PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS EMISSION INVENTORY...PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS EMISSION INVENTORY Prepared for: PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS 2300 Columbia St. Port Moody, BC V3H 5J9 Prepared by:

PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS

EMISSION INVENTORY

Prepared for: PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS 2300 Columbia St. Port Moody, BC V3H 5J9 Prepared by: SENES Consultants 1338 West Broadway, Suite 303 Vancouver, BC V6H 1H2 File: 380246 January 2015

PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS

EMISSION INVENTORY

Prepared for: PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS 2300 Columbia St. Port Moody, BC V3H 5J9 Prepared by: SENES Consultants 1338 West Broadway, Suite 303 Vancouver, BC V6H 1H2 File: 380246 January 2015

_____________________________ _____________________________ Prepared By: Prepared By: Ashley Cruz, M.Env.Sc. Susan Sheehan Environmental Scientist Environmental Scientist

_____________________________ _____________________________ Reviewed By: Reviewed By: Malcolm Smith., P.Eng. Dan Hrebenyk, M. Sc. Senior Environmental Engineer Manager, BC Office

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - i - January 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. IV

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. VIII

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Emission Inventory Study Overview ................................................................................... 2

2.0 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Spatial Scope / Assessment Area Boundaries ................................................................... 4

2.1.1 On-Site Emissions ................................................................................................. 4 2.1.2 Supply Chain Emissions ........................................................................................ 5

2.2 Temporal Scope .................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Emission Sources ............................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Compounds of Potential Concern ....................................................................................... 8

2.4.1 CO2 Equivalent Emissions ..................................................................................... 8 2.5 Air Quality Criteria ............................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Existing Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 12

3.0 ACTIVITY LEVELS ........................................................................................................................ 17 3.1 Off-Road Equipment ......................................................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Construction Equipment ....................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 On-site Material Handling Equipment and Stationary Source Activity ................. 19 3.1.3 Marine Vessels ..................................................................................................... 19 3.1.4 Rail Transport ....................................................................................................... 21

3.2 On-road Vehicles .............................................................................................................. 24 3.2.1 Commercial Trucking ........................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Light-duty Vehicles ............................................................................................... 24

4.0 EMISSION RATES ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Off-Road Equipment ......................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Construction, On-site Material Handling and Stationary Source Equipment ............................................................................................................................. 25

4.1.2 Marine Vessels ..................................................................................................... 26 4.1.3 Rail Transport ....................................................................................................... 29 4.1.4 Climate Forcing PM (Black Carbon) .................................................................... 32

4.2 On-Road Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 34 4.2.1 Commercial Trucking ........................................................................................... 34 4.2.2 Light Duty Vehicles .............................................................................................. 35

4.3 Fugitive Dust ..................................................................................................................... 36

5.0 EMISSION INVENTORIES ............................................................................................................ 40 5.1 Historical Emissions .......................................................................................................... 40 5.2 Baseline (2015) and Future (2020) Emissions ................................................................. 40 5.3 Potash Project Construction Emissions ............................................................................ 46

