES TABLE 10. ACTIVITY METRICS FOR PROJECT CASE LHT EMISSION SOURCES TABLE 11. REPRESENTATIVE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE SURROUNDING TERMINAL AREA TABLE 12. EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR BASELINE CASE TABLE 13. EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR PROJECT CASE TABLE 14. DISPERSION MODELLING RESULTS TABLE 15. RELATIVE IMPACT AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TABLE 16. INCREMENTAL CHANGE IN MARINE EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT CASE WITHIN REGION TABLE 17. INCREMENTAL CHANGE IN LANDSIDE EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT CASE WITHIN PMV TABLE 18. INCREMENTAL CHANGE IN PORT FACILITY EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT CASE WITHIN BURRARD INLET LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF FACILITY WITHIN NORTH VANCOUVER FIGURE 2. EXISTING WEST GATE FACILITY FIGURE 3. PROPOSED G3 TERMINAL FIGURE 4. PROPOSED G3 TERMINAL SITE RENDERING FIGURE 5. FACILITY BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL FIGURE 6. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE FOR SUPPLY CHAIN FIGURE 7. RECEIVER IDENTIFICATION MAP FIGURE 8. WIND ROSE FOR SECOND NARROWS STATION FROM 2012 TO FIGURE 9. COMPONENTS OF THE TELESCOPING SHIP LOADER SPOUT FIGURE 10. FACILITY BOUNDARY EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON: BASELINE AND PROJECT CASE FOR AIR TOXICS FIGURE 11. FACILITY BOUNDARY EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON: BASELINE AND PROJECT CASE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES FIGURE 12. SUPPLY CHAIN EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON: BASELINE AND PROJECT CASE FOR AIR TOXICS FIGURE 13. SUPPLY CHAIN EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON: BASELINE AND PROJECT CASE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES

6 APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Estimation Methodologies Appendix 2 - Level 2 Assessment, Dispersion Modelling

7 1 of INTRODUCTION G3 Terminal Vancouver Limited Partnership, by its general partner G3 Terminal Vancouver GP Inc. (G3) is proposing to construct and operate a grain export terminal on leased lands within Port Metro Vancouver (PMV, or the Port). Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), PMV is required to conduct an environmental review of any proposed project on port lands. This Environmental Air Assessment has been prepared to support Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) s Project and Environmental Review (PER) process. The assessment has been prepared following the PMV document Guidelines Environmental Air Assessment, dated July Facility Overview G3 is considering construction of Vancouver s premier grain export facility on port land currently occupied by the West Gate Lynnterm facility in North Vancouver. Western Stevedoring has been operating the West Gate Lynnterm facility in the Port Metro Vancouver since the 1960 s. A wide variety of commodities are transferred to and from ships for either the Canadian domestic or export markets. West Gate handles primarily forestry, steel, general cargo, containers and other related services. West Gate is serviced by three berths and is located close to the Trans-Canada Highway #1 in the City of North Vancouver, Canada. Existing facilities will be demolished to make way for the new facility. The new grain terminal will be a state of the art facility, and the first completely new grain export facility built in Canada since the early 1980s. The facility is designed to create the most effective and efficient receiving, processing, storage and shipping throughput operation on Canada s west coast. The terminal will handle multiple agricultural commodities with the focus on wheat, canola, durum wheat, barley, and peas, with lesser amounts of soybeans, corn, oats, flax seeds, screening byproducts (grain screening pellets, feed screenings, mixed feed oats), mixed grains, canola meal pellets, sunflower seeds, alfalfa pellets, mustard seeds (brown, yellow, oriental), lentils, canary seed, and beans (all types). The new G3 grain terminal will be a major conduit for Canadian farmers and marketers to move Canadian agricultural commodities to the world s markets. The facility will receive grain exclusively by rail. A state-of-the art rail loop and unloading system will allow full unit trains to enter the property, unload, and leave without breaking up the train. The railcar receiving facility will unload two rail cars simultaneously while the train is in continuous motion. This loop and continuous unloading system practically eliminates shunting (with the exception of removing defective cars), and drastically reduces starting and stopping of the trains. The system will have the capacity to unload three (3) unit trains with 150 cars per train per day. From the unloading system, grain will be transported by a network of enclosed or otherwise contained conveyors to bulk scale and sampling systems, then on to the storage facility and cleaning house, and finally onto the ship loading facility to be placed on berthed vessels. Dust aspiration systems that collect grain dust will be installed through the facility to minimize the release of dust from transfer points. The grain will be stored in forty eight (48) concrete storage silos with an overhead conveyor system for distribution. The storage capacity of the proposed facility will be up to approximately 200,000 metric tonnes.

8 2 of 56 The cleaning house will consist of conveying equipment, grain cleaning equipment, grain bins and by-products bins, a by-product load out system and other related systems. By-products removed from the grain will be processed into a pelletized commodity to be sold to the local animal feed industry and transferred off-site by truck. The new berth structure will facilitate loading of ships up to a post-panamax size (125,000 Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) capacity). A high capacity ship loading system will include three articulated booms with extendable loading spouts. Each spout will be equipped with a state-of-theart dust control system to minimize fugitive dust emissions while loading grain. Existing West Gate Terminal Image: Google Earth Figure 1. Location of Facility within North Vancouver. West Gate Terminal Image: Google Earth Figure 2. Existing West Gate Facility.

9 3 of 56 Figure 3. Proposed G3 Terminal. Figure 4. Proposed G3 Terminal Site Rendering.

10 4 of PROJECT OVERVIEW 2.1 Project Overview The proposed project would include the demolition of existing facilities at West Gate and several site improvements, including facilities, overpasses/underpasses and modification of the existing dock. Use of the existing industrial site will allow G3 to minimize impacts to the neighbourhood, region and foreshore while maximizing the full marine exporting potential of Vancouver s North Shore. The proposed export grain terminal itself will involve installing and operating the following key assets: A railcar receiving facility that can unload two rail cars simultaneously while in continuous motion. This facility will include a rail track loop configuration that allows for the storage or holding of up to three (3), 150 rail car unit trains and their return to the rail system without breaking up the train(s). A conveyor system network that begins at the railcar receiving facility, traveling partially through an underground tunnel, onto the terminal s bulk scale and sampling systems, then on to the storage facility and cleaning house, and finally onto the ship loading facility to place grain on berthed vessels. A grain storage facility consisting of up to forty eight (48) concrete storage silos with an overhead conveyor system for distributing grain commodities. The storage facility is approximately 64.0 m (210 ft.) tall, the silos being approximately 42.6 m (140 ft.) tall and the remaining 21.3 m (70 ft.) of height consisting of the overhead conveyor system and associated spouting and structures. The storage capacity of the proposed facility will be up to approximately 200,000 metric tonnes, depending on commodity density. A grain cleaning facility that will clean and direct grain(s) to storage. The cleaning facility consists of conveying equipment, grain cleaning equipment, grain bins and by-products bins, a by-product load out system and other related systems. The existing dock deck will be partly demolished and a berth structure will be added that includes a rock revetment, south of the existing berth face, to support three ship-loading cranes. The ship loading system will include three articulated booms that can load ships up to a post-panamax size (125,000 DWT capacity). Dust aspiration systems that collect grain dust and in some instances turn it into a pelletized commodity to be sold to the local animal feed industry. As part of this system, pelleted byproduct storage bins will be used for truck load-out. The site will also contain other environmental controls to ensure that the facility is operating within all applicable federal, provincial and regional guidelines and regulations. A maintenance shop building to ensure the terminal is properly maintained. A control centre, administration office and locker rooms for required staffing. Access roads and underpasses to ensure unencumbered operational traffic flow. A longshore building for stevedoring personnel breaks, complete with restroom facilities. 2.2 Baseline Case Activity and Throughput Summary Western Stevedoring s West Gate Lynnterm facility is a break bulk terminal where a wide variety of commodities are transferred to and from ships for either Canadian domestic or export markets. The Lynnterm West Gate terminal primarily handles forestry, steel, general cargo, containers and other related services. There are 26 hectares (~260,000 m 2 ) of heavy duty paved area for containers at the site and three storage warehouses with a total covered area of 23,550 m 2.

11 5 of 56 The West Gate terminal has three berths to receive multiple marine vessels at a time. Heavy duty trucks can access the site from the north, within a few kilometres of TransCanada Highway 1 in the City of North Vancouver. The terminal also has direct service by the Canadian National Railway, but the throughput for this mode of transportation is insignificant compared to vessels and trucks. Therefore, rail for the Baseline Case was not considered further in this report. The West Gate terminal can operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Terminal activity and throughput data for the past five years are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1. Historical Activity and Throughput Data for Baseline Case. Vessels Truck Traffic Annual Commodity Operation Quantity Total Length of Receiving Delivery Total Year Calls Stay (Inbound) (Outbound) (In + Out) (hours) (tonnes) (#) (hours) (trips) (trips) (trips) , , ,922 6,258 8,050 14, , , ,857 8,615 7,686 16, , , ,132 4,614 7,748 12, , , ,309 4,298 8,089 12, , , ,063 5,417 10,508 15, Baseline 5, , ,063 5,417 10,508 15,925 * Blue, bold values indicate highest activity / throughput in past five years 2014 is the most recent year for which complete activity data is available. Western Stevedoring predicts that throughput for 2015 will be similar to New fuel regulations related to marine fuel sulphur content came into effect in 2015 that significantly reduce emissions of sulphur oxides (SO X ) and particulate matter (PM) from marine engines. Therefore, 2015 was selected as the baseline year with activity levels equal to those of 2014, so that baseline emission estimates will reflect up-to-date fuel standards. 2.3 Project Case Activity and Throughput Summary The new grain export facility will begin operation in 2019, but is not expected to reach full capacity until 2023 (i.e. the horizon year). The facility will receive all types of grain by rail, exclusively. At full capacity, the facility will receive up to 600 trains per year, each consisting of up to 150 rail cars (~100 tonnes/car). From rail receiving, the grain will be transferred by conveyor to storage silos, cleaning facilities, and/or directly to shipping by vessel. At capacity, the terminal is expected to load up to 168 vessels per year for export around the world. A portion of the grain received (~30%) will be cleaned before shipping. Rejected material (dust and screenings) from the cleaning process may be conveyed to a pelletizing system. The pellets and screenings (i.e. by-products) will be loaded into heavy trucks and hauled off-site to consumers. The facility expects that up to 90,000 tonnes of pellets and screenings may be shipped each year, requiring about 2,250 trucks when operating at capacity. The G3 terminal also has a truck unloading system, which is used as an emergency back-up to move grain to/from vessels. Since this operation will not be part of normal day-to-day activities and will not generate significant emissions, it was not considered further for this assessment.

12 6 of 56 The grain export terminal can operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The activity and throughput levels for the grain terminal operating at capacity are provided in Table 2 below. Table 2. Anticipated Activity and Throughput Levels for Project Case at Capacity. Activity Annual Operation Annual Throughput Equipment Movements (hours) (tonnes) (trips) Rail Receiving 6,000 8,000, trains Cleaning 3,700 2,400,000 n/a Shipping 4,560 8,000, vessels By-Product Loadout ,000 2,250 trucks Specific details on annual operation are provided in section No Project Case Activity and Throughput Summary The No-Project Case is intended to reflect emissions from the facility in the horizon year (2023), if the proposed project is not constructed. That is, it assumes the existing facility continues to operate. Western Stevedoring does not foresee significant changes in activity levels in the future if they continue to operate the break bulk terminal. Therefore, the activity levels of the Baseline Case (Section 2.2) reasonably reflect those of the No Project Case. Recent major reductions to fuel sulphur levels were fully in place during the baseline year (2015), and no further significant changes in fuel will apply prior to the horizon year. New technology requirements will take time to replace in-use vessels, so new vessels are not expected to represent a significant portion of the fleet that would be called to Westgate by the horizon year. As a result of the above, the No Project emission inventory is not expected to differ significantly from the Baseline Case. Since Western Stevedoring does not expect a change in activity or throughput in the future if the grain terminal project was not carried out, the 2015 Baseline Case should be fairly representative of all future years.

13 7 of GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE 3.1 Facility The proposed terminal will be constructed on roughly 260,000 m 2 (64 ac.) of port land, currently occupied by Western Stevedoring at 95 Brooksbank Avenue (a.k.a. Lynnterm West Gate terminal) on the Burrard Inlet. The terminal or facility boundary is given in Figure 5. The geographic scope of the facility is defined by the facility boundary, and includes vessels at berth. 3.2 Supply Chain The supply chain includes marine, rail, and trucking activities, within a defined geographic area. The geographic scope of the supply chain is defined in Figure 6. The rail supply chain includes rail activities associated with the facility that occur on the rail line between the terminal boundary and the Coquitlam rail yard. This rail line is approximately 23.7 kilometers in length (one-way). The marine supply chain includes marine movements/activities associated with the facility that occur in the section of Burrard Inlet between the Port s western jurisdictional boundary and the terminal. The expected shipping route within this area is approximately ten (10) nautical miles (or 18.5 kilometers) in length (one-way). Anchorages are also within this area. Note that vessels at berth are excluded from the supply chain, as these are included within the facility scope. The trucking supply chain includes all heavy truck activities associated with the facility that occur between the terminal and the closest major truck route. In this case, the route from the terminal to TransCanada Highway 1 heading south, via Brooksbank Avenue and Main Street. The trucking route is approximately 1.2 kilometers in length. 3.3 Receiver Identification and Proximity A map of the local area surrounding the proposed facility identifying the nearest receivers by type (e.g. residences, schools, and hospitals) is presented in Figure 7. The distances to the nearest receivers by type are provided in Table 3. Table 3. Distances to Nearest Receivers by Receiver Type. Receiver Type Business Residence School Child care facility Distance to Nearest Receiver (from Property ) 70m 510m 725m 400m Seniors facility 2,800m Hospital 2,400m Park 130m

14 8 of 56 Figure 5. Facility of Proposed Grain Export Terminal.

15 9 of 56 Figure 6. Geographic Scope for Supply Chain.

16 10 of 56 Figure 7. Receiver Identification Map.

17 11 of EMISSION SOURCES 4.1 Primary Sources The following sections describe the emission sources within the geographic scope of the terminal, the activity metrics that impact the quantity of emissions, and any assumptions Baseline Case Marine Western Stevedoring s Lynnterm West Gate breakbulk terminal is used to transfer a wide variety of commodities to and from ships for either Canadian domestic or export markets. Four classes of ocean going vessels (OGVs) serve the breakbulk terminal including general cargo, bulk carriers, auto carriers, and container ships. According to PMV data, 80 OGV arrived at the breakbulk terminal to load or unload commodities in the baseline year. Western Stevedoring confirmed the 80 OGV were used to load or unload approximately 752,800 tonnes of cargo in the baseline year. These OGVs generate combustion by-product emissions while operating their main engine during transit and maneuvering and their auxiliary engines during transit, maneuvering, anchoring, and berthing within the geographic scope of the terminal. Emissions generated during transit, maneuvering, and anchoring are allocated to the supply chain while emissions generated while berthed are allocated to the facility. The quantity of emissions for each of these vessel movements / modes depends on engine size, engine load, and time spent within the geographic scope, as well as other factors. The 80 OGV were grouped into the four types of OGV classes serving the terminal. The main and auxiliary engine sizes of these OGV were then estimated based on average Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) of each vessel class in Canadian Waters, and DWT to engine size correlations, provided in SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012), Table 4-1 and Figures B-2 to B-11. The calculated average engine sizes were comparable to average engine size for each vessel class reported in ICF International (2009). The amount of time each OGV spent anchoring and at berth at the terminal was provided by PMV. It was assumed that, under these modes, an OGV utilizes their auxiliary engines only at an average engine load ranging from 15% to 42% depending on vessel class based on averages from data surveys for the West Coast (SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2014], Page 30; SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2012], Table A- 11). In the supply chain, all types of OGVs travel on average 3.7 nautical miles (or 6.9 kilometers) at an average speed of five (5) knots (9.3 kph) to maneuver the vessel according to the SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) report, page 95. The remainder of the transit distance within the supply chain (i.e., 11.7 km) is considered a reduced speed zone (RSZ), where OGVs travel between nine (9) and twelve (12) knots (16.7 and 22.2 kph), with an estimated average speed of nine (9) knots (16.7 kph) to be consistent with the assumption on average maneuvering speed (i.e. low end of range). At these distances and speeds, the total time spent in transit (maneuvering + RSZ) is 2.9 hours per call on average. It was assumed that, during transit, an OGV utilizes 10% of its main engine power and between 13% and 38% of its auxiliary engine power depending on vessel class based on averages from data

18 12 of 56 surveys for the West Coast (SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2014], Page 30; SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2012], Table A- 11). Harbour craft vessels (i.e. tugs) support the OGV at arrival and departure from the terminal. These tugs will generate additional exhaust emissions. All tugs were assumed to have category C1 engines to be consistent with SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) report, Table 3-2. The average size of a C1 main engine was taken from a Weir Canada, Inc. (2008) document, 2-4. For the purposes of this assessment, it was estimated that the emissions generated from the auxiliary engine of the tugs was negligible and were, therefore, not considered further. Harbour craft vessels were assumed to provide 3 hours of assist activity time for each OGV call in accordance with SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) report, footnote on Table While assisting the OGV, the engine was assumed to operate with an aggregate load of 31%, based on data from ICF International (2009), Table 3-4. A summary of the primary emission sources within the facility boundary and supply chain for the Baseline Case, and the activity metrics that define the marine sources emission levels is provided in Table 4 on the following page. Details on the estimation methodologies, emission factors, and emission quantities for marine sources are provided in Appendix 1. Long-Haul Trucks Long-haul trucks (LHTs) are used to both haul stored commodities from terminal to customers, and to bring commodities to the terminal for shipment by vessel. These heavy duty trucks can access the site from the TransCanada Highway 1 in the City of North Vancouver. According to Western Stevedoring, the West Gate terminal had 5,417 receiving trips and 10,508 delivery trips by LHT at the terminal for a total of 15,925 trips in the baseline year. These LHT were used to haul approximately 752,800 tonnes of cargo in total in the baseline year. LHTs generate diesel combustion by-product emissions, as well as tire and brake wear emissions. For this assessment, the emission quantities from LHTs took into consideration the age distribution of the vehicle fleet, which was taken from SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014) report, Table 22. For simplicity, the lifetime mileage-weighted average air pollutant emission factors, in grams per mile, from vehicle operations in GREETTM provided in the Cai et al. (2013) publication, Table A18, were used to approximate the emissions for the duty cycle of the LHTs at the West Gate terminal. Applying different emission factors to specific portions of the actual duty cycle (e.g. idling, travel speed) are not expected to change the overall Baseline Case emissions significantly. A summary of the primary emission sources within the facility boundary and supply chain for the Baseline Case, and the activity metrics that define LHT sources emission levels is provided in Table 5 on the following pages. Note that the trucking route is approximately 1.2 kilometers long from the terminal to the supply chain boundary (one-way). The on-site trucking distance is estimated at 0.51 km, or roughly the distance from the boundary to the center of the terminal. Details on the estimation methodologies, emission factors, and emission quantities for LHT sources are provided in Appendix 1.