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 48

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - ii - January 2015

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Historical and Projected Future Commodity Handling at PCT ............................................ 1 Table 2.1 Projected Annual Activity Levels ......................................................................................... 7 Table 2.2 CO2 Equivalent Conversion Factors ................................................................................... 8 Table 2.3 Air Quality Criteria for CACs ............................................................................................. 11 Table 2.4 Summary of Air Quality Observations at Station T6 (all wind directions) ......................... 15 Table 2.5 Summary of Air Quality Observations at Station T9 (all wind directions) ......................... 16 Table 3.1 Projected Off-Road Equipment for Construction .............................................................. 18 Table 3.2 Annual Activity for Marine Vessels, 2015 and 2020 ......................................................... 20 Table 3.3 Annual Activity for Marine Vessels, 2015 and 2020 ......................................................... 20 Table 3.4 Projected Annual Rail Activity at PCT in 2015 and 2020 .................................................. 23 Table 4.1 Marine Vessel Emission Factors ....................................................................................... 26 Table 4.2 2015 Marine Vessel Emissions (tonnes/year) .................................................................. 27 Table 4.3 2020 No Build Marine Vessel Emissions (tonnes/year) .................................................... 28 Table 4.4 2020 Build Marine Vessel Emissions (tonnes/year) ......................................................... 29 Table 4.5 U.S. EPA Locomotive Emission Standards ...................................................................... 30 Table 4.6 Locomotive CAC Emission Rates ..................................................................................... 31 Table 4.7 Rail Association of Canada EFs ....................................................................................... 32 Table 4.8 Locomotive GHG Emission Rates .................................................................................... 32 Table 4.9 Locomotive Climate Forcing PM Emission Rates ............................................................. 32 Table 4.10 2015 Baseline Rail Emissions (tonnes/year) .................................................................... 33 Table 4.11 2020 Future No Build Rail Emissions (tonnes/year) ......................................................... 33 Table 4.12 2020 Future Build Rail Emissions (tonnes/year) ............................................................... 34 Table 4.13 Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Rates in 2015 and 2020 ........................................... 34 Table 4.14 Annual Trucking Emissions at PCT in 2015 and 2020 ..................................................... 35 Table 4.15 Light Duty Vehicle Emission Rates in 2015 and 2020 ...................................................... 35 Table 4.16 Annual Estimated Light Duty Vehicle Emissions at PCT, 2001 - 2010 ............................. 36 Table 4.17 Statistical Distribution of Winds Speeds at Port Moody, 2008 - 2012 .............................. 36 Table 4.18 Annual Estimated Fugitive Dust Estimates at PCT, 2015 and 2020* ............................... 38 Table 4.19 Dust Collector Emission Rate Estimates for Potash Activities at PCT, 2020 ................... 39 Table 5.1 Historical Annual Emissions at PCT from 2001 to 2005 ................................................... 40 Table 5.2 Projected On-Site Pacific Coast Terminals Air Emissions in 2015 and 2020 ................... 42 Table 5.3 Expected Off-Site Supply Chain Air Emissions at Pacific Coast Terminals ..................... 43 Table 5.4 Expected Indirect Air Emissions from Electricity Usage at Pacific Coast Terminals ........ 43 Table 5.5 Expected Total Air Emissions from Potash Construction Project ..................................... 46

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - iii - January 2015

LIST OF IN-TEXT FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Pacific Coast Terminals Site ............................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.2 Supply Chain Geographic Boundaries ................................................................................ 6 Figure 2.3 Location of MV Stations T6 and T9 ................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.4 2008-2012 Windrose for Station T6 Second Narrows ...................................................... 13 Figure 2.5 2008-2012 Windrose for Station T9 Port Moody .............................................................. 14 Figure 5.1 Future 2020 Build Emissions by Source Group (NOx) ...................................................... 45 Figure 5.2 Future 2020 Build Emissions by Source Group (PM2.5) .................................................... 45 Figure 6.1 Projected Annual 2015 and 2020 NOx Emissions ............................................................ 49 Figure 6.2 Projected Annual 2015 and 2020 PM2.5 Emissions .......................................................... 49

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Detailed Emissions Calculations

Appendix B PCT Historic and Projected Shipment from 2001 to 2020

Appendix C Dustbind Sulphur Dust Remediation Study

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - iv - January 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pacific Coast Terminals (PCT) is a multi-purpose marine bulk terminal located in Port Metro Vancouver

(PMV) on Burrard Inlet in Port Moody, British Columbia. PCT handles shipments of sulphur and ethylene

glycol on a regular basis, and has recently been handling metallurgical coal shipments on a temporary

basis. In July 2012, PCT announced its intentions to undertake a significant expansion of its facilities,

including the addition of canola oil and potash as new export products. These new products would

necessitate significant infrastructure modifications, including the construction of new liquid storage tanks

for canola and a large storage warehouse for potash. In July 2013, PCT submitted a Project Permit

Application to PMV to accommodate canola oil. The Emission Inventory presented in this report supports

a Project Permit Application to accommodate the proposed new potash operations.

This Emission Inventory considers air emissions from PCT operations, including:

Baseline: sulphur, coal, glycol and canola handling for the year 2015;

Future No Build: sulphur, glycol and canola handling for the year 2020;

Future Build: sulphur, glycol, canola and potash handling for the year 20201; and

Air emissions associated with the construction of infrastructure required to handle potash.

The year 2015 was chosen as the baseline year because the proposed start of potash shipments would

commence after 2015, and 2020 was chosen as the future year because this is when maximum annual

potash shipping capacity is expected to be achieved. In order to assess the incremental impact to air

emissions of the proposed potash project, the future year 2020 was also assessed for the scenario where

the potash project is not realized (i.e., Future No Build scenario). It should be noted that should the potash

project not proceed, it is likely that other commodities would be handled at the PCT facility to maintain site

operations. However, other options were not assessed in any detail; therefore, the Future No Build scenario

presented is essentially the Future Build scenario minus proposed potash operations.

Potash is a potassium salt, mostly used as a crop nutrient in agriculture worldwide. Potash will be

transported to PCT via rail from a potash mine in Saskatchewan. The PCT facility is being designed to

handle up to 2,200,000 tonnes of potash annually, on its way to markets in Asia and other parts of the

world.

Air emissions from proposed potash handling activities will be controlled with dust collectors at all transfer

points, while sulphur and coal handling activities and commodity transportation by rail (CP Rail) and marine

vessels will otherwise generate the vast majority of emissions to air. PCT has no direct control of vessels

1 Note that the export of coal from the PCT terminal is expected to be discontinued after 2016.

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - v - January 2015

or rail operations other than the scheduling frequency for commodity transportation. However, rail and

marine vessel scheduling efficiency is a vital component in terminal planning logistics, including effectively

managing costs.

The air contaminants considered for this emission inventory include carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), respirable particulate matter (PM2.5), total

volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), diesel particulate matter (DPM), black carbon (BC),

and greenhouse gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Black

Carbon and GHGs are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

The tables below consider the change in on-site air emissions (Table ES.1), off-site supply chain air

emissions (Table ES.2) and indirect emissions associated with electricity usage (Table ES.3) from the

Baseline 2015 case, the Future No Build 2020 case, the Future Build 2020 case, as well as total emissions

associated with the construction of potash infrastructure at PCT (Table ES.4). The results indicate that:

On-site and off-site supply chain emissions of all contaminants decrease for the Future No Build

case compared to the Baseline;

On-site emissions of CO decrease slightly for the Future Build Scenario compared with the

Baseline, but increase in the supply chain portion of the inventory, primarily due to ship emissions;

NOx, VOC, SO2, DPM, BC, GHG and NH3 emissions for the Future Build case increase for both

on-site and off-site supply chain emissions;

On-site emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 for the Future Build case decrease from Baseline levels due

to a reduction in fugitive dust resulting from the reduction of sulphur exports and the cessation of

coal exports, but increase in the supply chain portion of the inventory due to ship and rail emissions.

A previous emission inventory completed for PCT operations from 2001 to 2005 is also presented for

comparison purposes. It is noted that emission estimation methodologies have changed since this previous

inventory was completed and the scope has increased (for example this inventory considers in-transit and

anchoring activities for marine vessels, whereas the previous study did not). However, there have been

significant reductions in emissions based on fuel and engine technology improvements, which results in

lower predicted on-site emissions in 2015 and 2020 in comparison to historic emission rates.

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - vi - January 2015

Table ES.1 Projected On-Site Pacific Coast Terminals Air Emissions in 2015 and 2020

Year Emission Source

Contaminant (tonnes for assessment year)

CO NOx VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5 DPM Climate Forcing PM as CO2e GHG as CO2e

NH3 BC CO2e20 CO2e100 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e20 CO2e100

2015 Baseline

Ships 6.19 45.63 1.36 2.53 1.18 1.08 1.08 0.35 1127.26 317.04 1842.60 0.36 0.10 1901.40 1885.52 0.01 Rail 2.49 3.83 0.65 0.003 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 222.85 62.68 314.45 0.02 0.13 350.78 353.76 0.02

Trucking 0.001 0.002 neg. neg. neg. neg. neg. neg. 0.13 0.04 0.68 neg. neg. 0.68 0.68 neg. Light Duty

Vehicle 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.003 0.001 neg. 0.66 0.19 62.43 0.001 0.001 62.73 62.71 0.01

On-site Diesel & Natural Gas

0.04 0.10 0.01 neg. 0.003 0.001 0.001 neg. 1.41 0.40 84.00 0.002 0.003 85.07 85.04 neg.