19 13 of 56 Geographic Facility Table 4. Activity Metrics for Baseline Case Marine Emission Sources. Primary Source Marine Detail Mode Metric Value General Cargo Ships Bulk Carrier Ships Auto Carrier Ships Container Ship Ships Supply Chain Marine General Cargo Ships Berth No. of Ships 48 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 1,745 Average Time at Berth per Call (Hours) 79.5 Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 42% Berth No. of Ships 18 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 1,817 Average Time at Berth per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 29% Berth No. of Ships 9 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 3,930 Total Time at Berth (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 24% Berth No. of Ships 5 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 7,484 Total Time at Berth (Hours) 71.5 Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 15% Anchor No. of Ships 48 Maneuvering Transit Auxiliary Engine (AE) 1,745 Power (kw) Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 7,898 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call 19.2 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 42% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 38% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 38% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10%

20 14 of 56 Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Supply Chain Marine Bulk Carrier Ships Auto Carrier Ships Anchor Maneuvering Transit Anchor Maneuvering Transit No. of Ships 18 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 1,817 Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 9,393 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 28% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10% No. of Ships 9 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 3,930 Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 13,210 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call 24.2 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 24% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 13% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 13% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10%

21 15 of 56 Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Supply Chain Marine Container Ship Ships Harbour Craft (tugs) Anchor Maneuvering Transit Duty Cycle Aggregation No. of Ships 5 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 7,484 Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 36,283 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call 0.0 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 15% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 15% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 15% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10% No. of Calls 80 Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 6,275 Tug Use per Call (Hours) 3 Avg. Load Factor for Tug Movements 31%

22 16 of 56 Table 5. Activity Metrics for Baseline Case Long-Haul Truck Emission Sources. Geographic Facility Primary Source On-Road Detail Mode Metric Value Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Supply Chain On-Road Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Average Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Average No. of Trips 15,925 Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) 1.02 No. of Trips 15,925 Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) 2.40

23 17 of 56 Non-Road Equipment According to Western Stevedoring, the West Gate terminal s Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) included thirty (30) lift trucks, five (5) agri tractors, and one (1) wheeled loader to handle commodities in the baseline year. The terminal also uses a road sweeper. In total, the non-road equipment used approximately 221,300 liters of diesel fuel in the baseline year. Non-road equipment generate combustion by-product emissions. All non-road equipment emissions occur within the facility boundary. Western Stevedoring provided the model year, engine class, horsepower rating, and annual operating hours for individual CHE. Average duty cycle load factors for the specific non-road equipment types were taken from the US EPA Non-Road model. However, based on these load factors, the annual operating hours, and the equipment specific fuel usage, also taken from the US EPA Non-Road model, the total calculated fuel usage for West Gate would be significantly higher (i.e. 56%) than the actual reported usage. Therefore, the load factors for all non-road equipment were evenly scaled down to 64% of the typical duty cycle level to match the predicted fuel usage with the reported fuel usage. A summary of the primary emission sources within the facility boundary for the Baseline Case, and the activity metrics that define the non-road source emission levels, is provided in Table 6 on the following page. Details on the estimation methodologies, emission factors, and emission quantities for non-road sources are provided in Appendix 1.

24 18 of 56 Table 6. Activity Metrics for Baseline Case Non-Road Emission Sources. Geographic Facility Primary Source Non- Road Detail Mode Metric Value Lift Trucks, Tier 1 (25-50 HP) Lift Trucks, Tier 1 (50-75 HP) Lift Trucks, Tier 4 (50-75 HP) Lift Trucks, Tier 0 ( HP) Lift Trucks, Tier 2 ( HP) Lift Trucks, Tier 3 ( HP) Lift Trucks, Tier 4 ( HP) Lift Trucks, Tier 1 ( HP) Heavy Lift Trucks, Tier 0 ( HP) Heavy Lift Trucks, Tier 4 ( HP) Heavy Lift Trucks, Tier 0 ( HP) Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 1 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 47 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 256 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 1 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 53 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 528 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 3 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 74 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 1,804 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 4 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 163 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 4,184 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 4 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 5,856 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 8 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 170 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 15,140 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 4 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 168 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 6,000 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 1 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 175 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 1,532 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 2 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 295 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 1,736 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 1 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 185 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 528 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 1 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 375 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 800

25 19 of 56 Geographic Facility Primary Source Non- Road Detail Mode Metric Value Agri-Tractors, Tier 0 ( HP) Wheeled Loaders, Tier 0 ( HP) Road Sweepers, Tier 3 ( HP) (a) Cycle load factors were adjusted using measured fuel consumption Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 5 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 2,484 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 1 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 325 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 380 Adjusted Cycle No. of Equipment 1 Load Factor (a) Avg. rated HP 110 Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) 232

26 20 of Project Case The proposed grain export facility will handle multiple agricultural commodities, with the focus on wheat, canola, durum wheat, barley, and peas, with lesser amounts of soybeans, corn, oats, flax seeds, screening byproducts (grain screening pellets, feed screenings, mixed feed oats), mixed grains, canola meal pellets, sunflower seeds, alfalfa pellets, mustard seeds (brown, yellow, oriental), lentils, canary seed, and beans (all types). The facility is designed to reach capacity of 8,000,000 tonnes of grain products annually by the horizon year. Stationary Sources All conveyors, elevators, and material transfer points at the grain export terminal will be weather protected/dust contained or completely enclosed at the points of dust generation and equipped with dust collectors. A total of 97 dust collectors (baghouses or cartridge filters), with a total capacity of about 224 m 3 /s (474,000 cfm) will be installed to aggressively capture dust at points of generation. Dust collectors are not 100% efficient, and a small amount of particulate is expected to be emitted. Dust collector emissions are typically calculated using the maximum expected dust concentration in the exhaust, and exhaust volumetric flow rate. Therefore, the calculated dust emissions are dependent on the annual operating hours of the dust collectors, rather than the grain throughput of the process equipment. Dust collector activity was divided into sections, specifically receiving, cleaning, shipping, by-product load-out, and general grain handling. The receiving dust collector controls dust at the rail receiving hopper and transfers to associated conveyors, and will operate while the facility is receiving grain by rail. 600 trains/year will be received, and at peak receiving rate, a train can be unloaded in 7 hours, for total receiving time of 4,200 hours/year. However, allowing for interruptions and delays, G3 conservatively estimates the dust collector could operate up to 6,000 hours annually when the terminal reaches capacity. G3 expects that 168 bulk carrier vessels, ranging from Minimum Cargo to Panamax size, will be loaded annually. The conveyor systems leading to the ship loaders and the ship loader nozzles are equipped with dust collectors. 8,000,000 tonnes/year will be loaded at a peak transfer rate of 6,800 tonnes/hour, which implies a loading time of 1,200 hours/year. However, allowing for interruptions and delays, G3 conservatively estimates the dust collectors could operate up to 5,700 hours annually when the terminal reaches capacity. G3 expects that approximately 30% of the grain handled at the site will be transferred for cleaning, or 2,400,000 tonnes/year. The dust collectors associated with cleaning control dust from the cleaning process and numerous conveyors and elevators serving the cleaning system. G3 conservatively estimates the dust collectors associated with cleaning will operate up to 3,700 hours annually. At capacity, about 90,000 tonnes of by-products (screenings and pellets) will be generated and shipped from the by-products loadout system. The load system is equipped with dust collection to minimize dust during truck loading. G3 conservatively estimates the dust collector associated with loadout will operate up to 600 hours annually. The balance of dust collectors at the facility control dust at grain handling and transfer points throughout the facility. While it is unlikely that these units will all run simultaneously and continuously, for the purpose of this analysis they were conservatively assumed to run 24 hours/day, 365 days/year (i.e. 8,760 hours/year).

27 21 of 56 Saturated steam needed for the pelleting system is supplied by a small boiler with a maximum heat input rating of 200,000 Btu/hr. To be conservative, it was assumed that the boiler operated at capacity throughout the year for a total 8,760 hours per year. Fugitive Sources The three ship loaders will be equipped with high efficiency dust suppression nozzles. A small percentage of total dust generated will be emitted as fugitive dust. The quantity of dust generated depends on the throughput of the loadout system. G3 expects that 8,000,000 tonnes of grain products will be loaded to vessels annually. The by-products loadout system will be equipped with a dust suppression loading spout. A small percentage (~15%) of total dust generated will be emitted as fugitive dust. The quantity of dust generated depends on the throughput of the loadout system. G3 expects that 90,000 tonnes of byproducts will be loaded to trucks annually. A summary of the primary emission sources within the facility boundary for the Project Case and the activity metrics that define the stationary and fugitive sources emission levels is provided in Table 7. Details on the estimation methodologies, emission factors, and emission quantities for stationary and fugitive sources are provided in Appendix 1.

28 22 of 56 Table 7. Activity Metrics for Project Case Stationary and Fugitive Emission Sources. Geographic Facility Facility Primary Source Stationary Dust Collectors Grain Handling: Receiving Pit #1 and Pit #2; BC-111 and BC-121 Belt Conveyors Fugitive Detail Mode Metric Value Steam Generator Ship Loadout Fugitives Pelleted Screenings Loadout Fugitives Grain Handling: Ship Loadout Grain Handling: Cleaning Grain Handling: By- Products Loadout Grain Handling: Other Processes (Receiving, Storage, Reclaim, Pelletizing) Maximum Load Grain Handling: Ship Loadout Grain Handling: By- Products Loadout Number of Dust Collectors 1 Control Efficiency (%) 99% Total Flow (m 3 /hr) 73,567 Annual Operation (Hours) 6,000 Number of Dust Collectors 21 Control Efficiency (%) 99% Total Flow (m 3 /hr) 164,804 Annual Operation (Hours) 5,700 Number of Dust Collectors 3 Control Efficiency (%) 99% Total Flow (m 3 /hr) 162,935 Annual Operation (Hours) 3,700 Number of Dust Collectors 1 Control Efficiency (%) 99% Total Flow (m 3 /hr) 1,869 Annual Operation (Hours) 600 Number of Dust Collectors 71 Control Efficiency (%) 99% Total Flow (m 3 /hr) 402,090 Annual Operation (Hours) Maximum Heat Input Rating (Btu/hr) Annual Operation (Hours) Annual Throughput (tonnes) Annual Throughput (tonnes) 8, ,000 8,760 8,000,000 90,000

29 23 of 56 Rail The proposed grain export facility will receive all types of grain by rail using a rail car loop and receiving system that allows unloading of two cars simultaneously while in constant motion. The terminal will receive up to 600 trains per year with up to 150 cars per train. The locomotives on these trains generate diesel emissions. The quantity of emissions for each of these locomotives depends on engine size, engine load, and time spent within the geographic scope, as well as other factors. Trains are expected to have three (3) locomotives, each with a maximum rated horsepower of 4,300 HP, and meeting Tier 3 requirements. The trains will take 30 minutes to enter the site along the rail loop and reach the rail unloading system, while travelling at 5 mph (8 kph). The train will then spend approximately seven (7) hours unloading cars while in continuous motion, while traveling at a speed of 0.3 mph (0.5 kph). After unloading all cars, the trains will take another 30 minutes to exit the facility boundary along the rail loop, while travelling at 5 mph (8 kph). In total, the three (3) locomotive engines will operate for 8 hours at the terminal. Given that the trains will be operated continuously at very low speeds while at the terminal (i.e. 1.5 kph on a time-weighted average basis), with minimal stops or accelerations, the engines were assumed to operate in notch 2 (i.e. throttle position 2) while within the facility boundary. This is consistent with Bunge North America s Longview facility, which has a similar rail loop and unloading system, where operators indicate that locomotives typically operate at notch 1, with occasional operation at notch 2. The typical power output of an engine operating in notch 2 is 11.5% of its rated horsepower, according to a US EPA (1998) document, Table 5-2. As shown in Appendix 1, greenhouse gas and SO 2 emission factors are typically expressed in grams per gallon of fuel consumed. The locomotive s fuel consumption at the terminal was estimated using the engine power usage and a conversion factor of 20.8 bhp-hr/gal, taken from the US EPA (1998) document, page 94. Within the supply chain, the locomotives will travel 23.7 km (each way) at an estimated speed of 15 mph (24.1 kph), according to G3. Therefore, in total, the locomotive will spend approximately 2.0 hours travelling within the supply chain. It was assumed that the locomotive would operate on a typical duty cycle pattern within the supply chain. The Railway Association of Canada (RAC) collected data on time-in-notch and idle for various freight services operating under typical usage patterns (RAC [2010], Table 8). Applying the average time-in-notch and idle to the typical power distribution of each notch (US EPA [1998] document, Table 5-2), it was possible to calculate an aggregate duty cycle engine usage of 13.3% of the engine s rated power. For this calculation, it was assumed that the dynamic brake (DB) and idle positions utilized 2.85% and 0.61% of the rated power, respectively, based on data from engines of comparable size to those at the terminal (US EPA [1998], Appendix B-4 for a 4100 horsepower, GE16 engine). A summary of the primary emission sources within the facility boundary for the Project Case and the activity metrics that define the rail sources emission levels is provided in Table 8. Details on the estimation methodologies, emission factors, and emission quantities for rail sources are provided in Appendix 1.

30 24 of 56 Geographic Facility Table 8. Activity Metrics for Project Case Rail Emission Sources. Primary Source Rail Detail Mode Metric Value Line-Haul Locomotive Supply Chain Rail Line-Haul Locomotive Site-Specific Cycle Duty Cycle Aggregation No. of Engines per Train 3 Max. Rated HP of Engine 4,300 Percent of Rated HP 11.5% Avg. time on-site (Hours) 8 Fuel consumption per train (L) 1,957.2 No. of Trains per Year 600 No. of Engines per Train 3 Max. Rated HP of Engine 4,300 Percent of Rated HP 13.3% Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) 47.4 Avg. Train Speed (kph) 24.1 Fuel consumption per train (L) No. of Trains per Year 600 Marine At capacity, the grain export terminal expects to receive up to 168 vessels to export approximately 8,000,000 tonnes of grain annually. Four sizes of bulk carrier vessels are expected to serve the terminal including Minimum Cargo, Handy Size, Handy Max, and Panamax. These OGVs generate combustion emissions while operating their main engine during transit and maneuvering and their auxiliary engines during transit, maneuvering, anchoring, and berthing within the geographic scope of the terminal. Emissions generated during transit, maneuvering, and anchoring occur within the supply chain while emissions generated while berthed occur on the facility boundary. The quantity of emissions for each of these vessel movements / modes depends on engine size, engine load, and time spent within the geographic scope, as well as other factors. The main engine size of the four bulk carrier vessel sizes was estimated based on the Specified Maximum Continuous Rating (SMCR) power for similar ship sizes, taken from a MAN Diesel and Turbo (2014) document, Figure 12 and 13. A correlation between main and auxiliary engine sizes for bulk carriers was used to approximate the average auxiliary engine sizes (SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2012] report, Figure B-5). According to G3, the amount of time each bulk carrier will spend at berth ranges from 22 hours for Minimum Cargo vessels to 36 hours for Panamax ships. The grain terminal will have 3 ship loadout spouts that can fill a ship at an instantaneous rate equal to 6,500 tonnes/hr. G3 expects that, at this rate, the ship loadout system will be capable of loading 125,000 tonnes of grain onto a vessel over a 24 hour period (equal to 5,200 tonnes/hr), which is roughly equal to or greater than the capacity of a Panamax vessel. The load factor for the berthing mode was assumed to be 29% for all OGV in the Project Case, based on the bulk carrier average from data surveys for the West Coast of Canada (SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2012], Table A-11).