Fugitive Dust - - - - 46.71 31.68 - - - - - - - - - - Total 9.16 49.60 2.03 2.53 47.98 32.85 1.17 0.42 1352.32 380.34 2304.16 0.39 0.24 2400.66 2387.71 0.03

2020 Future

No Build

Ships 5.54 36.22 1.15 2.28 1.02 0.94 0.94 0.34 1085.73 305.36 1508.10 0.33 0.09 1561.07 1546.76 0.01 Rail 0.89 3.84 0.41 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 235.65 66.28 326.44 0.02 0.13 364.16 367.25 0.01

Trucking neg. 0.001 neg. neg. neg. neg. neg. neg. 0.04 0.01 0.68 neg. neg. 0.68 0.68 neg. Light Duty

Vehicle 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.007 0.003 0.001 neg. 0.53 0.15 56.31 0.001 0.001 56.51 56.50 0.01


0.04 0.10 0.01 neg. 0.003 0.001 neg. neg. 1.00 0.28 75.06 0.002 0.003 75.92 75.89 0


2020 Future Build

Ships 7.37 51.71 1.65 3.01 1.42 1.30 1.30 0.41 1315.58 370.01 2254.30 0.43 0.12 2324.25 2305.36 0.01 Rail 1.10 4.65 0.48 0.004 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 286.64 80.62 397.20 0.02 0.16 443.10 446.86 0.03


Vehicle 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.003 0.001 neg. 0.53 0.15 56.31 0.001 0.001 56.51 56.50 0.01


0.04 0.10 0.01 neg. 0.003 0.001 neg. neg. 1.00 0.28 75.00 0.002 0.003 75.86 75.83 neg.


Note: neg. = <0.001 tonnes/yr

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - vii - January 2015

Table ES.2 Expected Off-Site Supply Chain Air Emissions at Pacific Coast Terminals


Contaminant (total emissions - tonnes)



2015 Baseline

Ships 7.71 70.70 2.66 2.60 1.50 1.38 1.38 0.24 769.11 216.31 2669.40 0.37 0.11 2729.77 2713.50 0.05

Rail 3.91 6.89 0.98 0.003 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 425.73 119.74 366.75 0.02 0.15 409.12 412.59 0.08

Total 11.62 77.59 3.64 2.61 1.66 1.54 1.54 0.37 1194.84 336.05 3036.15 0.39 0.26 3138.89 3126.09 0.13

2020 Future

No Build

Ships 6.40 54.51 2.19 2.16 1.22 1.13 1.13 0.21 667.82 187.82 2143.30 0.31 0.09 2193.34 2179.86 0.04

Rail 1.57 6.44 0.63 0.003 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 399.33 112.31 345.59 0.02 0.14 385.52 388.79 0.06

Total 7.96 60.95 2.82 2.16 1.38 1.28 1.28 0.33 1067.15 300.13 2488.89 0.33 0.23 2578.87 2568.65 0.10

2020 Future Build

Ships 9.95 86.88 3.46 3.36 1.95 1.80 1.80 0.30 962.89 270.81 3515.40 0.48 0.14 3593.33 3572.34 0.06

Rail 2.43 9.43 0.83 0.01 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.18 591.60 166.39 588.07 0.03 0.24 656.02 661.59 0.16

Total 12.37 96.31 4.28 3.37 2.18 2.02 2.02 0.49 1554.49 437.20 4103.47 0.52 0.38 4249.36 4233.92 0.22

Note: Rail supply chain extends from the PCT property line to a CP Rail switch yard east of the site Marine supply chain extends to the Strait of Georgia

Table ES.3 Expected Indirect Annual Air Emissions from Electricity Usage at Pacific Coast Terminals

Year


CO NOx VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5 DPM Climate Forcing PM as CO2e GHGs as CO2e


2015 Baseline

2.13 1.00 0.07 0.09 0.26 0.23 0.002 neg. 0.10 0.03 62.77 0.01 0.002 63.85 63.53 neg.

2020 Future

No Build 2.22 1.04 0.07 0.09 0.27 0.24 0.002 neg. 0.10 0.03 65.36 0.01 0.002 66.49 66.15 neg.

2020 Future Build

3.85 1.80 0.12 0.16 0.47 0.41 0.004 neg. 0.18 0.05 113.30 0.01 0.003 115.25 114.67 neg.

neg. = <0.001 tonnes/yr

Table ES.4 Expected Air Emissions from Potash Construction Project




8.35 23.72 1.24 0.02 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.73 2341.59 658.57 3568.00 0.17 0.26 3652.65 3651.66 0.01

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - viii - January 2015

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

List of Acronyms

AQO Air Quality Objectives

AAQO Ambient Air Quality Objectives

AQMP Air Quality Management Plans

B.C. British Columbia

BSGCadj in-use adjusted brake specific fuel consumption, expressed in ponds of fuel per horsepower-hour (lb fuel/hp-hr)

CAAQS Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards

CAC Common Air Contaminant

CMV Commercial Marine Vessel

CWS Canada-wide Standards

DF emission deterioration factor (unitless)

EF emission factor

EFadj final emission factor in model, after adjustments to account for transient operation and deterioration, expressed, in grams per break horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr)

EFss zero-hour, steady-state EF (g/bhp-hr)

GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District

MAL maximum acceptable level

MDL maximum desirable level

MOE Ministry of the Environment

MV Metro Vancouver (also known as GVRD)

NAAQO National Ambient Air Quality Objectives

PCT Pacific Coast Terminals

PMV Port Metro Vancouver

soxbas default certification fuel sulphur weight percent

soxcnv fuel based emission factor expressed in grams of PM sulphur per gram of fuel consumed

soxdsl episodic fuel sulphur weight percent

SPMadj adjustment to particulate matter emission factor to account for variations in fuel sulphur content, expressed in grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr)

TAF transient adjustment factor (unitless) used to account for transient engine operation

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Contaminants

BC black carbon

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e20 carbon dioxide equivalent over twenty years

CO2e100 carbon dioxide equivalent over one hundred years

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - ix - January 2015

DPM diesel particulate matter

GHG greenhouse gas

HC In-use adjusted hydrocarbon emission rate expressed in grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr)

NO nitric oxide

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

N2O nitrous oxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

N2O nitrous oxide

PM particulate matter

PM10 inhalable particulate matter (particulate matter up to 10 micrometers in size)

PM2.5 fine particulate matter (particulate matter up to 2.5 micrometers in size)

SO2 sulphur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - 1 - January 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Pacific Coast Terminals (PCT) is a multi-purpose marine bulk terminal located in Port Metro Vancouver

(PMV) on Burrard Inlet in Port Moody, British Columbia. The terminal currently receives sulphur and

ethylene glycol by rail from Alberta’s oil and gas refineries for shipment to ports around the world. Sulphur

and ethylene glycol are either loaded directly onto ships, or are temporarily stored on site. Stored sulphur

is sorted by type into windrow piles, while ethylene glycol is held in sealed storage tanks. PCT has also

recently been shipping metallurgical coal on a temporary basis.

Over the past few years, Canadian supplies of sulphur have been diminishing and PCT has been exploring

a number of alternative commodities, including food-grade canola oil and potash. Both commodities align

with PCT’s current terminal operations and will not require fundamental changes to operations, using the

same on-site technology currently being used to handle ethylene glycol and sulphur. To handle these new

products, PCT would require a few modifications, including the construction of additional liquid storage

tanks for canola and a potash storage shed. In July 2013, PCT submitted a Project Permit Application to

PMV to accommodate canola oil. The Emission Inventory presented in this report supports a Project Permit

Application to accommodate the proposed new potash operations. Table 1.1 outlines recent historical and

projected future commodity shipments at PCT.

Potash is a non-toxic potassium salt, mostly used as a crop nutrient in agriculture worldwide. Potash will

be transported to PCT via rail from a potash mine in Saskatchewan. Virtually all on-site technology that is

being used to handle sulphur can also be used to handle potash, including existing dust control technology,

conveyer and ship loading systems. It is anticipated that PCT will handle up to 2,200,000 tonnes of potash

annually, on its way to markets in Asia and other parts of the world.

Table 1.1 Historical and Projected Future Commodity Handling at PCT

Year Commodity (tonnes per year)

Sulphur Coal Potash Glycol Canola

2010 2,289,040 - - 625,958 -

2011 2,025,274 168,229 - 615,797 -

2012 1,735,229 287,696 - 613,264 -

2013 1,580,000 430,000 - 650,000 -

2014 1,500,000 300,000 - 675,000 175,000

2015 1,500,000 300,000 - 700,000 425,000

2016 1,380,000 300,000 36,000 725,000 475,000

2017 1,300,000 - 1,000,000 750,000 540,000

2018 1,220,000 - 1,250,000 775,000 575,000

2019 1,140,000 - 1,500,000 800,000 575,000

2020 1,060,000 - 2,200,000 825,000 575,000


1.1 EMISSION INVENTORY STUDY OVERVIEW

PMV provided an outline of air assessment requirements to support PCT’s Project Permit Application to

accommodate potash at the PCT site. The outline included the requirement to present historical and

projected future commodity shipments and to develop an emission inventory for both on-site and off-site

supply chain air emissions for the baseline year 2015 and for the future year 2020, both with and without

the potash project (referred to as Build and No Build, respectively). The difference between the Baseline