31 25 of 56 In the supply chain, the average time a bulk carrier spends at anchor in the Burrard Inlet (181 hours or 7.5 days) was provided by PMV. At 168 calls annually and 7.5 days of anchoring per call, this equate to almost 4 vessels at anchor constantly. This seems relatively high given the volume of vessels through the terminal. Nevertheless, the average anchoring time of 181 hours per call was used to estimate marine emissions for this mode. Under the anchoring mode, an OGV utilizes their auxiliary engines only at an average engine load of 28% based on the bulk carrier average from data surveys for the West Coast (SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2012], Table A-11). All sizes of bulk carrier vessels will travel 3.7 nautical miles (or 6.9 kilometers) on average at an average speed of 5 knots (9.3 kph) to maneuver the vessel according to the SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) report, page 95. The remainder of the transit distance within the supply chain (i.e., 11.7 km) is considered a reduced speed zone (RSZ), where OGVs travel between 9 and 12 knots (16.7 and 22.2 kph), with an estimated average speed of 9 knots (16.7 kph) to be consistent with the assumption on average maneuvering speed (i.e. low end of range). At these distances and speeds, the total time spend in transit (maneuvering + RSZ) is 2.9 hours per call on average. It was assumed that, during transit, an OGV utilizes 10% of its main engine power (SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2014], Page 30) and 30% of its auxiliary engine power based on the bulk carrier average from data surveys for the West Coast (SNC-Lavalin Inc. [2012], Table A-11). Harbour craft vessels (i.e. tugs) support the OGV to arrive at and leave the terminal. These tugs will generate additional exhaust emissions. All tugs were assumed to have category C1 engines to be consistent with SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) report, Table 3-2. The average size of a C1 main engine was taken from a Weir Canada, Inc. (2008) document, 2-4. For the purposes of this assessment, it was estimated that the emissions generated from the auxiliary engine of the tugs was negligible and were, therefore, not considered further. Harbour craft vessels were assumed to provide three (3) hours of assist activity time for each OGV call in accordance with SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) report, footnote on Table While assisting the OGV, the engine was assumed to operate with an aggregate load of 31%, based on data from ICF International (2009), Table 3-4. A summary of the primary emission sources within the facility boundary and supply chain for the Project Case and the activity metrics that define the marine sources emission levels is provided in Table 9 on the following page. Details on the estimation methodologies, emission factors, and emission quantities for marine sources are provided in Appendix 1.

32 26 of 56 Geographic Facility Table 9. Activity Metrics for Project Case Marine Emission Sources. Primary Source Marine Detail Mode Metric Value Bulk Carrier Ships (Minimum Cargo) Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Size) Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Max) Bulk Carrier Ships (Panamax) Supply Chain Marine Bulk Carrier Ships (Minimum Cargo) Berth No. of Ships 24 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 1,258 Average Time at Berth (Hours) 22 Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 29% Berth No. of Ships 60 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 1,584 Average Time at Berth (Hours) 24 Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 29% Berth No. of Ships 72 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 1,703 Average Time at Berth (Hours) 30 Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 29% Berth No. of Ships 12 Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) 1,823 Average Time at Berth (Hours) 36 Avg. Load Factor for Berthing 29% Anchor No. of Ships 24 Maneuvering Transit Auxiliary Engine (AE) 1,258 Power (kw) Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 2,840 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call 181 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 28% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10%

33 27 of 56 Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Supply Chain Marine Bulk Carrier Anchor No. of Ships 60 Ships (Handy Maneuvering Size) Transit Auxiliary Engine (AE) 1,584 Power (kw) Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 6,660 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call 181 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 28% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10% Bulk Carrier Anchor No. of Ships 72 Ships (Handy Maneuvering Max) Transit Auxiliary Engine (AE) 1,703 Power (kw) Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 8,060 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call 181 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 28% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10%

34 28 of 56 Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Supply Chain Marine Bulk Carrier Anchor No. of Ships 12 Ships Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine (AE) (Panamax) Transit Power (kw) 1,823 Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 9,470 Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call 181 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) 28% Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call 1.48 (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) 1.40 Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) 30% Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) 10% Harbour Craft Duty Cycle No. of Calls 168 (tugs) Aggregation Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) 6,275 Tug Use per Call (Hours) 3 Avg. Load Factor for Tug Movements 31%

35 29 of 56 Long-Haul Trucks Long-haul trucks (LHTs) are used to haul by-products (screenings, pellets) from the terminal to customers. These heavy duty trucks can access the site from the TransCanada Highway 1 in the City of North Vancouver. At capacity, the terminal expects to need up to 2,250 Super B heavy duty haul trucks to transport a total of 90,000 tonnes of product, based on an average payload of 40 tonnes per LHT. These LHTs generate diesel emissions, as well as tire and brake wear emissions. For this assessment, the emission quantities from LHTs took into consideration the age distribution of the vehicle fleet, which was taken from SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014) report, Table 22. For simplicity, the lifetime mileage-weighted average air pollutant emission factors, in grams per mile, from vehicle operations in GREETTM provided in the Cai et al. (2013) publication, Table A18, were used to approximate the emissions for the duty cycle of the LHTs at the proposed grain terminal. Applying different emission factors to specific portions of the actual duty cycle (e.g. idling, travel speed) are not expected to change the overall Project Case emissions significantly. A summary of the primary emission sources within the facility boundary and supply chain for the Project Case and the activity metrics that define LHT sources emission levels is provided in Table 10. Recall that the supply chain is defined as the trucking route along Brooksbank Avenue, then onto to Cotton Road, and the on-ramp of TransCanada Highway 1 heading south. The trucking route is approximately 1.2 kilometers long from the terminal to the supply chain boundary (one-way). The on-site trucking distance is estimated at 2 km round-trip. Details on the estimation methodologies, emission factors, and emission quantities for LHT sources are provided in Appendix 1. Geographic Facility Table 10. Activity Metrics for Project Case LHT Emission Sources. Primary Source On-Road Detail Mode Metric Value Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Supply Chain On-Road Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Average Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Average No. of Trips 2,250 Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) 2.00 No. of Receiving Trips 2,250 Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) Emission Variability This section is intended to give an indication of the expected level of variability on emissions provided in this report Baseline Case There are no significant seasonal patterns in activity for the existing breakbulk terminal. In addition, the facility can operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Therefore, the annual emissions from the terminal are not expected to have a predictable pattern.

36 30 of 56 Note that, in the baseline year, the terminal operated for 5,184 hours or 59% of total annual hours, so emissions can be characterized as relatively constant during operation, but not continuous throughout the year Project Case Hourly Emissions from the proposed grain terminal will vary depending on the processes operating at any given time. For example, whether or not processes such as grain receiving, grain cleaning, or ship loading are active at any time will impact emission rates. Seasonal The grain terminal will experience higher than normal throughput during harvest seasons of their largest expected grain commodities. The higher throughput will result in more emissions from grain handling and locomotive and vessel exhausts. To give some context to the variability, G3 expects that the terminal will normally receive about 40 trains per month. During harvest, the terminal is expected to receive about 56 trains in the peak month. 4.3 Pollutants of Concern As noted in the previous sections, the proposed grain export terminal will emit particulate matter (PM) as grain dust as well as combustion by-products from burning fuels including marine fuels, diesel fuel, and natural gas. More specifically, pollutants that will be emitted from the facility at nonnegligible levels include: Grain Dust: Total Particulate Matter (TPM); PM less than or equal to 10 µm in diameter (PM 10 ); and PM less than or equal to 2.5 µm in diameter (PM 2.5 ). Combustion By-products: Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ); Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2 ); Carbon Monoxide (CO); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); Black Carbon; and Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). Greenhouse Gases from Fuel Combustion: Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ); Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O); and Methane (CH 4 ). Other contaminants from fuel combustion were excluded from this assessment since they are emitted at trace (i.e., negligible) levels and are not expected to contribute significantly to ambient air concentrations.

37 31 of CURRENT CONDITIONS 5.1 Air Quality The intent of this section is to establish and qualify if the current air quality in the vicinity of the proposed export terminal is good, marginal, or poor. The Metro Vancouver area has an extensive air quality monitoring network that is part of the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) monitoring network. There are 22 stations in Metro Vancouver, which monitor common air contaminants including but not limited to particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), and ground-level ozone. Metro Vancouver s Air Quality Policy and Management Division releases annual reports that summarize the air quality monitoring data collected for the calendar year and discuss the state of ambient air quality in the LFV. Much of information in this section was taken directly from this latest report (2013). 1 Inhalable Particulate (PM 10 ) All stations monitoring PM 10 concentrations (with sufficient data availability) reported levels well below the Metro Vancouver 24-Hour and Annual Objectives of 50 µg/m 3 and 20 µg/m 3, respectively, with the exception of the Abbotsford Airport station. The maximum reported PM 10 levels at monitors in the vicinity of the terminal, including Burnaby North and Burnaby-Kensington Park, were nearly half of the Metro Vancouver Objectives. Fine Particulate (PM 2.5 ) All stations monitoring PM 2.5 concentrations (with sufficient data availability) reported levels well below the 24 hour Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) of 28 µg/m 3. Monitors in the vicinity of the terminal, including North Vancouver-2 nd Narrows, North Vancouver-Mahon Park, and Burnaby-Kensington Park, reported PM 2.5 levels well below the Metro Vancouver 24-Hour and Annual Objectives of 25 µg/m 3 and 8 µg/m 3, respectively. In fact, the 2 nd Narrows and Mahon Park monitors reported maximum 24-hour rolling average concentration that were among the lowest 5 stations out of 18 stations. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) All stations monitoring NO 2 concentrations (with sufficient data availability) reported levels well below the Metro Vancouver 1-Hour and Annual Objectives of 200 µg/m 3 and 40 µg/m 3, respectively. The maximum reported NO 2 levels at monitors in the vicinity of the terminal, including North Vancouver-2 nd Narrows, North Vancouver-Mahon Park, and Burnaby-Kensington Park, were less than half of the Metro Vancouver 1-Hour Objective and roughly 50% to 60% of the Annual Objective. Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2 ) All stations monitoring SO 2 concentrations (with sufficient data availability) reported levels well below the Metro Vancouver 1-Hour, 24-Hour, and Annual Objectives of 450 µg/m 3, 125 µg/m 3 and 30 µg/m 3, respectively. The maximum reported SO 2 levels at monitors in the vicinity of the terminal, including North Vancouver-2 nd Narrows, North Vancouver-Mahon Park, and Burnaby North, were less than a quarter of the Metro Vancouver Objectives. 1 Metro Vancouver (June 2014) Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Report. Air Quality Policy and Management Division, Metro Vancouver.

38 32 of 56 Ground-Level Ozone A discussion on ground-level ozone is included here, as it helps to establish the overall air quality in the vicinity of the terminal. All stations monitoring O 3 concentrations (with sufficient data availability) reported levels below the CAAQS and Metro Vancouver 1-Hour, 8-Hour, and Annual Objectives. No air quality advisories were issued in The monitor nearest the proposed export terminal, North Vancouver-2 nd Narrows, reported peak ozone concentrations that were among the lowest 5 stations out of 22 stations. Overall Air Quality Given that the concentrations of various air contaminants in the vicinity of the facility are consistently well below ambient air standards and objectives, it is reasonable to characterize the current air quality in the area as good Background Concentrations The following table presents the 2 year 98 th percentile (1 and 24 hour) and annual average concentrations, averaged for all nearby monitoring stations, for pollutants emitted from the facility with Metro Vancouver Air Quality Objectives. These concentrations will be representative of the upper bound background levels for the area surrounding the facility. Table 11. Representative Background Concentrations for the Surrounding Terminal Area. Pollutant NO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 Metro Vancouver Objective Average Background Concentration (1) Avg. Period Value (µg/m 3 ) Station(s) Included in Averages Concentration (µg/m 3 ) 1 Hour 200 N. Vancouver-Second Narrows N. Vancouver-Mahon Park 58.5 Annual Hour 50 Burnaby North Eton 22.1 Annual Hour 25 N. Vancouver-Second Narrows N. Vancouver-Mahon Park 13.4 Annual Hour 450 N. Vancouver-Second Narrows N. Vancouver-Mahon Park Hour 125 Burnaby North Eton 9.94 Annual (1) Background = 98 th Percentile Concentration TPM is not monitored in the Metro Vancouver area but the pollutant has a National Ambient Air Quality Objective (NAAQO) of 120 µg/m 3 (24-hour average) and a Provincial Pollution Control Objectives of 60 µg/m 3 (annual average) (BC MOE, 2013). Since TPM is emitted from the facility, it should be considered in the report. The background concentration for TPM was calculated using the PM 10 background concentrations in Table 11 above and a ratio of PM 10 to TPM of about 0.48 based on US EPA (1986) document, Tables 1 and 2. This document is used for air assessment, similar to one presented in this report. The background TPM concentrations can be estimated at 46.3 µg/m 3 (24-hour) and 21.2 µg/m 3 (annual), well below the NAAQO and provincial objective.

39 33 of Meteorological Influences Many meteorological factors influence a pollutant s dispersion in ambient air, its deposition, and ultimately, the ground-level concentrations experienced in surrounding populations. This section provides a general description of the possible influential meteorological variables in the vicinity of the terminal. Precipitation Precipitation scavenges pollutants from ambient air, thus reducing pollutant concentrations in air and the quantity deposited on surfaces. In 2013, the Mahon Park station, located approximately 3.7 km northwest of the terminal, reported nearly 1,500 mm of rain (Metro Vancouver, 2014). This total quantity of rainfall is considered to be very high relative to other, more inland areas of British Columbia and Canada. Annual average concentrations will certainly be lower as a result of this amount of precipitation, and is possible that the peak short-term average concentrations (e.g. 1 hour and 24 hour averages) will also be affected by the frequency of rainfall. Wind Direction and Speed Wind direction and speed influence pollutant transport and dispersion. From a health risk standpoint, wind direction will affect the frequency of exposure to concentrations of pollutants emitted from the terminal. The wind rose (i.e. polar grid plots of frequency of wind direction and speed occurrence in 10 degree increments) for 2012 to 2014 from the Second Narrows station, located approximately 1.7 km east of the terminal, is presented in Figure 8.

40 34 of 56 Figure 8. Wind Rose for Second Narrows Station from 2012 to The predominant winds in the area blow from the east, northeast, and west. The nearest residential areas to the terminal are located to the northwest, east northeast, and south. According to this wind rose, none of these residential areas will be impacted frequently by the emissions from the terminal. 5.3 Historical Trends: Facility Throughput The West Gate terminal activity and throughput data for the Baseline Case are provided below (taken from Table 1). Calendar Year Vessels Truck Traffic Annual Cargo Operation Quantity Total Length of Receiving Delivery Total Calls Stay (Inbound) (Outbound) (In + Out) (hours) (tonnes) (#) (hours) (trips) (trips) (trips) Baseline Case 5, , ,063 5,417 10,508 15,925 * Blue, bold values indicate highest activity / throughput in past five years

41 35 of 56 This Baseline Case throughput (i.e. total cargo quantity, vessel time at berth, and truck traffic) is among the highest over the past five years. The annual operating hours in the Baseline Case is fairly representative of other historical years. Most importantly, there was no definitive upward or downward trend in activity that would suggest that the baseline year would not be representative of most future years. Therefore, the emission estimates for the Baseline Case would also be representative of future years, if the Project Case were not to proceed.

42 36 of FUTURE CONDITIONS 6.1 Horizon Year - Rationale Construction of the G3 terminal is expected to last for at least two and one half (2 1/2) years, with operation scheduled to begin in G3 expects that it will take 3 to 4 years to gain enough of the market to operate at full capacity, so the anticipated horizon year is Design Capacity Limitation On a daily basis, facility throughput is limited by rail receiving. The logistics involved in scheduling and unloading three (3) trains per day (up to 450 cars) are significant on an ongoing basis. Receiving more than three (3) trains per day is not believed to be realistic. Annual throughput will be limited by market conditions.

43 37 of EMISSION ESTIMATES The development of emission estimates presented in this chapter was based on a bottom-up approach, which was defined as: Emissions = Activity x Emission Factor Details on the selection of emission factors and emission calculations are presented in Appendix 1. A summary of the emission estimates is provided in the following sections. 7.1 Baseline Case Emissions from the various primary sources in the Baseline Case were estimated within the facility boundary and supply chain based on the activity metrics presented in Chapter 4. Table 12 presents the Baseline Case s annual emissions by primary sources for all pollutants of concern. Note that emissions of CO 2 equivalents (CO 2 e) were included in the table to account for the combined global warming potential (GWP) of the greenhouse gases: CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O. The GWP multiplier values for these greenhouse gases were taken from the SNC Lavalin (2014) report, Section Project Case Emissions from the various primary sources in the Project Case were estimated within the facility boundary and supply chain based on the activity metrics presented in Chapter 4. Table 13 presents the Project Case s annual emissions by primary sources for all pollutants of concern. Facility emissions (i.e. Stationary and Fugitive sources) were estimated using maximum potential activity levels, which are expected to be higher than actual operating levels, even when at capacity. Therefore, the emissions from these primary sources are likely overstated. Note that emissions of CO 2 equivalents (CO 2 e) were included in the table to account for the combined global warming potential (GWP) of the greenhouse gases: CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O. The GWP multiplier values for these greenhouse gases were taken from the SNC Lavalin (2014) report, Section 2.1.