2015 case and Future Build 2020 emission inventories considers the incorporation of potash handling to

overall on-site air emissions, as well as forecasted changes to sulphur, glycol and canola shipments. The

Future No Build 2020 case considers the same forecasted changes to sulphur, glycol and canola, but does

not include potash. Emissions from the construction of potash handling infrastructure are also considered.

It should be noted that should the potash project not proceed, it is likely that other commodities would be

handled at the PCT facility to maintain site operations. However, other options were not assessed in any

detail; therefore, the Future No Build scenario presented is essentially the Future Build scenario minus

proposed potash operations.

The following list provides a description of the significant air emission sources at PCT:

Bulk carrier and tanker ships;

Tugboats used to manoeuver bulk carrier ships and tankers;

Rail locomotives, switchers and pushers;

Front end loaders;

Heavy duty haul trucks;

Light duty vehicles for employee travel to/from the workplace;

Dust collectors to control emissions from potash handling;

Fugitive dust from sulphur, coal and potash handling;

Electrical equipment and utilities, indirect emissions from the generation of electricity; and

Boilers and furnaces for building heating.

PCT itself is directly responsible for few of the significant air emission sources at the facility, which is based

on the reliance on other companies to supply the necessary shipping, rail and trucking transport. As such,

a large part of the effort to compile the emission inventory involved determining the engine characteristics

of transportation sources managed elsewhere.

Chapter 2 of this report outlines the scope of the emission inventory. Chapter 3 provides a discussion and

estimation of the activity levels (i.e., movements, hour of use) for the emission sources listed above.

Chapter 4 provides a discussion and listing of the emission rates (or factors) used to estimate emissions


from combustion of fuels for the PCT sources, and the estimated annual emissions by source group.

Chapter 5 provides the full annual emissions inventories and Chapter 6 provides a conclusion.

Appendix A – Emissions Calculations Methodology provides details of the emission sources (ships, tugs,

cargo handling equipment, locomotives and vehicles). It also lays out the parameters, emission factors,

assumptions and calculation methods used in estimating emissions from these sources, and how these

considerations vary for the different scenarios (Baseline 2015, Future 2020 and Construction).

Appendix B – PCT Historic and Projected Shipments from 2001 - 2020 provides tables and figures that

detail historic and projected changes to commodity throughputs, tonnes per vessel and per rail car over

time. Discussion is also provided around theoretical (i.e., design) versus expected (i.e., projected)

maximum throughputs by commodity.

Appendix C – Dustbind Sulphur Dust Remediation Study completed in 2006 evaluates the application of

the IPAC Dustbind dust control program on surface road sulphur dust.


2.0 SCOPE

2.1 SPATIAL SCOPE / ASSESSMENT AREA BOUNDARIES

2.1.1 On-Site Emissions

The primary objective of this Emission Inventory is to evaluate the impact that proposed future potash

handling will have on on-site air emissions. The PCT site is defined by the property line and includes all

rail unloading and ship loading activities (see Figure 2.1). On-site rail locomotive and vehicle travel starts

from the site entrance gate and on-site marine vessel activity includes emissions from ships while at berth.

The PCT facility is located in an industrial area immediately surrounded by residential areas; Figure 2.1

illustrates the residential locations immediately west and south of the PCT site. There are also two schools

located approximately 800 m from the PCT site; however, they are generally located in areas of higher

elevation and any impacts from PCT operations are expected to be minimal. As outlined within this report,

the significant sources of emissions from the PCT site are emissions from ship and rail locomotive engines.

Other significant sources of emissions contributing to potential impacts at these receptor locations includes

other rail locomotive traffic that continues along the Burrard Inlet to other industrial operations and vehicle

traffic on the Barnet Highway. As discussed in Section 0, there is an air quality monitoring station located

less than 1 km east of the PCT site, which will likely be representative of air quality at nearby residential

locations. As outlined in Section 0, applicable contaminant criteria was met for the most recent five years

of data, with the exception of PM2.5 concentrations associated with smoke from forest fires in 2010.

Therefore, the potential for impacts at nearby residential locations is not considered to be significant.


Figure 2.1 Pacific Coast Terminals Site

2.1.2 Supply Chain Emissions

The off-site supply chain geographic boundary has been developed for rail and ship travel. The rail supply

chain boundary extends from the site entrance gate to the rail switch yard located approximately 6.4 km

east of the site, which is where rail cars are combined prior to travel to the PCT site. Typically, different

combinations of rail cars will arrive at the switch yard from different origins, at which point rail cars will be

combined for different destinations, including PCT or other destinations farther away. Based on the

complexity of activities at the switch yard, it was determined that this was an appropriate extent of the off-

site supply chain geographic boundary. The site marine vessel supply chain boundary extends from PCT

berths past the Lions Gate Bridge and Burrard Inlet, ending at the limit of PMV jurisdiction in the Strait of

Georgia.

Figure 2.2 outlines the supply chain geographic boundaries developed for this emission inventory.

Approximate Location

of Site Entrance Gate

Pacific Coast

Terminals Site

Ship Loading Berths

Rail Unloading

Closest Residential

Areas


Figure 2.2 Supply Chain Geographic Boundaries

2.2 TEMPORAL SCOPE

The PCT Project Permit Application is for the approval to handle potash exports. PCT is proposing to start

shipping potash in late 2016, with increasing annual capacity up to 2.2 million tonnes by the year 2020.

Therefore, this emission inventory considers 2015 as the baseline year, which is immediately prior to the

proposed start of potash shipments, and 2020 as the future year when the maximum annual shipping

capacity is achieved. Two cases are considered for the future 2020 year:

1. The No Build scenario, which assumes no potash handling; and

2. The Build scenario, where the potash project is realized.

The emission estimates used for 2015 and 2020 incorporate activity levels for marine vessels, rail

locomotives, on-road and off-road vehicles at PCT, and also consider changes in fuel quality and the normal

replacement of older equipment with newer equipment that meets new emission technology standards.

The estimated emissions in each time period were based on detailed consideration of activity levels for

each type of equipment associated with changes in commodity handling capacity.

2.3 EMISSION SOURCES

Air emissions associated with the handling of sulphur, coal, glycol and canola are considered in horizon

year 2015, and air emissions in horizon year 2020 are associated with operations for sulphur, potash, glycol

and canola shipments. Air emissions in the horizon year 2020 without potash are also presented.

Emission sources included in the inventory are as follows:

Construction Equipment (for construction of the potash facility);

Pacific Coast

Terminals Site Rail Switch

Yard

Approximate Limit of Marine Vessel

Supply Chain Boundary


Marine vessels calling at the PCT terminal, and associated tugboat assist activities;

Material handling equipment and stationary sources operating at the PCT terminal;

Rail locomotives arriving and departing from the PCT site; and

On-road vehicles arriving and departing from the PCT site.

Projected annual activity levels for these sources are presented in Table 2.1 and discussed in more detail

in Section 3.0.

Table 2.1 Projected Annual Activity Levels

Activity Horizon

Year Activity Level

Ship Calls1

2015 Baseline 113

2020 No Build 97

2020 Build 141

Front End Loader (FEL)3

2015 Baseline 1

2020 No Build 1

2020 Build 1

Rail Locomotive Trips2

2015 Baseline 897

2020 No Build 502

2020 Build 1384

Heavy-duty Vehicle Trips1

2015 Baseline 203

2020 No Build 203

2020 Build 203

Light-duty Vehicle Trips1

2015 Baseline 52,000

2020 No Build 52,000

2020 Build 52,000

Notes: 1 Each ship call, heavy-duty vehicle trip or light-duty vehicle trip activity level listed

above is equal to two movements, one entering the PCT site and the other leaving 2 Each rail locomotive delivery activity level listed above is equal to four movements

including entering the PCT site to deliver full railcars, leaving PCT site to perform other duties at CP switch yard, returning to PCT site to collect empty railcars, leaving PCT site to return empty railcars to CP switch yard. Movements do not include on-site switchyard movements.

3 One front end loader is used on-site for sulphur handling


2.4 COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

The primary source of emissions at the PCT site is the combustion of fuel in rail locomotives, on-road and

off-road vehicles and ships. Other sources include fugitive emissions associated with the bulk material

handling of sulphur and coal, and also from dust collectors that will control emissions associated with the

transfer of potash via conveyor belts from trains to the new storage shed and thence from the storage shed

to bulk carriers for overseas shipment.