44 38 of 56 Table 12. Emission Estimates for Baseline Case. Geographic Facility Annual Emissions (tonnes) Pollutant Marine Rail On-Road Non-Road Stationary Fugitive Total NO X Neg N/A N/A CO 6.54 Neg N/A N/A 9.21 SO Neg N/A N/A 0.04 VOC 2.38 Neg N/A N/A 2.85 PM 1.49 Neg N/A N/A 1.91 PM Neg N/A N/A 1.85 PM Neg N/A N/A 1.73 DPM 1.49 Neg N/A N/A 1.91 Blk. Carb Neg N/A N/A 1.35 CO 2 3, Neg N/A N/A 4, CH Neg N/A N/A 0.03 N 2 O 0.10 Neg N/A N/A 0.39 Supply Chain CO 2 e 4, Neg N/A N/A 4, NO X Neg N/A N/A N/A CO 3.99 Neg N/A N/A N/A 4.04 SO Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.14 VOC 1.30 Neg N/A N/A N/A 1.31 PM 0.74 Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.74 PM Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.71 PM Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.66 DPM 0.74 Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.74 Blk. Carb Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.57 CO 2 1, Neg N/A N/A N/A 1, CH Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.05 N 2 O 0.05 Neg N/A N/A N/A 0.05 Entire Geographic Scope CO 2 e 1, Neg N/A N/A N/A 1, NO X Neg N/A N/A CO Neg N/A N/A SO Neg N/A N/A 0.19 VOC 3.68 Neg N/A N/A 4.17 PM 2.23 Neg N/A N/A 2.65 PM Neg N/A N/A 2.56 PM Neg N/A N/A 2.39 DPM 2.23 Neg N/A N/A 2.65 Blk. Carb Neg N/A N/A 1.92 CO 2 5, Neg N/A N/A 6, CH Neg N/A N/A 0.09 N 2 O 0.15 Neg N/A N/A 0.44 CO 2 e 5, Neg N/A N/A 6,687.54

45 39 of 56 Table 13. Emission Estimates for Project Case. Geographic Facility Annual Emissions (tonnes) Pollutant Non- Marine Rail On-Road Stationary Fugitive Total Road NO X Neg CO Neg SO Neg VOC Neg PM Neg PM Neg PM Neg DPM Neg Blk. Carb Neg CO 2 1, , Neg , CH Neg N 2 O Neg Supply Chain CO 2 e 1, , Neg , NO X Neg. N/A N/A CO Neg. N/A N/A SO Neg. N/A N/A 0.27 VOC Neg. N/A N/A 6.56 PM Neg. N/A N/A 4.03 PM Neg. N/A N/A 3.88 PM Neg. N/A N/A 3.58 DPM Neg. N/A N/A 4.03 Blk. Carb Neg. N/A N/A 3.11 CO 2 10, Neg. N/A N/A 11, CH Neg. N/A N/A 0.20 N 2 O Neg. N/A N/A 0.67 Entire Geographic Scope CO 2 e 10, , Neg. N/A N/A 11, NO X Neg CO Neg SO Neg VOC Neg PM Neg PM Neg PM Neg DPM Neg Blk. Carb Neg CO 2 11, , Neg , CH Neg N 2 O Neg CO 2 e 11, , Neg ,607.26

46 40 of LEVEL 2 DISPERSION MODELLING Port Metro Vancouver determined that a Level 2 assessment was required for the G3 terminal. The purpose of a Level 2 assessment is to quantify the impact of emissions from the facility on the surrounding neighbourhood. An atmospheric dispersion model is used to estimate pollutant concentrations in the community that result from facility emissions. These concentrations are then compared to air quality objectives. 8.1 Scope of Modelling The dispersion modelling study included all emissions of PM, PM 10, PM 2.5, and NO X from within the G3 terminal boundary, including ships at berth, and locomotives on the rail loop. Emissions from the supply chain, outside of the facility boundary were not included in the study. Emission rates expected for the Horizon Year were used in the modelling. That is, the modelling represents the new facility operating at capacity. Resulting concentrations were estimated over a 10 km x 10 km area, centred on the G3 Facility. 8.2 Dispersion Model and Input Parameters The CALPUFF modelling system was selected for the study to maintain consistency many with other air quality studies conducted in the region. CALPUFF is BC MOE s preferred dispersion model for studies involving complex terrain (e.g. coastal and/or mountainous areas) and multiple emission sources with different release parameters. The modelling generally followed the methodology given in Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in British Columbia (BC MOE; 2008). The model used local meteorological data for calendar year 2012, and was configured to predict concentrations over a 10 km x 10 km area, at receptor locations as specified in the Guideline. Details of all model inputs, settings and modelling methodology are provided in Appendix 2. The model was configured to predict concentrations for averaging periods corresponding to the associated Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Objectives. The objectives, averaging periods, and associated background concentrations in the area, were given previously in Section Emission rates were selected to be appropriate for each of the averaging periods. Emission rates differed by averaging period, and were modelled conservatively as follows: 1-hour averaging period (NO X only): the maximum hourly average emission rate for each source was assumed to be emitted constantly throughout the 1 year modelling period; 24-hour averaging period (PM, PM 10, and PM 2.5 ): - a) emissions of fugitive dust from the ship loading and pellet loadout were estimated based on maximum daily process throughput, and distributed uniformly over all hours of the day, 365 days per year, and - b) emissions from all other sources emitting at maximum hourly emission rate constantly throughout the modelling period. Annual averaging period: emission rates for all sources were based on the annual emission of the source, distributed over all hours of the year i.e. emitting constantly 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

47 41 of 56 Metro Vancouver has an Air Quality Objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). Emissions from combustion sources are expressed as total nitrogen oxides (NO X ), which is a mixture of nitric oxide (NO) and NO 2, and the emission rate of NO X was used in the model. As a result, raw model results reflect concentration of total NO X. Equivalent NO 2 concentrations were estimated using a conservative NO 2 /NO X ratio of 0.80, as recommended by the US EPA for modelling demonstrations of compliance with the NO 2 NAAQS. 8.3 Model Results Model results for all pollutants are presented graphically in Appendix 2. Maximum concentrations are summarized in Table 14. The table also includes background concentrations which are added to modelled values for comparison to Metro Vancouver Air Quality Objective. These values were discussed previously in Section Table 14. Dispersion Modelling Results. Pollutant Air Quality Objective Concentration Percentage Avg. Value Background 1 Modelled Total of AQO Period (µg/m³) (µg/m³) (µg/m³) (µg/m 3 ) (%) NO 2 PM PM 10 PM Hour 2 24 Hour 24 Hour 24 Hour n/a n/a % 94% 81% 71% Annual Annual Annual Annual % 53% 69% 78% (1) Background = 98 th Percentile C oncentration (2) Background included in NOX to NO2 conversion The table indicates that maximum off-property concentrations (modelled + background) of all pollutants (NO X, PM, PM 10, and PM 2.5 ) are below the applicable Air Quality Objectives for both 24- hour and annual averaging periods. The graphic results provided in Appendix 2 show that maximum off-property concentrations occur on the G3 terminal property line, and concentration falls off rapidly with distance from the facility. Maximum concentrations in more sensitive areas are much lower than the overall maximums given in the Table. For example, the concentrations at the sensitive locations (daycare centre, most impacted residence) are compared to the maximum off-property concentrations in Table 15. Table 15. Relative Impact at Sensitive Receptors. Pollutant NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 Avg. Period Modelled Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Max Off-Property Childcare Facility % of Residence % of (µg/m³) (µg/m³) Maximum (µg/m³) Maximum 1 Hour % % Annual % % 24 Hour % % Annual % % 24 Hour % % Annual % % 24 Hour % % Annual % %

48 42 of MITIGATION POTENTIAL 9.1 Use of Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost By definition, a best available technique (BAT) is a technology that best balances the level of emission control with capital and operating cost of the technology, as well as other factors including design capacity, environmental impacts, effectiveness, reliability, maintenance, and training. The following section discusses the BAT selected for the various processes at the grain handling facility, and justifies their use over possible alternatives Stationary and Fugitive Dust Emission Sources Railcar Unloading The Rail Receiving system uses a baghouse with point-of-generation capture system at the receiving hoppers and receiving belt conveyors. This system creates a downdraft flow into the hopper, which is highly effective at mitigating and capturing fugitive dust. The baghouse exhaust is limited to a maximum emission rate of gr/dscf (or 4.58 mg/m 3 ). In addition, the receiving hoppers are installed with hanging vertical baffles below receiving grates, which minimize the air flow through the receiving system. This hopper system is also designed to create a choked flow as the railcars unload, which minimizes the drop distance and entrained air in the grain column. G3 considers the point-ofgeneration capture with baghouse control, the baffles system, choked flow in the hoppers, and the building enclosure itself to meet the definition of BAT for this operation. Baghouses and Bin Vents All conveyors, elevators, and transfer points are completely closed at the points of dust generation and equipped with dust collectors, which limits the PM exhausted to a maximum level of gr/dscf (or 4.58 mg/m 3 ). The dust collectors contain a high-quality filter media that is reliable and effective at controlling dust. G3 considers this point-of-generation capture with fabric filter control to meet the definition of BAT for these types of operation. Ship Loadout System The facility has a ship loadout system for loading grain onto vessels. Three moveable, covered belt conveyors extend over the ship, each with a spout that extends down from the end of the conveyor into holds of the ship, very close to top-of-pile. The configuration at the top of the telescoping spout causes grain to stop and change direction, which creates an artificial plug to minimize the air in the grain column. A dust collector at the end of the conveyor will also pull air and entrained dust from the column. The telescoping spout is also equipped with a "dead box" near the bottom of the spout, which again slows down the flow of grain and minimizes the quantity of dust created. The relatively small amount of dust that is created in the spout is controlled by the filters connected directly to the spout. These filters also draw entrained air (312 m 3 /min total) from the grain column, creating a more even flow of grain onto the pile in the ship hold. A flexible skirt around the spout shrouds the grain pile, such that dust generated from the drop is mostly contained within the skirt. Finally, the spout is moved within the hold, loading grain in an even manner over the pile. Figure 9 presents the components of the telescoping ship loader spout.

49 43 of 56 Figure 9. Components of the Telescoping Ship Loader Spout. The G3 facility designers have worked on multiple ship loadout systems around the world, and they consider this system to incorporate the state-of-the-science techniques to limit PM emissions. Other ship loadout technologies perform a fraction of the functions of this loadout system, and given the potential environmental impacts without this type of system, G3 considers this spout to be the BAT for this process. Pelleted Screening Loadout System Pelleted screenings will be loaded onto trucks using a Dust Suppression Hopper (DSH) loading spout. The design of the DSH spout creates a continuous column of grain from the spout tip to the grain pile in the truck. The DSH spout is suspended above the pile and kept at fixed operating level. This minimizes the free fall distance and limits the quantity of dust generated. The DSH spout is also equipped with a dust collector to draw air and dust entrained in the grain column.

50 44 of 56 G3 is not aware of other spout technologies that would further reduce fugitive emissions, without entailing excessive costs. 9.2 Application of Best Available Procedures Locomotive Emission Sources G3 s business objectives for the rail car unloading operation at the proposed grain terminal are: 1. To maintain an instantaneous unloading rate of 120,000 bushels per hours for the entire duration of railcar unloading process; and 2. Maintain locomotive engines coupled to the 150 car unit train such that car coupling inspection is not required. These objectives focus on efficiency and timely-operation for this time-sensitive process. The proposed continuous movement rail loop and receiving system will allow grain to be received using the line-haul locomotives directly and will meet G3 s objectives. With this system, the railcar unloading process is optimized by syncing the car movements with the robotic rail car gate openers/closers, which in turn provides a consistent conveyor loading rate (120,000 bushels per hours) at the rail receiving pit. Moreover, this system has been proven effective at a similar grain export facility. In addition, the continuous movement system will minimize the train accelerations and limits the use of higher throttle notches, thus generating fewer exhaust emissions than a more traditional shunting method with relatively frequent stop-start accelerations. With the exception of removing defective cars from the train, the facility will not need to shunt cars. More to this point, these locomotives will have Tier 3 engines. Therefore, G3 rail loop and receiving system will employ the best available practices (continuous movement) and technologies (Tier 3 engines). A possible alternative that was investigated is a rail indexer, which is used to progress groups of railcars with electric or hydraulic power (i.e. without motive power from the line-haul locomotive). As explained below, it was found that the indexer was not suitable for this application. Based on discussions with qualified firms that specialize in the design and fabrication of equipment to move rail cars through unloading operations, rail indexers have operational challenges that make it difficult to meet G3 s objectives including: The ability to move a continuous string of 150 cars is not guaranteed, and may require the string to be broken; The net unloading capacity of a rail indexer is likely in the range of 51,000 to 89,000 bushels per hour, depending on the type of car and estimated time to open and close gates (i.e. less than the required 120,000 bushels per hour); Coordination between the control systems for a progressor and the gate openers presents a logistical challenge; The progressor design employs a horizontal articulating ram that extends between cars, drops over the coupling, and pushes on the car striker plate. This operational approach will require the presence of personnel in the receiving building as a final check against any operational issues; There is additional time needed to reconnect the cars and re-energize the brake lines, which is noisy and further limits the environmental benefits; Increased potential for safety incidents; Site constraints, including amount of straight track available, installation space limited to one side of the rail at the rail receiving building; and

51 45 of 56 Possible inconsistencies between CN and CP rail cars, which could impact the overall operational performance of the system. In addition to these operational challenges, the rail indexer is expected to cost more than $10 million CAD (equipment plus installation). The rail indexer will also will require additional power that will contribute to cost and emissions as follows: Nine (9) 150 HP motors (1,350 HP total) electrical power; or Two (2) 250 HP motors and one (1) 100 HP motor (600 HP total) hydraulic power. It will also increase labour costs (personnel supervision and safety). Finally, with a rail indexer, the locomotives still must operate to maintain air pressure and keep the brakes off. It is estimated that the locomotives will still use on average 2.85% of their rated power, based on US EPA (1998) report, Appendix B-4 (4100 horsepower, GE16 engine) for the DB position, which is only difference of 8.65% compared to the conservatively estimated 11.5% of rated power (Notch 2) assumed for the proposed continuous movement system. After accounting for the increased unloading time (e.g. at best, 25% more time based on reduced net unloading capacity of 89,000 bushels per hour) and increased time to reconnect the cars and re-energize the brake lines, the emissions benefit of the rail indexer is very limited compared to the proposed continuous unloading process. Rail indexers are most effective at reducing emission when used at facilities that would otherwise apply a more traditional shunting method with relatively frequent stop-start accelerations, thus requiring high motive power from the locomotives. In summary, rail indexers (a) have operational challenges that make it difficult to meet G3 s objectives, (b) are extremely expensive (capital and operational costs), and (c) offer minimal emission reductions on the G3 continuous unloading process (already reduced from traditional stopstart systems). Therefore, the rail indexer is not deemed the BAT for this application.

52 46 of IMPACT POTENTIAL 10.1 Comparison of Baseline Case to Project Case A comparison of the estimated annual emissions for the Baseline Case and Project Case is presented in Figures 10 and 13 for the facility boundary and supply chain, respectively. The individual stack bars presented in these figures represent the annual emissions from the various primary sources (e.g. marine, rail, etc.), and the values at the top of the stack bar is the total annual emissions from all sources combined.

53 47 of 56 Figure 10. Facility Emission Inventory Comparison: Baseline and Project Case for Air Toxics.

54 48 of 56 Figure 11. Facility Emission Inventory Comparison: Baseline and Project Case for Greenhouse Gases.

55 49 of 56 Figure 12. Supply Chain Emission Inventory Comparison: Baseline and Project Case for Air Toxics.

56 50 of 56 Figure 13. Supply Chain Emission Inventory Comparison: Baseline and Project Case for Greenhouse Gases.

57 51 of 56 Within the facility boundary, several of the pollutant emissions generated as combustion byproducts, including NO X, VOC, DPM, and Black Carbon, would be reduced from the Project Case compared to the Baseline Case, primarily due to lower marine emissions at the terminal because G3 estimates that the berth time for OGV will be much lower than the average berth time for bulk carrier ships at the current West Gate terminal. An increase in PM emissions within the facility boundary that would result from the Project Case operation is completely attributable to the stationary and fugitive sources (i.e. grain handling sources). In the supply chain, the additional vessel calls for the Project Case and the default activity data provided for bulk carriers by PMV generate additional pollutant emissions of all air toxics and greenhouse gases. The overall increase in supply chain emissions from the Project Case are also likely exaggerated by the transportation mode shift from trucks in the Baseline Case to locomotives in the Project Case and the supply chain boundary definition used for these modes. To explain, truck emissions in the supply chain were estimated over a 1.2 km route to the nearest highway while locomotive emissions in the supply chain were calculated over a 23.7 km stretch of track to the nearest rail yard. Therefore, a direct comparison of emissions between rail and road modes cannot be made. To compare the emissions between rail and road on per unit distance basis, rail emissions should be divided by a factor of approximately Incremental Change in Port Emissions To more accurately assess the potential impact of the Project Case, the change in the annual emissions (i.e. Project Case emissions less Baseline Case emissions over the entire geographic scope) were compared to the overall Port emissions. This comparison gives the incremental change in overall emissions and a better indication of the potential impact on air quality. There is, unfortunately, no overall Port of Metro Vancouver (PMV) emission inventory that covers a consistent geographic scope so the incremental change analysis was performed separately for available emission inventories, namely Marine, Landside, and Industrial (i.e. Stationary and Fugitive sources). The marine emission inventory, which includes OGV and Harbour Craft activities within Region 2 of western Canada (Greater Vancouver Regional District/Lower Fraser Valley), was taken the SNC Lavalin (2012) Report, Table 5-11 for the 2010 calendar year. This 2010 inventory does not consider the latest 2015 emission regulations but there is no 2015 inventory specifically for Region 2. The SNC Lavalin (2012) Report, Table 7-6a and 7-6b does, however, forecast marine emissions to 2015 for all of western Canada. Therefore, Region 2 s 2010 marine emission inventory was forecast to 2015, assuming the emissions for Region 2 would remain proportional with the rest of western Canada over the 5 year period. Landside sources include CHE, rail locomotives, on-road vehicles that encompasses trucks as well as other licensed vehicles that support port activities (buses, taxis), and administrative sources (i.e. space heating and electricity consumption) within a port. The landside emission inventory was taken from the SNC Lavalin (2012b) Report, Table ES-4, for the 2015 calendar year in the PMV boundary. Emissions from industrial facilities are reported to Environment Canada s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database. The industrial emission inventory was created using NPRI data from the

58 52 of 56 latest validated calendar year (2013) for port facilities on Burrard Inlet. It is worth noting that only those facilities that met the NPRI reporting threshold for the specific pollutant were included in this inventory. Tables 16 to 18 evaluate the incremental change in emissions that would result from the Project Case (i.e. Project Case emissions less Baseline Case emissions) relative to these port emission inventories. Note that a positive value for the change in emissions indicates a net increase, while a negative value indicates a net decrease. Table 16. Incremental Change in Marine Emissions from Project Case within Region 2. Pollutant Projected 2015 Marine Emissions in Region 2 (a) Change in Marine Emissions from Project within Entire Geographic Scope [Project Case - Baseline Case] (b) Percent Change in Region 2 Marine Emissions (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (%) NO X 9, % CO % SO % VOC % PM % PM % PM % CO 2 525,399 5, % CH % N 2 O % CO 2 e 529,764 5, % (a) Region 2 Greater Vancouver Regional District/Lower Fraser Valley (b) A positive value indicates an increase in emissions, while a negative value indicates a decrease in emissions. Table 17. Incremental Change in Landside Emissions from Project Case within PMV. Pollutant Projected 2015 Landside Emissions in PMV (a) Change in Landside Emissions from Project within Entire Geographic Scope [Project Case - Baseline Case] (b) Percent Change in PMV Landside Emissions (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (%) NO X % CO % SO % VOC % PM % PM % PM % CO 2 113,330 3, % CH % N 2 O % CO 2 e 123,274 3, % (a) PMV Port of Metro Vancouver (b) A positive value indicates an increase in emissions, while a negative value indicates a decrease in emissions.

59 53 of 56 Table 18. Incremental Change in Port Facility Emissions from Project Case within Burrard Inlet. Pollutant Reported 2013 NPRI Emissions along Burrard Inlet Change in Port Facility Emissions from Project [Project Case - Baseline Case] (a) Percent Change in Burrard Inlet Port Facility Emissions (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (%) PM % PM % PM % (a) A positive value indicates an increase in emissions, while a negative value indicates a decrease in emissions. These tables show the G3 terminal will result in a small increase in the Port marine emission inventory (i.e. up to 1.2%) for all pollutants. The incremental change in Port landside emissions resulting from the G3 terminal is up to 5.4% for all pollutants. However, it is important to note that 1) the PMV boundary for the landside inventory does not extend as far as the geographic boundary used in this EAA (i.e. Coquitlam rail yard), so the percent change in landside emissions is overstated, and 2) the magnitude of landside emissions is small compared marine emissions, so the overall change in emissions is much smaller than this 5.4%. The G3 terminal will result in a small increase in Port facility emissions on Burrard Inlet, of up to 3.3%. However, this increase is overstated, since this analysis accounts only for Port facilities reporting to the NPRI, and does not include emissions from facilities that do not report, or other industrial facilities in the area. In addition, the above analysis does not consider other emissions sources affecting air quality in the port area, such as traffic, residential comfort heating, and biogenic sources. The reported changes would be reduced if these sources were considered Comparison of Project Case to Best Available Techniques G3 strongly considers the technologies and procedures proposed for the new grain terminal to be the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. In other words, the reported Project Case emissions are very comparable to the Project Case with BAT. Most dust emissions are mitigated and controlled by dust collectors and the only fugitive dust sources are the ship loadout and pelleted screenings loadout. The telescoping ship loader spout is considered the state-of-the-art technology to limit PM emissions, and G3 is not aware of alternative technologies that would provide better performance. The pelleted screenings loadout spout technology is effective at minimizing emissions and minimal environmental impacts are expected from the system. To further emphasize this point, the Project Case will generate 30.2 tonnes of PM emissions within the facility boundary in the horizon year. Of these total emissions at the terminal, the fugitive emissions from the pelleted screening loadout system account for 0.58 tonnes (or 2%). Therefore, if a technology was available / feasible that could further reduce fugitive emissions from this process, it could at most reduce emissions by 2% (i.e. 100% of fugitives were eliminated) within the facility boundary Dispersion Modelling The atmospheric dispersion modelling described in Section 8 predicts the maximum pollutant concentrations in the surrounding community that will result from G3 terminal emissions. These maximum values include both the concentration resulting from G3 terminal emissions, and

60 54 of 56 background concentrations. Background concentrations result from other sources in the region (e.g. transportation, industry, biogenic) and long range transport from other regions. These predicted maximum values were compared to the associated Metro Vancouver Air Quality Objectives, which are developed by Metro Vancouver as an indicator of the maximum acceptable amounts of each pollutant in the region. The comparison found that, for all pollutants modelled (NO X, PM, PM 10, and PM 2.5 ), maximum off-property concentrations were below the Air Quality Objectives. In addition, the analysis shows the maximum off-property concentrations are predicted to occur on the G3 terminal property line, and that concentrations fall off quickly with distance from the G3 terminal. Concentrations at sensitive locations (residences, daycare centre, schools, etc.) are far below the objectives. This analysis confirms that, with the G3 terminal operating at capacity, local air quality will remain good, even during meteorological conditions that result in peak impacts Conclusion This Environmental Air Assessment report evaluated the change in Port Metro Vancouver emissions and the potential impact on air quality that would result from ceasing the Lynnterm West Gate terminal activities to begin operation of the proposed G3 grain storage and export terminal. The current air quality in the vicinity of the proposed facility is considered to be good, and well below applicable air quality objectives. The assessment found that emissions of NO X, VOC, DPM, and Black Carbon emitted within the facility boundary (i.e. at the terminal) will be reduced compared to current levels. Emissions of CO and CO 2 e will be marginally increased. Emissions of PM, PM10 and PM2.5 will be increased as a result of grain handling operations. However, G3 is applying the best available techniques, including state-of-theart telescoping ship loader spouts, point-of-generation capture systems with fabric filter control, to mitigate dust emissions from the facility. Therefore, further emission reductions compared to the proposed design are not achievable. Emissions generated within the supply chain will increase from the additional G3 terminal activity. However, the reported net increase is likely biased high due to the mode shift from trucks used at the West Gate terminal with a supply chain distance of 1.2 km to rail used at the G3 terminal with a supply chain distance of 23.7 km. More importantly, the incremental increase in emissions resulting from the G3 terminal is minimal when compared to the overall port emission inventory. This dispersion modelling analysis confirms that, with the G3 terminal operating at capacity, local air quality will remain good, even during meteorological conditions that result in peak impacts.

61 55 of REFERENCES 1. B.C. Ministry of Environment (BC MOE; 2013). Provincial Air Quality Objective Information Sheet. Environmental Standards Branch. 3. B.C. Ministry of Environment (BC MOE; 2008). Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in British Columbia. Environmental Protection Division, Environmental Quality Branch, Air Protection Section. 4. Cai, H.; Burnham, A.; Wang, M. (2013). Updated Emission Factors of Air Pollutants from Vehicle Operations in GREET TM Using MOVES. Systems Assessment Section, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory. 5. California Air Resources Board (CARB; 2004). Roseville Rail Yard Study. California Environmental Protection Agency. 6. California Air Resources Board (CARB) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD; 2000). Air Quality Impacts from NO X Emissions of Two Potential Marine Vessel Control Strategies in the South Coast Air Basin. Prepared in Consultation with the Deep Sea Vessel/Shipping Channel Technical Working Group. 7. ICF International (2009). Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories. Prepared for Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation Sector Strategies Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 8. Metro Vancouver (2014) Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Report. Air Quality Policy and Management Division, Metro Vancouver. 9. Midwest Research Institute (MRI; 2001). Emission Factors for Barges and Marine Vessels: Final Test Report. Prepared for National Grain and Feed Association. MRI Project No Railway Association of Canada (RAC; 2010). Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program Railway Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 11. SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014). Port Emissions Inventory Tool (PEIT) User Guide: Version 3.1. Prepared for Transport Canada. TP 15192E. 12. SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) National Marine Emissions Inventory for Canada. Prepared for Environment Canada SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012b). Port Metro Vancouver 2010 Landside Emission Inventory. Prepared for Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. 14. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; 2014). Speciate version 4.4 Database, PM Profile for Natural Gas Combustion Composite. 15. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; 2012). Haul Road Workgroup Final Report Submission to EPA-OAQPS. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Assessment Division. 16. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; 2009). Emission Factors for Locomotives. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA. EPA-420-F United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; 2003). AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Section Grain Elevators and Processes. 18. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; 1998). Locomotive Emission Standards, Regulatory Support Document. Office of Mobile Sources, Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA. EPA-420-R United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; 1995). AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Appendix B.2 Generalized Particle Size Distributions. 20. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA; 1986). Procedures for Estimating Probability of Nonattainment of a PM 10 NAAQS using Total Suspended Particulate or PM 10 Data. EPA-450/

62 56 of Weir Canada, Inc. (2008) Marine Emissions Inventory and Forecast Study. Weir Marine Engineering, a division of Weir Canada, Inc. Prepared for Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada. TP 14822E.

63 APPENDIX 1 ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES

64 Baseline Case - Emission Methodologies

65 1 of 7 Combustion By-Product Emissions - Marine According to PMV data, 80 OGV arrived at the breakbulk terminal to load or unload commodities in the baseline year. Western Stevedoring confirmed the 80 OGV were used to load or unload approximately 752,800 tonnes of cargo in the baseline year. Habour craft vessels (i.e. tugs) support the OGV to arrive at and leave the terminal. These OGVs and tugs generate combustion by-product emissions while operating their main engine during transit and maneuvering and their auxiliary engines during transit, maneuvering, anchoring, and berthing within the geographic scope of the terminal. Emission factors were used to estimate the quantity of combustion by-product emissions from marine activity within the geographic boundary. The emission factors were taken from: NO X, CO, VOC, CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O - SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) Report, Table 3-3; SO 2, PM - SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) Report, Page 26; and Black Carbon % of PM, based on ICF International (2009) Report, Page Main engine emission factors were adjusted to account for increased emissions per kwh using Low Load scale factors taken from SNC- Lavalin Inc. (2014) Report, Table 13. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: NO X from General Cargo Ships): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Facility Marine General Cargo Ships Supply Chain Marine General Cargo Ships Berth Anchor Maneuvering Transit No. of Ships Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) Average Time at Berth per Call Avg. Load Factor for Berthing No. of Ships Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) 48 1, % 48 1,745 7, % % Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) 10% Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) *taken from Table 4 "Activity Metrics for Baseline Case - Marine Emission Sources" % 10% Emission Data: Auxilliary Engine NO X EF = g/kwh Main Engine NO X EF = g/kwh Low Load Scale Factor = 1.22 unitless *applied to main engine only

66 2 of 7 Sample Calculations: For Facility, Berth, Auxilliary Engine: NO X Emission Rate = EF (g/kwh) x AE Power (kw/ship) x No. of Ships (#/yr) x Load Factor (%) x Berth Time (hours/call) NO X Emission Rate = g/kwh x 1,745 kw/ship x 48 ships/year x 42% load x 79.5 hrs/call 10^6 g/tonne = tonnes For Supply Chain, Transit, Main Engine: NO X Emission Rate = EF (g/kwh) x Low Load Scale Factor x ME Power (kw/ship) x No. of Ships (#/yr) x Load Factor (%) x Time in RSZ (hours/call) NO X Emission Rate = g/kwh x 1.22 x 7,898 kw/ship x 48 ships/year x 10% load x 1.40 hrs/call 10^6 g/tonne = tonnes Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Facility Primary Source Marine Detail General Cargo Ships Bulk Carrier Ships Pollutant Low Load Adj. Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-02 VOC E+00 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+03 CH E E-02 N 2 O 1.70E E-02 NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02

67 3 of 7 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Facility Supply Chain Primary Source Marine Marine Detail Auto Carrier Ships Container Ship Ships General Cargo Ships (Auxiliary Engine) Pollutant Low Load Adj. Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02 NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-03 NO X E+01 CO E-01 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02

68 4 of 7 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Supply Chain Primary Source Marine Detail General Cargo Ships (Main Engine, Maneuvering) General Cargo Ships (Main Engine, Transit) Bulk Carrier Ships (Auxiliary Engine) Pollutant Low Load Adj. Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-03 NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-03 NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02

69 5 of 7 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Supply Chain Primary Source Marine Detail Bulk Carrier Ships (Main Engine, Maneuvering) Bulk Carrier Ships (Main Engine, Transit) Auto Carrier Ships (Auxiliary Engine) Pollutant Low Load Adj. Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-03 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E E-03 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+02 CH E E-04 N 2 O 1.70E E-03

70 6 of 7 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Primary Source Detail Supply Chain Marine Auto Carrier Ships (Main Engine, Maneuvering) Auto Carrier Ships (Main Engine, Transit) Container Ship Ships (Auxiliary Engine) Pollutant Low Load Adj. Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-03 VOC E-02 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-03 VOC E-02 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E E-04 VOC E-03 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-05 N 2 O 1.70E E-04

71 7 of 7 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Supply Chain Primary Source Marine Detail Container Ship Ships (Main Engine, Maneuvering) Container Ship Ships (Main Engine, Transit) Harbour Craft (tugs) Pollutant Low Load Adj. Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-03 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 NO X E+00 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+02 CH E E-02 N 2 O 2.00E E-03

72 1 of 3 Combustion By-Product Emissions - Long-Haul Trucks Long-haul trucks (LHTs) are used to both haul stored commodities to customers and deliver commodities to the terminal for shipment by vessel.according to Western Stevedoring, the West Gate terminal had 5,417 and 10,508 receiving and delivery LHTs, respectively, at the terminal for a total of 15,925 LHTs in the baseline year. These LHT were used to haul approximately 752,800 tonnes of cargo in total in the baseline year. These LHTs generate diesel combustion by-product emissions, as well as tire and brake wear emissions. Emission factors were used to estimate the quantity of combustion by-product emissions from LHT activity within the geographic boundary. Lifetime mileage-weighted average emission factors were taken from Cai et al. (2013) Report, Table A18, for diesel singleunit long-haul trucks. Carbon dioxide emission factors were taken from US EPA MOVES. A single composite emission factors for each pollutant was calculated based on the average vehicle age distribution of on-road diesel, heavy commercial vehicles taken from SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014), Table 22. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: NO X from LHT): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Facility On-Road Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Supply Chain On-Road Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Avg Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Avg No. of Trips Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) No. of Trips Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) *taken from Table 5 "Activity Metrics for Baseline Case - Long-Haul Truck Emission Sources" 15,

73 2 of 3 Emission Data: Vehicle Model Year Age % of Fleet (a) Diesel Heavy Commercial NO X EF (b) (g/mi) Composite Emission Factor (g/mi): (a) SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014), Table 22. (b) Cai et al. (2013), Table A18. Sample Calculations: For Facility, LHT: NO X Emission Rate = EF (g/mi) km/mi x Round Trip Distance (km/trip) x Annual Trips (trips/yr) NO X Emission Rate = g/mi km/mi x 1.02 km/trip x 15,925 trips/year 10^6 g/tonne = tonnes

74 3 of 3 Emission Summary: Long-Haul Trucks Geographic Facility Supply Chain Primary Source On-Road On-Road Detail Long-Haul Heavy Duty Trucks (Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear) Long-Haul Heavy Duty Trucks (Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear) Pollutant Composite Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-02 CO E-02 SO E E-04 VOC E-03 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/km PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O E-05 NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E E-03 VOC E-02 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/km PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon 6.78E E-03 CO E+01 CH E-03 N 2 O E-05

75 1 of 6 Combustion By-Product Emissions - Non-Road Equipment According to Western Stevedoring, the West Gate terminal s Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) includes 30 lift trucks, 5 agri tractors, and a wheeled loader to handle commodities in the baseline year. The terminal also uses a road sweeper. In total, the non-road equipment used approximately 221,300 liters of diesel fuel in the baseline year. The non-road equipment generate combustion by-product emissions. All non-road equipment emissions occur on the facility boundary. Exhaust emission factors were taken from US EPA Non-Road model. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: NO X from Tier 4 Lift Trucks [50-75HP]): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Facility Non-Road Lift Trucks, Tier 4 (50-75 HP) Adjusted Cycle Load Factor (a) No. of Equipment Avg. rated HP Adjusted Load Factor Total Annual Operation (Hours) *taken from Table 6 "Activity Metrics for Baseline Case -Non-Road Emission Sources" ,804 Emission Data: NO X EF = g/bhp-hr *for Tier 4 Lift Trucks (50-75 HP) Sample Calculations: For Facility, Lift Trucks, Tier 4, HP: NO X Emission Rate = EF (g/bhp-hr) x Avg. rated HP (hp) x Load Factor (%) x Total Annual Operation (hours/yr) NO X Emission Rate = g/bhp-hr x 74 HP x x 1,804 hrs/yr 10^6 g/tonne = tonnes Emission Summary: Non-Road Equipment Geographic Facility Primary Source Non-Road Detail Lift Trucks, Tier 1 (25-50 HP) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-03 CO E-03 SO E E-06 VOC E-04 PM E-04 PM E-04 g/bhp-hr PM E-04 DPM E-04 Black Carbon E-04 CO E-01 CH E E-06 N 2 O E-04

76 2 of 6 Emission Summary: Non-Road Equipment Geographic Facility Primary Source Non-Road Detail Lift Trucks, Tier 1 (50-75 HP) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-02 CO E-02 SO E E-05 VOC E-03 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/bhp-hr PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+00 CH E E-05 N 2 O E-04 Lift Trucks, Tier 4 (50-75 HP) NO X E-02 CO E-03 SO E E-05 VOC E-03 PM E-04 PM E-04 g/bhp-hr PM E-04 DPM E-04 Black Carbon 1.58E E-05 CO E+01 CH E E-05 N 2 O E-03 Lift Trucks, Tier 0 ( HP) NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E E-04 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/bhp-hr PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-03 N 2 O E-02

77 3 of 6 Emission Summary: Non-Road Equipment Geographic Facility Primary Source Non-Road Detail Lift Trucks, Tier 2 ( HP) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E E-04 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/bhp-hr PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O E-02 Lift Trucks, Tier 3 ( HP) NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E E-03 VOC E-02 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/bhp-hr PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O E-02 Lift Trucks, Tier 4 ( HP) NO X E-02 CO E-02 SO E E-04 VOC E-02 PM 9.64E E-03 PM E E-03 g/bhp-hr PM E E-03 DPM 9.64E E-03 Black Carbon 7.90E E-04 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O E-02

78 4 of 6 Emission Summary: Non-Road Equipment Geographic Facility Primary Source Non-Road Detail Lift Trucks, Tier 1 ( HP) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E E-04 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/bhp-hr PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O E-03 Heavy Lift Trucks, Tier 0 ( HP) NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E E-04 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/bhp-hr PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O E-02 Heavy Lift Trucks, Tier 4 ( HP) NO X E-03 CO E-04 SO E E-05 VOC E-03 PM 9.64E E-04 PM E E-04 g/bhp-hr PM E E-04 DPM 9.64E E-04 Black Carbon 7.90E E-05 CO E+00 CH E E-05 N 2 O E-03

79 5 of 6 Emission Summary: Non-Road Equipment Geographic Facility Primary Source Non-Road Detail Heavy Lift Trucks, Tier 0 ( HP) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E E-04 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/bhp-hr PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O E-02 Agri-Tractors, Tier 0 ( HP) NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E E-04 VOC E-01 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/bhp-hr PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-03 N 2 O E-02 Wheeled Loaders, Tier 0 ( HP) NO X E-01 CO E-01 SO E E-04 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/bhp-hr PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O E-03

80 6 of 6 Emission Summary: Non-Road Equipment Geographic Facility Primary Source Non-Road Detail Road Sweepers, Tier 3 ( HP) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-02 CO E-03 SO E E-05 VOC E-03 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/bhp-hr PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+00 CH E E-05 N 2 O E-03

81 Project Case - Emission Methodologies

82 1 of 6 Combustion By-Product Emissions - Marine At capacity, the grain export terminal expects to receive up to 168 ocean going vessels (OGVs) to move approximately 9,000,000 tonnes grain around the world annually. Four sizes of bulk carrier vessels are expected to serve the terminal including Minimum Cargo, Handy Size, Handy Max, and Panamax. Habour craft vessels (i.e. tugs) support the OGV to arrive at and leave the terminal. These OGVs and tugs generate combustion by-product emissions while operating their main engine during transit and maneuvering and their auxiliary engines during transit, maneuvering, anchoring, and berthing within the geographic scope of the terminal. Emission factors were used to estimate the quantity of combustion by-product emissions from marine activity within the geographic boundary. The emission factors were taken from: NO X, CO, VOC, CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O - SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) Report, Table 3-3; SO 2, PM - SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2012) Report, Page 26; and Black Carbon % of PM, based on ICF International (2009) Report, Page Main engine emission factors were adjusted to account for increased emissions per kwh using Low Load scale factors taken from SNC- Lavalin Inc. (2014) Report, Table 13. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: NO X from Bulk Carrier, Minimum Cargo Ships): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Facility Marine Bulk Carrier Ships Berth No. of Ships (Minimum Cargo) Auxiliary Engine (AE) Power (kw) Average Time at Berth (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Berthing Supply Chain Marine Bulk Carrier Ships Anchor No. of Ships (Minimum Cargo) Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine (AE) Transit Power (kw) Main Engine (ME) Power (kw) Average Time Spent Anchoring per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Anchoring (AE) Average Time Spent Maneuvering per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (AE) Avg. Load Factor for Maneuvering (ME) Average Time Spent in RSZ per Call (Hours) Avg. Load Factor for Transit (AE) Avg. Load Factor for Transit (ME) *taken from Table 10 "Activity Metrics for Project Case - Marine Emission Sources" Value 24 1, % 24 1,258 2, % % 10% % 10% Emission Data: Auxilliary Engine NO X EF = g/kwh Main Engine NO X EF = g/kwh Low Load Scale Factor = 1.22 unitless *applied to main engine only

83 2 of 6 Sample Calculations: For Facility, Berth, Auxilliary Engine: NO X Emission Rate = EF (g/kwh) x AE Power (kw/ship) x No. of Ships (#/yr) x Load Factor (%) x Berth Time (hours/call) NO X Emission Rate = g/kwh x 1,258 kw/ship x 24 ships/year x 29% load x 22.0 hrs/call 10^6 g/tonne = 2.68 tonnes For Supply Chain, Transit, Main Engine: NO X Emission Rate = EF (g/kwh) x Low Load Scale Factor x ME Power (kw/ship) x No. of Ships (#/yr) x Load Factor (%) x Time in RSZ (hours/call) NO X Emission Rate = g/kwh x 1.22 x 2,840 kw/ship x 24 ships/year x 10% load x 1.40 hrs/call 10^6 g/tonne = tonnes Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Facility Primary Source Marine Detail Bulk Carrier Ships (Minimum Cargo) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E E-03 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+02 CH E E-04 N 2 O 1.70E E-03 Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Size) NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02

84 3 of 6 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Facility Primary Source Marine Detail Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Max) Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02 Bulk Carrier Ships (Panamax) NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E E-03 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+02 CH E E-04 N 2 O 1.70E E-03 Supply Chain Marine Bulk Carrier Ships (Minimum Cargo), Auxiliary Engine NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+03 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02

85 4 of 6 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Supply Chain Primary Source Marine Detail Bulk Carrier Ships (Minimum Cargo), Main Engine Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-03 PM E-03 g/kwh PM E-03 DPM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Size), Auxiliary Engine NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-02 VOC E+00 PM E+00 PM E+00 g/kwh PM E+00 DPM E+00 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+03 CH E E-02 N 2 O 1.70E E-02 Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Size), Main Engine NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E-02 VOC E-01 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-03 N 2 O 2.07E E-03

86 5 of 6 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Supply Chain Primary Source Marine Detail Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Max), Auxiliary Engine Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-02 VOC E+00 PM E+00 PM E+00 g/kwh PM E+00 DPM E+00 Black Carbon E+00 CO E+03 CH E E-02 N 2 O 1.70E E-01 Bulk Carrier Ships (Handy Max), Main Engine NO X E+00 CO E-01 SO E-02 VOC E-01 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 2.07E E-03 Bulk Carrier Ships (Panamax), Auxiliary Engine NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-03 N 2 O 1.70E E-02

87 6 of 6 Emission Summary: Marine Geographic Supply Chain Primary Source Marine Detail Bulk Carrier Ships (Panamax), Main Engine Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-01 CO E-02 SO E-02 VOC E-02 PM E-02 PM E-02 g/kwh PM E-02 DPM E-02 Black Carbon E-02 CO E+01 CH E E-04 N 2 O 2.07E E-04 Harbour Craft (tugs) NO X E+01 CO E+00 SO E E-03 VOC E-01 PM E-01 PM E-01 g/kwh PM E-01 DPM E-01 Black Carbon E-01 CO E+02 CH E E-02 N 2 O 2.00E E-02

88 1 of 2 Combustion By-Product Emissions - Rail The proposed grain export facility will receive all types of grain by rail exclusively using a rail car loop and receiving system. According to G3, the proposed grain terminal will receive 600 trains per year with up to150 cars, carrying approximately 100 tonne of grain product per car. Overall, G3 expects to receive 8,000,000 tonnes of grain products to be delivered to the facility in total. The locomotives on these trains generate diesel combustion by-product emissions. Emission factors were used to estimate the quantity of combustion by-product emissions from rail activity within the geographic boundary. The emission factors were taken from: NO X, CO, VOC, PM 10 - US EPA (2009) Report, Table 1; SO 2, CO 2 - US EPA (2009) Report, Page 5; CH 4, N 2 O - SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014) Report, Table 8; and Black Carbon % of PM, based on ICF International (2009) Report, Page 5-9. The fuel usage needed for calculations with emission factors in g/gal was determined using an conversion factor of 20.8 bhp-hr/gal for Large Line-Haul and Passenger Locomotives, taken from the US EPA (2009) document, Table 3. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: CO 2 from Line-Haul Locomotives): Activity Metrics: Geographic Facility Primary Source Rail Detail Mode Metric Line-Haul Locomotive Supply Chain Rail Line-Haul Locomotive Site-Specific Cycle Duty Cycle Aggregation No. of Engines per Train Max. Rated HP of Engine Percent of Rated HP Avg. time on-site (Hours) Fuel consumption per train (L) No. of Trains per Year No. of Engines per Train Max. Rated HP of Engine Percent of Rated HP Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) Avg. Train Speed (kph) Fuel consumption per train (L) No. of Trains per Year Value 3 4, % , , % *taken from Table 9 "Activity Metrics for Project Case - Rail Emission Sources" Emission Data: CO 2 EF = 2,699 g/l Sample Calculations: For Facility, Locomotives: Fuel Use per Train = No. of Engines (Engines/train) x Max. Power/Engine (HP/Engine) x Avg. Rated Power (%) x Time On-site (hrs/train) 20.8 bhp-hr/gal x L/gal Fuel Use per Train = 3 engines/train x 4,300 hp/engine x 11.5% x 7.25 hours/train 20.8 bhr-hr/gal x L/gal = 1,957.2 gal/train

89 2 of 2 CO 2 Emission Rate = EF (g/gal) x Fuel use (gal/train) x Number of trains (trains/yr) CO 2 Emission Rate = 2,699 g/l x gal/train x 600 trains/yr 10^6 g/tonne = 3, tonnes Emission Summary: Rail Geographic Facility Primary Source Rail Detail Line-Haul Locomotive Annual Emission Factor Pollutant Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X 4.95 g/bhp-hr 3.19E+01 CO 1.28 g/bhp-hr 8.26E+00 SO g/l 2.91E-02 VOC 0.13 g/bhp-hr 8.39E-01 PM 0.08 g/bhp-hr 5.16E-01 PM g/bhp-hr 5.16E-01 PM g/bhp-hr 5.16E-01 DPM 0.08 g/bhp-hr 5.16E-01 Black Carbon g/bhp-hr 3.98E-01 CO 2 2,699 g/l 3.17E+03 CH g/l 1.76E-01 N 2 O 1.10 g/l 1.29E+00 Supply Chain Rail Line-Haul Locomotive NO X 4.95 g/bhp-hr 1.01E+01 CO 1.28 g/bhp-hr 2.60E+00 SO g/l 9.17E-03 VOC 0.13 g/bhp-hr 2.64E-01 PM 0.08 g/bhp-hr 1.63E-01 PM g/bhp-hr 1.63E-01 PM g/bhp-hr 1.63E-01 DPM 0.08 g/bhp-hr 1.63E-01 Black Carbon g/bhp-hr 1.25E-01 CO 2 2,699 g/l 9.98E+02 CH g/l 5.55E-02 N 2 O 1.10 g/l 4.07E-01

90 1 of 3 Combustion By-Product Emissions - Long-Haul Trucks Long-haul trucks (LHTs) are used to load and deliver pelleted screenings products from the terminal to customers. At capacity, the terminal expects to receive up to 2,250 Super B heavy duty haul trucks to transport a total of 90,000 tonnes of product, based on an average payload of 40 tonnes per LHT. These LHTs generate diesel combustion by-product emissions, as well as tire and brake wear emissions. Emission factors were used to estimate the quantity of combustion by-product emissions from LHT activity within the geographic boundary. Lifetime mileage-weighted average emission factors were taken from Cai et al. (2013) Report, Table A18, for diesel singleunit long-haul trucks. Carbon dioxide emission factors were taken from US EPA MOVES. A single composite emission factors for each pollutant was calculated based on the average vehicle age distribution of on-road diesel, heavy commercial vehicles taken from SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014), Table 22. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: NO X from LHT): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Value Facility On-Road Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Supply Chain On-Road Long Haul Heavy Duty Trucks Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Avg Lifetime Mileage- Weighted Avg No. of Trips Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) No. of Trips Avg. Round Trip Distance (km) *taken from Table 11 "Activity Metrics for Project Case - Long-Haul Truck Emission Sources" 2, ,

91 2 of 3 Emission Data: Vehicle Model Year Age % of Fleet (a) Diesel Heavy Commercial NO X EF (b) (g/mi) Composite Emission Factor (g/mi): (a) SNC-Lavalin Inc. (2014), Table 22. (b) Cai et al. (2013), Table A18. Sample Calculations: For Facility, LHT: NO X Emission Rate = EF (g/mi) km/mi x Round Trip Distance (km/trip) x Annual Trips (trips/yr) NO X Emission Rate = g/mi km/mi x 2.0 km/trip x 2,250 trips/year 10^6 g/tonne = 5.40E-03 tonnes

92 3 of 3 Emission Summary: Long-Haul Trucks Geographic Facility Primary Source On-Road Detail Long-Haul Heavy Duty Trucks (Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear) Supply Chain On-Road Long-Haul Heavy Duty Trucks (Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear) Pollutant Composite Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) NO X E-03 CO E-03 SO E E-05 VOC E-04 PM E-04 PM E-04 g/km PM E-04 DPM E-04 Black Carbon E-05 CO CH E E-04 N 2 O E-06 NO X E-03 CO E-03 SO E E-05 VOC E-04 PM E-04 PM E-04 g/km PM E-04 DPM E-04 Black Carbon 1.79E E-05 CO E+00 CH E-04 N 2 O E-06

93 1 of 2 Particulate Matter Emissions - Baghouses and Dust Collectors Grain handling operations generate particulate matter (PM) emissions. Air from the various PM sources (rail receiving, conveyors, silo filling, ship loading) is collected and routed to baghouses or cartridge style fabric filters to minimize emissions. PM emission estimates are based the exhaust concentration of PM and flow rate. The exhaust concentration of PM was estimated based on the manufacturer's guarantee (see attached Donaldson-Torit letters and design specifications) as well as the performance of these dust collectors at a similar grain handling facility. Emission rates of PM 10 and PM 2.5 from all dust collectors (baghouses and cartridge filters) were estimated following the methodology published in the US EPA AP-42 documentation, Appendix B.2 Generalized Particle Size Distributions, Figure B.2-1. This AP-42 methodology applies different control efficiencies for different PM size fractions to raw (uncontrolled) emission factors to calculate new controlled emission factors. For the Grain Handling Facility, raw (uncontrolled) emission factors were taken from the US EPA AP-42 documentation, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes and used to calculate the percentage of PM 10 and PM 2.5 in total PM for various grain handling processes. The fabric filter control efficiencies for different PM size fractions were taken from Table B.2-3 of the US EPA AP-42, Appendix B.2. Following the AP-42 methodology, the percentage of PM 10 and PM 2.5 in total PM was re-calculated for particulate matter in the fabric filter exhaust (controlled). Sample Emission Calculations (Source: PM 2.5 from Grain Handling: Ship Loadout Dust Collectors): Activity Metrics: Geographic Facility Primary Source Stationary Detail Mode Metric Value Dust Collectors Grain Handling: Ship Loadout Number of Dust Collectors Control Efficiency (%) Total Flow (m 3 /hr) Average Annual Operation (Hours) *taken from Table 8 "Activity Metrics for Project Case - Stationary and Fugitive Emission Sources" 21 99% 164,804 5,700 Emission Data: PM 10 and PM 2.5 Size Fraction Data: Source Type Grain Receiving - Railcar Grain Cleaning - Internal Vibrating Headhouse and Grain Handling Storage Bin (Vent) Average for Grain Handling Ops. PM 10 (% of PM) 24.4% 25.3% 55.7% 25.2% 32.7% PM 2.5 (% of PM) 4.1% 4.3% 9.5% 4.4% 5.6% *taken from U.S. EPA AP - 42 documentation, section Grain Elevator and Processes, Table Fabric Filter Control Efficiencies: Type of Control Device: PM 2.5 Control Efficiency: PM > 2.5µm Control Efficiency: Fabric Filter 99.0% 99.5% * Since all PM > 2.5µm has same control (i.e., PM 10 = PM control efficiency), ratio of PM 10 :PM concentration is equal on upstream and exhaust side of filter ** taken from U.S. EPA AP - 42 documentation, Appendix B.2 "Generalized Particle Size Distributions", Table B.2-3 Exhaust Concentration: PM EF = grains/ft 3 = grains/ft grains/lb lb/kg x 1000 g/kg m 3 /ft 3 = g/m 3

94 2 of 2 Sample Calculations: For Facility, Dust Collectors, Grain Handling, Ship Loadout: PM Emissions = Total Flow Rate (m 3 /hr) x EF (g/m 3 ) x Annual Operation (hrs/yr) PM Emissions = 164,804 m³/hr x g/m³ x 5,700 hrs/yr 10^6 g/tonne = 4.30 tonnes PM 5.6% * Average Percentage for All Grain Handling Ops. 2.5 Fraction (Uncontrolled) = PM 2.5 Fraction (After Filter Control)= (5.6% x [100% - 99%]) {(5.6% x [100% - 99%]) + ([100% - 5.6%] x [100% %] = 10.5% * Average Percentage for All Grain Handling Ops. PM 2.5 Emissions = PM Emissions (tonnes) x PM 2.5 Fraction, After Filter Control (%) PM 2.5 Emissions = 4.30 tonnes x 10.5% = tonnes Emission Summary: Baghouses and Dust Collectors Geographic Primary Source Detail Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) Facility Stationary Grain Handling: Receiving Pit #1 and Pit #2; BC- 111 and BC-121 Belt Conveyors Grain Handling: Ship Loadout PM 4.58E E+00 PM E-03 g/m E-01 PM E E-01 PM 4.58E E+00 PM E-03 g/m E+00 PM E E-01 Grain Handling: Cleaning PM 4.58E E+00 PM E-03 g/m E-01 PM E E-01 Grain Handling: Cleaning PM 4.58E E-03 PM E-03 g/m E-03 PM E E-04 Grain Handling: Other Processes (Receiving, Storage, Reclaim, Pelletizing) PM 4.58E E+01 PM E-03 g/m E+00 PM E E+00

95 1 of 1 Combustion By-Product Emissions - Steam Generator The pelleting system utilizes steam from a natural gas-fired steam generator. The steam generator has an maximum thermal energy input of 2.0 MMBtu/hr. The steam generator is expected emit combustion by-product. Emission factors were taken from the U.S. EPA AP - 42 Section 1.4 Natural Gas Combustion (7/98) for uncontrolled small boilers (<100 MMBtu/hr). Black Carbon emissions were estimated as 38.4% of PM, based on US EPA Speciate database (v4.4) for Natural Gas Combustion. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: NO X from Steam Generator): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Detail Mode Metric Source Facility Stationary Steam Generator Maximum Load Maximum Heat Input Rating (Btu/hr) Annual Operation (Hours) *taken from Table 8 "Activity Metrics for Project Case - Stationary and Fugitive Emission Sources" Value 200,000 8,760 Emission Data: Heating Value = 1,020 Btu/ft 3 *taken from U.S. EPA AP - 42 documentation, section 1.4 Natural Gas Combustion, Table NO X EF = 100 lb/10 6 ft 3 = 1,600 kg/10 6 m 3 *to convert from lb/10 6 scf to kg/10 6 m 3, multiply by 16. Sample Calculations: For Facility, Steam Generator: NO Max. Heat Input Rating (Btu/hr) Heating Value (btu/m 3 ) x EF (kg/10 6 m 3 X Emission Rate = ) x Annual Operation (hrs/yr) NO X Emission Rate = 200,000 Btu/hr 1020 Btu/ft³ x m³/ft³ x 1,600 kg/10^6 m³ x 8760 hrs/yr 1000 kg/tonne = 7.78E-02 tonnes Emission Summary: Steam Generator Geographic Primary Source Detail Pollutant Emission Factor Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) Facility Stationary Steam Generator NO X 1, E-02 CO 1, E-02 SO E-04 VOC E-03 PM E-03 PM kg/10 6 m E-03 PM E-03 Black Carbon E-03 CO 2 1,920, E+01 CH E-03 N 2 O E-03

96 1 of 1 Particulate Matter Emissions - Ship Loadout System Fugitives The facility has a ship loadout system for loading grain onto vessels. Three moveable, covered belt conveyors extend over the ship, each with a spout that extends down from the end of the conveyor into holds of the ship, very close to top-of-pile. A flexible skirt around the spout shrouds the grain pile, such that dust generated from the drop is contained within the skirt. Two fans (11,000 cfm total), connected directly on the spout, draw entrained air and dust through two spot filters. At capacity, the ship loadout system will handle 9,000,000 tonnes of grain and grain products annually. Particulate emissions not captured in the three loadout spout skirt are released as fugitives. Emission factors for this type of operation are found in Emission Factors for Barges and Marine Vessels, prepared by the Midwest Research Institute for the National Grain and Feed Association, November This document specifies an emission factor for barge loading, but assumes a pour height of 20 to 40 feet. The Bunge process will use a telescoping spout with dead box near the bottom of the spout. Free falling grain in the spout eventually hits the dead box near the bottom of the spout, which slows down the flow of grain. As the grain transitions from free fall to a slow flow of grain within the dead box, dust is created and is controlled by the aspirated filters located inside the spout. Grain then flows out of the dead box and on to the pile from a short free drop distance. Therefore, taking into account the 1) telescoping spout, 2) deadbox, 3) fabric filter control at the conveyor to draw entrained air from the grain column, 4) spot filter control located inside the spout, and 5) containment within the skirt, a 98% control efficiency has been applied to the raw emission factor to estimate fugitive emissions from the ship loading. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: PM from Ship Loadout Fugitives): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Source Detail Mode Metric Facility Fugitive Ship Loadout Fugitives Grain Handling: Ship Loadout Annual Throughput (tonnes) Value 8,000,000 *taken from Table 8 "Activity Metrics for Project Case - Stationary and Fugitive Emission Sources" Emission Data: Control Efficiency = 98 % *engineering estimate (see explanation above) PM EF = lb/ton = kg/mg *to convert from lb/ton to kg/mg, divide by 2. Sample Calculations: For Facility, Ship Loadout Fugitives: PM Emissions = Annual Throughput (tonnes/yr) x EF (kg/tonne) x [100% - Control Efficiency (%)] PM Emissions = 8,000,000 tonnes/yr x kg/tonnes x [100% - 98%] 1000 kg/tonne = 3.84 tonnes Emission Summary: Ship Loadout System Geographic Primary Source Detail Pollutant Emission Factor (Controlled) Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) Facility Fugitive Ship Loadout Fugitives PM 4.80E E+00 PM E-04 kg/tonne 9.60E-01 PM E E-01

97 1 of 1 Particulate Matter Emissions - Pelleted Screenings Loadout Fugitives The facility has a pelleted screening loadout system for loading pellets onto Super B trucks. At capacity, the facility will load up to 90,000 tonnes of pelleted screenings annually onto the trucks using a Dust Supression Hopper (DSH) loading spout. Emission factors for size fractionated PM are given in U.S. EPA AP - 42 Section Grain Elevators And Processes (4/03) for uncontrolled truck shipping, which have an EPA emission factor rating of "E", making the emissions data quality marginal. However, the document cautions that the a substantial reduction in emissions from receiving, shipping, handling, and transfer areas can be achieved by reducing grain free fall distances and grain velocities. The DSH spout is installed under a feed point where it can be suspended above the target and kept at operating level. In addition, a fan (1,869 m 3 /hr) is connected directly on the DSH spout to draw entrained air and dust from the grain column and through a spot filters. Hence, a dust control of 85% was applied to the AP-42 emission factor to account for reduced free fall distance and fabric filtration. Sample Emission Calculations (Source: PM from Pelleted Screenings Loadout Fugitives): Activity Metrics: Geographic Primary Detail Mode Metric Value Source Facility Fugitive Pelleted Grain Screenings Handling: By- Annual Throughput Loadout Fugitives Products 90,000 (tonnes) Loadout *taken from Table 8 "Activity Metrics for Project Case - Stationary and Fugitive Emission Sources" Emission Data: Control Efficiency = 85 % *engineering estimate (see explanation above) PM EF = lb/ton = kg/mg *to convert from lb/ton to kg/mg, divide by 2. Sample Calculations: For Facility, Pelleted Screenings Loadout Fugitives: PM Emissions = Annual Throughput (tonnes/yr) x EF (kg/tonne) x [100% - Control Efficiency (%)] PM Emissions = 90,000 tonnes/yr x kg/tonnes x [100% - 85%] 1000 kg/tonne = tonnes Emission Summary: Pelleted Screenings Loadout System Geographic Primary Source Detail Pollutant Emission Factor (Controlled) Annual Emissions Value Units (Tonnes) Facility Fugitive Pelleted Screenings Loadout Fugitives PM 6.45E E-01 PM E-03 kg/tonne 1.96E-01 PM E E-02

98 APPENDIX 2 LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENT - DISPERSION MODELLING

99 B.1 Model Selection The US EPA CALPUFF dispersion model (CALPUFF) is a Gaussian puff model that accounts for temporally and spatially varying meteorological conditions. It contains algorithms for near-source effects such as building downwash, transitional plume rise, partial plume penetration, subgrid scale terrain interactions as well as longer range effects such as pollutant removal (wet scavenging and dry deposition), chemical transformation, vertical wind shear, overwater transport and coastal interaction effects. It is, therefore, BC MOE s preferred dispersion model for studies involving complex terrain (e.g. coastal and/or mountainous areas) and multiple emission sources with different release parameters (BC MOE [2008] report, Section ). CALPUFF actually includes three component submodels: 1) the CALMET pre-processor, which is used to develop the 3-dimensional meteorological fields; 2) the CALPUFF model, which is used to calculate pollutant concentrations and deposition at receptor locations; and 3) the CALPOST post-processor, which is used to extract modelling results and statistics (e.g. maximum concentrations, percentiles, etc.). The following sections outline the selected inputs and methodologies applied in CALMET and CALPUFF. B.2 Meteorological Pre-processing The CALMET pre-processor (US EPA Version 6.4.0) was used to develop the 3-dimensional meteorological fields for the 2012 calendar year. The CALMET domain was a 20 km by 20 km grid with 200 m resolution (i.e. 100 by 100 grid cells). This size of domain was selected such that areas with steep elevation changes to the north of the terminal were included in the CALPUFF modelling domain (10 km by 10 km), with an additional 5 km buffer for meteorological fields. The 3-dimensional meteorological fields were developed using a hybrid of prognostic meteorological model data and surface station meteorological data. The prognostic data was developed using the Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) model with 1 km grid resolution for the Metro Vancouver region, which was processed by Exponent Inc.. The prognostic data was used as initial guess fields in CALMET. Surface meteorological stations in the Metro Vancouver area were used to refine the CALMET fields. The surface station data included in the CALMET pre-processing was presented in the following table. Table B.1. Surface Meteorological Stations used in CALMET. Station Name Station ID Location (latitude & longitude) Data Period Wind Speed Calms (% of hours) North Vancouver N Jan 1, 2012 to T06 Second Narrows W Dec 31, 2012 Burnaby N Jan 1, 2012 to T024 North Eton W Dec 31, 2012 North Vancouver N Jan 1, 2012 to T026 Mahon Park W Dec 31, 2012 North Burnaby N Jan 1, 2012 to T023 Capitol Hill W Dec 31, 2012 Burnaby Kensington Park T N W Jan 1, 2012 to Dec 31, 2012 Anemometer Height (m) 5% 11.9 m 3% 10.0 m 3% 14.2 m 4% 10.0 m 3% 13.5 m The Vancouver International Airport #2 (TC ID YVR) meteorological station was used for cloud cover data.

100 Terrain data for the meteorological grid was obtained using Canadian Digital Elevation Data (CDED) from Natural Resources Canada s GeoGratis website ( Land use data for the Metro Vancouver area was obtained from GeoBC ( This dataset was visually inspected for possible misclassification using aerial photography and modified to reflect actual land use, if necessary. The dominant land use per 200 m grid cell is presented in Figure B.1 below.

101 Figure B.1. Land Use by Grid Cells in GEO.dat file.

102 The geophysical parameters affected by these land use categories were also varied by season, namely spring (April-May), summer (June-September), autumn (October), and winter (November to March). The specific geophysical parameters selected as inputs to CALMET for the various land use types and seasons are provided in Table B.2. Table B.2. Geophysical Parameters in GEO.DAT Files used in CALMET. (a) Seasonal Values of Surface Roughness (m) by Land Cover Land Use Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter Water Forest Land Urban (b) Seasonal Values of Albedo by Land Cover and Season Land Use Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter Water Forest Land Urban (c) Seasonal Values of Bowen Ratios by Land Cover Land Use Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter Water Forest Land Urban (d) Seasonal Values of Soil Heat Flux (Watts/m 2 ) by Land Cover Land Use Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter Water Forest Land Urban (e) Seasonal Values of Leaf Area Index by Land Cover Land Use Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter Water Forest Land Urban (f) Seasonal Values of Anthropogenic Heat Flux (Watts/m 2 ) by Land Cover Land Use Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter Water Forest Land Urban Where applicable, all CALMET input parameters were set based on recommended switch settings as defined in BC MOE (2008) guidelines, Table 9.6. B.3 CALPUFF Modelling B.3.1 Model Settings All model settings were based on BC MOE (2008) guidelines, Table 9.7. As per these guidelines, building downwash was simulated in the CALPUFF model using the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) downwash algorithm, a refined version of the earlier Industrial Source Complex (ISC) downwash algorithm. The US EPA-approved version of CALPUFF (version 5.8)

103 defaults to the ISC algorithm and does not operate properly with the PRIME downwash algorithm. Therefore, to use the PRIME algorithm and follow the BC MOE (2008) guidelines, the more recent CALPUFF version 6.42 was used for this modelling study. B.3.2 Receptor Grid Concentrations were predicted at discrete receptor locations. The receptor spacing used for the dispersion modelling analysis was based on BC MOE (2008) guidelines, Section 6.2, as follows: 20 m receptor spacing along the plant boundary; 50 m spacing within 500 m of sources; 250 m spacing within 2000 m of sources; 500 m spacing within 5000 m of sources; and 1000 m spacing beyond 5000 m of sources. Additional receptors were placed at the nearest residential area. A map of the receptor grid in relation to the CALMET domain is presented in Figure B.2.

104 Figure B.2. Receptor Grid Used for Dispersion Modelling.

105 B.3.3 Source Configuration and Parameterization Dust collectors and the steam generator were modelled as point sources, configured with stack tip downwash and building downwash. Actual stack parameters based on latest design information were used in the model. Fugitive emissions (i.e. ship and pelleted screening loading) were modelled as volume sources using an effective emission release height and initial vertical and horizontal dimension. Three individual volume sources were used to simulate emissions generated from loading operations from the three (3) articulating booms into three separate ship holds. Source parameters were based on the hold s open area, the maximum height that valid concentration measurements were taken when developing emission factors for ship loading (US EPA, AP-42 documentation, Section 9.9.1), and the suggested initial vertical and horizontal dimension calculations for single volume sources (US EPA [1995], User Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models. Volume II Description of Algorithms, Table 1-6). The stack of auxiliary engines on vessels at berth was modelled as a point source. Source parameters were taken from CARB and SCAQMD (2000) report, Table III-3. Exhaust emissions from locomotives circulating on the rail loop were simulated using eleven (11) vertical point sources, evenly spaced around the loop. Exhaust parameters were taken from a CARB (2004) report, Appendix B, Table B-6. Release height was set to 4.8 m. Exhaust emissions from long-haul trucks (LHTs) travelling to and from pelleted screenings loadout were simulated using 21 separated volume sources. Source parameters were chosen based on the latest US EPA guidance specific to haul roads (US EPA, 2012). B.3.4 Emission Rates Emission rates for individual sources were calculated using a methodology consistent with the facility-wide emission inventory (i.e. same emission factors and activity metric parameters). The model was configured to predict concentrations for averaging periods corresponding to the associated Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Objectives. The objectives, averaging periods, and associated background concentrations in the area, were given in Section Emission rates were selected to be appropriate for each of the averaging periods. Emission rates differed by averaging period, and were modelled conservatively as follows: 1-hour averaging period (NO X only): the maximum hourly average emission rate for each source was assumed to be emitted constantly throughout the 1 year modelling period; 24-hour averaging period (PM, PM 10, and PM 2.5 ): - a) emissions of fugitive dust from the ship loading and pellet loadout were estimated based on maximum daily process throughput, and distributed uniformly over all hours of the day, 365 days per year, and - b) emissions from all other sources emitting at maximum hourly emission rate constantly throughout the modelling period. Annual averaging period: emission rates for all sources were based on the annual emission of the source, distributed over all hours of the year i.e. emitting constantly 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

106 Maximum 1 and 24 hour average emission rates for point and volume sources are presented in Table B.3 and B.4, respectively. Maximum annual average emission rates for point and volume sources are presented in Table B.5 and B.6, respectively. Note that emission rates of SO 2 were included in the model as these are required for the MESOPUFF II chemical transformation algorithm within CALPUFF.

107 Table B.3. Modelled Point Sources with Peak 1 and 24 Hour Average Emission Rates. Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DS105 Receiving Pit #1 and Pit E E E-03 #2; BC-111 and BC-121 Belt Conveyors DS124 BC-121 and BC-131 Rail E E E-03 Scale Belt Conveyors DS132 BC-131 Rail Scale Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS523 BC-531 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS532 BC-531 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS144A Vent Filter for Staging Bin A E E E-04 DS144B Vent Filter for Staging Bin B E E E-04 DS144C Vent Filter for Staging Bin C E E E-04 DS144D Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 D DS544E Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E E-04 DS544F Vent Filter for Staging Bin F E E E-04 DS544G Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 G DS544H Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 H DS152 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS153 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS552 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS553 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS155 BC-161 Rail Scale Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS162 BC-161 Rail Scale Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS555 BC-561 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS562 BC-561 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS212 BC-211 Receiving Across E E E-04 Silo Conveyor DS Bin Vent Filter for Bin E E E-04 DS Bin Vent Filter for Bin E E E-04 DS Bin Vent Filter for Bin E E E-04 DS229A BC-221 Annex East Shuttle - Bin Inlet Code (E) E E E-03

108 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DS229B BC-221 Annex East Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (E) DS229C BC-221 Annex East Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (E) DS229D BC-221 Annex East Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (E) DS239A BC-231 Annex West Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS239B BC-231 Annex West Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS239C BC-231 Annex West Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS239D BC-231 Annex West Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS317 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS316 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS315 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS314 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS327 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS326 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS325 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS324 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS337 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS336 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS335 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS334 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS347 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS346 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS345 BC Series Bin E E E-04

109 Source ID DS344 DS602 DS612 DS622 DS632 DS643 DS653 DS645 DS655 DS649 DS650 DS659 DS660 DS672 DS673 DS676 DS682 DS683 Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 Reclaim Belt BC Series Bin Reclaim Belt BC-501 and BC-621 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-601 and BC-631 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-621 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-631 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-641 Shipping Belt Conveyor (Conventional to Hi-Roller) BC-651 Shipping Belt Conveyor (Conventional to Hi-Roller) BC-641 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-651 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-648 East Shipping Belt Conveyor BC-648 East Shipping Belt Conveyor BC-658 West Shipping Belt Conveyor BC-658 West Shipping Belt Conveyor BC-671 East Ship Loader Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor BC-671 East Ship Loader Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor BC-671 East Ship Loader Spout (SP675) BC-681 Center Ship Loader Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor BC-681 Center Ship Loader Rotating/Shuttle Belt E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

110 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 Conveyor DS686 BC-681 Center Ship Loader E E E-03 Spout (SP685) DS692 BC-691 West Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor DS693 BC-691 West Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor DS696 BC-691 West Ship Spout E E E-03 (SP695) DS352 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS362 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS372 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS382 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS702 BC-701 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS802 BC-801 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS704 BC-703 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS804 BC-803 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS911 Cleaning System A E E E-03 DS921 Cleaning System B E E E-03 DS931 Cleaning System C E E E-03 DS769 BC-768 Clean Grain Belt E E E-04 Conveyor DS869 BC-868 Clean Grain E E E-04 Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS892 BC-891 Clean Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor E E E-04

111 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DS893 BC-891 Clean Grain E E E-04 Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS502 BC-501 and VC-511 Clean E E E-04 Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS512 BC-511 and VC-521 Clean E E E-04 Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS903 BE-902 Bucket Elevator E E E-04 DS947 Hammermill System and E E E-03 Drag Conveyor DS961 Pelleting System, Screw E E E-03 Conveyor, and Cooler DS975 DC-974 Pellets/Mixed Feed E E E-04 Oats Bins and Drag Conveyor DS987 Pelleted Screening Loadout E E E-04 Weigher and Spout DS1040 QC Control Building / Truck E E E-04 Loadout DS1041 QC Control Building / Truck E E E-04 Loadout PN629 Grading Building E E E-05 PN639 Grading Building E E E-05 DS1051 Vacuum Receiver for E E E-05 Sample Return of Pneumatic Conveying system SS991 Steam Generator E E E E E-03 RLLP_01 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_02 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_03 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_04 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_05 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_06 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_07 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_08 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_09 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_10 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_11 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 AUX_ENG Vessel Auxiliary Engine E E E E E-02

112 Source ID Table B.4. Modelled Volume Sources with Peak 1 and 24 Hour Average Emission Rates. Rel. Side Emission Rates [g/s] Height Length Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Init. Lat. Dim. Init. Vert. Dim. FG_6130 FG_6230 FG_6330 FUG_PELL ROAD_1 ROAD_2 ROAD_3 ROAD_4 ROAD_5 ROAD_6 ROAD_7 ROAD_8 ROAD_9 ROAD_10 ROAD_11 ROAD_12 ROAD_13 ROAD_14 Fugitives: BC-61 East Ship Loader Spout Fugitives: BC-62 Center Ship Loader Spout Fugitives: BC-63 West Ship Loader Spout Pelleted Screenings Loadout Fugitives Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 01 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 02 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 03 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 04 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 05 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 06 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 07 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 08 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 09 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 10 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 11 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 12 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 13 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 14 [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-06

113 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Rel. Height Side Length Init. Lat. Dim. Init. Vert. Dim. Emission Rates [g/s] ROAD_15 ROAD_16 ROAD_17 ROAD_18 ROAD_19 ROAD_20 ROAD_21 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 15 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 16 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 17 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 18 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 19 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 20 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 21 [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-06

114 Table B.5. Modelled Point Sources with Peak Annual Average Emission Rates. Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DS105 Receiving Pit #1 and Pit E E E-03 #2; BC-111 and BC-121 Belt Conveyors DS124 BC-121 and BC-131 Rail E E E-03 Scale Belt Conveyors DS132 BC-131 Rail Scale Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS523 BC-531 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS532 BC-531 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS144A Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 A DS144B Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 B DS144C Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 C DS144D Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 D DS544E Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 E DS544F Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 F DS544G Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 G DS544H Vent Filter for Staging Bin E E E-04 H DS152 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS153 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS552 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS553 Shipping Scale E E E-03 DS155 BC-161 Rail Scale Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS162 BC-161 Rail Scale Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS555 BC-561 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS562 BC-561 Reclaim Belt E E E-03 Conveyor DS212 BC-211 Receiving Across E E E-04 Silo Conveyor DS Bin Vent Filter for Bin E E E-04

115 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DS Bin Vent Filter for Bin E E E-04 DS Bin Vent Filter for Bin E E E-04 DS229A BC-221 Annex East Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (E) DS229B BC-221 Annex East Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (E) DS229C BC-221 Annex East Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (E) DS229D BC-221 Annex East Shuttle E E E-03 - Bin Inlet Code (E) DS239A BC-231 Annex West E E E-03 Shuttle - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS239B BC-231 Annex West E E E-03 Shuttle - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS239C BC-231 Annex West E E E-03 Shuttle - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS239D BC-231 Annex West E E E-03 Shuttle - Bin Inlet Code (W) DS317 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS316 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS315 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS314 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS327 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS326 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS325 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS324 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS337 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS336 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt DS335 BC Series Bin Reclaim Belt E E E-04

116 Source ID DS334 DS347 DS346 DS345 DS344 DS602 DS612 DS622 DS632 DS643 DS653 DS645 DS655 DS649 DS650 DS659 DS660 DS672 DS673 Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt BC Series Bin E E E-04 Reclaim Belt BC-501 and BC E E E-04 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-601 and BC E E E-04 Shipping Enclosed Belt Conveyor BC-621 Shipping Enclosed E E E-04 Belt Conveyor BC-631 Shipping Enclosed E E E-04 Belt Conveyor BC-641 Shipping Belt E E E-04 Conveyor (Conventional to Hi-Roller) BC-651 Shipping Belt E E E-04 Conveyor (Conventional to Hi-Roller) BC-641 Shipping Enclosed E E E-04 Belt Conveyor BC-651 Shipping Enclosed E E E-04 Belt Conveyor BC-648 East Shipping Belt E E E-04 Conveyor BC-648 East Shipping Belt E E E-04 Conveyor BC-658 West Shipping Belt E E E-04 Conveyor BC-658 West Shipping Belt E E E-04 Conveyor BC-671 East Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor BC-671 East Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor

117 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DS676 BC-671 East Ship Loader E E E-03 Spout (SP675) DS682 BC-681 Center Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor DS683 BC-681 Center Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor DS686 BC-681 Center Ship Loader E E E-03 Spout (SP685) DS692 BC-691 West Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor DS693 BC-691 West Ship Loader E E E-04 Rotating/Shuttle Belt Conveyor DS696 BC-691 West Ship Spout E E E-03 (SP695) DS352 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS362 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS372 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS382 BC Series Bin E E E-04 Dirty Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS702 BC-701 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS802 BC-801 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS704 BC-703 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS804 BC-803 Dirty Grain Reclaim E E E-04 Belt Conveyor DS911 Cleaning System A E E E-03 DS921 Cleaning System B E E E-03 DS931 Cleaning System C E E E-03 DS769 BC-768 Clean Grain Belt Conveyor E E E-04

118 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 DS869 BC-868 Clean Grain E E E-04 Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS892 BC-891 Clean Grain E E E-04 Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS893 BC-891 Clean Grain E E E-04 Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS502 BC-501 and VC-511 Clean E E E-04 Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS512 BC-511 and VC-521 Clean E E E-04 Grain Reclaim Belt Conveyor DS903 BE-902 Bucket Elevator E E E-04 DS947 Hammermill System and E E E-03 Drag Conveyor DS961 Pelleting System, Screw E E E-03 Conveyor, and Cooler DS975 DC-974 Pellets/Mixed Feed E E E-04 Oats Bins and Drag Conveyor DS987 Pelleted Screening Loadout E E E-05 Weigher and Spout DS1040 QC Control Building / Truck E E E-04 Loadout DS1041 QC Control Building / Truck E E E-04 Loadout PN629 Grading Building E E E-05 PN639 Grading Building E E E-05 DS1051 Vacuum Receiver for E E E-05 Sample Return of Pneumatic Conveying system SS991 Steam Generator E E E E E-03 RLLP_01 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_02 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_03 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_04 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_05 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_06 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_07 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_08 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03

119 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Height Diam. Exit Velo. Exit Temp. Emission Rates [g/s] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m/s] [K] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM 2.5 RLLP_09 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_10 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 RLLP_11 Rail Engine Exhaust E E E E E-03 AUX_ENG Vessel Auxiliary Engine E E E E E-02

120 Source ID Table B.6. Modelled Volume Sources with Peak Annual Average Emission Rates. Rel. Side Emission Rates [g/s] Height Length Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Init. Lat. Dim. Init. Vert. Dim. FG_6130 FG_6230 FG_6330 FUG_PELL ROAD_1 ROAD_2 ROAD_3 ROAD_4 ROAD_5 ROAD_6 ROAD_7 ROAD_8 ROAD_9 ROAD_10 ROAD_11 ROAD_12 ROAD_13 ROAD_14 Fugitives: BC-61 East Ship Loader Spout Fugitives: BC-62 Center Ship Loader Spout Fugitives: BC-63 West Ship Loader Spout Pelleted Screenings Loadout Fugitives Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 01 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 02 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 03 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 04 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 05 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 06 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 07 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 08 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 09 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 10 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 11 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 12 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 13 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 14 [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-07

121 Source ID Source Description X Coord. Y Coord. Base Elev. Rel. Height Side Length Init. Lat. Dim. Init. Vert. Dim. Emission Rates [g/s] ROAD_15 ROAD_16 ROAD_17 ROAD_18 ROAD_19 ROAD_20 ROAD_21 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 15 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 16 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 17 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 18 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 19 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 20 Pelleted Screenings Loadout Haul Road Exhaust 21 [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] SO 2 NO X TPM PM 10 PM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-07

122 B.3.5 Deposition To allow for plume depletion within the model, dry deposition was estimated using CALPUFF default values for gaseous and particle parameters for each species, as presented in Tables B.7 and B.8, respectively. Wet deposition was estimated using CALPUFF default values for scavenging coefficients (liquid and frozen), as presented in Table B.9. Table B.7. Dry Deposition Parameters for Gaseous Species. Species Diffusivity Alpha Mesophyll Resistance Henry's Law Coefficient Reactivity Name [cm 2 /s] Star [s/cm] [dimensionless] SO E-08 NO X HNO Table B.8. Dry Deposition Parameters for Particle Species. Species Geometric Mass Median Diameter Geometric Standard Deviation Name [µm] [µm] SO NO TPM PM PM Table B.9. Scavenging Coefficients for All Modelled Species. Species Liquid Precip. Frozen Precip. Name [s -1 ] [s -1 ] SO E E+00 SO E E-05 NO X 0.00E E+00 HNO E E+00 NO E E-05 TPM 1.00E E-05 PM E E-05 PM E E-05 B.3.6 Source Parameter Modifications For eleven (11) point sources, interaction of the plume with the BPIP PRIME building parameters caused CALPUFF v6.4 runs to fail during certain meteorological conditions. The model failure occurs only with BPIP PRIME downwash - the model runs with ISC downwash or with downwash option turned off. To capture/approximate wake effects from surrounding structures as closely as possible, building downwash parameters from BPIP PRIME output, for these eleven sources only, were modified to allow the model to run successfully for the entire modelling period. The following approach was used to make the changes to the building downwash parameters for each of the sources: 1. Specific wind sectors and BUILDHGT parameters associated with model failure were identified for each of the eleven sources separately; 2. Only the BUILDHGT parameters in the wind sectors associated with model failure were modified: that is, their height was reduced to the maximum level (height) which did not cause model to crash;

123 3. Building downwash parameters in the remaining wind sectors which did not cause any modelling issues were left intact. This approach meant that concentrations modelled in the sectors with adjusted downwash parameters could potentially be affected relative to what they should have been had the BPIP PRIME option been fully integrated for these sources. To estimate an overall impact of these changes to modelled concentrations, the eleven sources were remodelled as a group in CALPUF v7.0, which ran properly with BPIP PRIME downwash for these sources (but not for other sources). The total maximum impacts from this source group were compared with the CALPUFF v6.4 run obtained using modified building parameters. The results indicated that the maximum predicted impacts obtained in v6.4 were somewhat lower than those in v7.0, which was expected due to the reduced wake effect in the wind sectors with modified (reduced) BUILDHGT parameters. Emission rates were then adjusted to compensate for the modified parameters, and eliminate bias in maximum modelled concentrations. B.4 NO 2 /NO X Ratio Metro Vancouver has an Air Quality Objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). Emissions from combustion sources are expressed as total nitrogen oxides (NO X ), which is a mixture of nitric oxide (NO) and NO 2, and the emission rate of NO X was used in the model. As a result, the raw model results reflect concentrations of total NO X. The BC MOE modelling guideline (BC MOE; 2008) allows the simple and conservative assumption of 100% conversion of NO to NO 2 in the atmosphere, so that NO 2 concentration is equal to NO X concentration. This assumption was applied to the modelling of annual NO 2, but gave overly conservative values for 1-hour averages, so the alternative Ambient Ratio (AR) method was applied, as suggested in the Guidelines. The AR method used two year of monitored data from two monitoring stations (North Vancouver s Second Narrows and Mahon Park stations) to establish the NO 2 /NO X relationship with varying NO X concentration in the local area. Monitored data is plotted in Figures B.3 and B.4, with the required exponential fit to the upper envelope presented as specified in the Guideline. The fit yields an equation of the form NO 2 /NO X = a NO X b.

124 Figure B.3. NO 2 /NO X Ambient Ratio for Second Narrows Figure B.4. NO 2 /NO X Ambient Ratio for Mahon Park. The 98 th percentile 1 hour NO X concentration reported for the Second Narrows and Mahon Park monitoring stations was 177 µg/m³. As specified in the Guideline, this value was added to the maximum modelled 1 hour concentration of NO X at each receptor, and the sum was multiplied the

125 NO 2 /NO X ratio determined by the AR curve. The AR curve for Second Narrows was used, since it results in more conservative ratios. B.5 Modelling Results The results of the modelling are shown graphically in Figures B.5 to B.12, for each pollutant and averaging period. Note that these figures present the maximum off-property concentrations resulting from G3 terminal emissions. Note that the figures provide modelled results only, and do not include background levels that result from other sources in the area and long range transport. In the case of NO 2, the NO 2 /NO X ratio must be calculated and applied to the sum of modelled and background concentration at each receptor as described in Section B.4. The resulting NO 2 concentrations are shown graphically in Figure B.13. Note that, unlike the figures with raw model results, this figure provides maximum concentrations that include background concentrations.

126 Figure B.5. Maximum PM Concentration 24 hour Rolling Average

127 Figure B.6. Maximum PM Concentration Annual Average.

128 Figure B.7. Maximum PM 10 Concentration 24 hour Rolling Average.

129 Figure B.8. Maximum PM 10 Concentration Annual Average.

130 Figure B.9. Maximum PM 2.5 Concentration 24 hour Rolling Average.

131 Figure B.10. Maximum PM 2.5 Concentration Annual Average.

132 Figure B.11. Maximum NO X Concentration Annual Average.

133 Figure B.12. Maximum NO X Concentration 1 hour Rolling Average.

134 Figure B.13. Maximum NO 2 Concentration 1 hour Rolling Average.