The primary compounds of potential concern are considered to include carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur

dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), respirable particulate matter

(PM2.5), total volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), diesel particulate matter (DPM), black

carbon2, and greenhouse gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide

(N2O).

Releases of all other compounds are not considered to be significant based on the release thresholds

established with the Environment Canada National Pollutants Release Inventory (NPRI) program, to which

PCT reports annually.

2.4.1 CO2 Equivalent Emissions

Black Carbon and greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O and CH4) are presented as CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and

calculated by applying the Global Warming Potential (GWP) conversion factors presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 CO2 Equivalent Conversion Factors

Contaminant GWP Conversion Factors*

20-year 100-year

CH4 86 34

N2O 268 298

Black Carbon 3200 900

* For CH4 and N2O, the GWP source is IPCC AR5 2013 (5th assessment) Ch8 Table 8.7 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

For Black Carbon the GWP source is Bond et al. (2013) 3

2 The particulate matter in diesel exhaust consists primarily of solid carbonaceous particles of black carbon and organic carbon, with the remaining mass composed of metals, ash, and semi-volatile organics and secondary particles such as sulfates and nitrates.

3 Bond, T.C., S. J. Doherty, D.W. Fahey, P.M. Forster, T. Berntsen, B.J. DeAngelo, M.G. Flanner, S. Ghan, B. Kärcher, D. Koch, S. Kinne, Y. Kondo, P.K. Quinn, M.C. Sarofim, M.G. Schultz, M. Schulz, C. Venkataraman, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, N. Bellouin, S.K. Guttikunda, P.K. Hopke, M.Z. Jacobson, J.W. Kaiser, Z. Klimont, U. Lohmann, J.P. Schwarz, D. Shindell, T. Storelvmo, S.G. Warren, and C.S. Zender. 2013. Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118:5380–5552.


It should be noted that aerosols such as black carbon have atmospheric lifetimes of only a few days, while

carbon dioxide lingers for millennia. Because of their short lifetimes, changes in aerosol emissions are hard

to compare to changes in carbon dioxide emissions. However, changes in emissions of black carbon can

be readily compared to changes in CO2 emissions because any total global radiative forcing (as GWP) can

be expressed in terms of CO2e (i.e., the equivalent amount of CO2 that it would take to produce the same

total forcing were all other agents at their pre-industrial concentrations). For black carbon, Bond et al.

(2013) estimated GWP values of 3,200 on a 20-year time scale and 900 on a 100-year time scale.

According to Bond et al., black carbon and CO2 emission amounts with equivalent 100-year GWPs have

different impacts on climate, temperature, rainfall, and the timing of these impacts. These and other

differences raise questions about the appropriateness of using a single metric such as CO2e to compare

black carbon and greenhouse gases. Moreover, Hodnebrog et al. (2014)4 have recently questioned the

GWP of black carbon as estimated by Bond et al. (2013), indicating that there remains considerable

uncertainty and debate about the relative magnitude of black carbon in climate forcing. Nevertheless, the

black carbon emissions in the emission inventory for the potash project are expressed in CO2e for

comparison purposes, following the methodology outlined in the most recent assessment by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014.

2.5 AIR QUALITY CRITERIA

The substances listed above are considered to be the primary compounds of concern associated with the

combustion of fuels. There are a variety of applicable air quality criteria from federal, provincial or regional

jurisdictions; a brief description of applicable jurisdictions is provided below, while substances with

applicable air quality criteria are outlined in Table 2.3.

National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQO) were first established in the 1970s. NAAQO is a three-

tiered system defined as maximum tolerable level, maximum acceptable level (MAL) and maximum

desirable level (MDL). Each level has a specific concentration for an individual air contaminant, with one

or more averaging periods.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment announced in 2012 the introduction of a new,

comprehensive Air Quality Management System with new Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards

(CAAQS). CAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) will replace Canada-Wide Standards (CWS)

established in 2015, and work has been initiated to develop CAAQS for sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen

dioxide (NO2). A final report to the multi-stakeholder CAAQS Working Group on the SO2 and NO2 standards

4 Hodnebrog, Ø., G. Myhre and B.H. Samset 2014. How shorter black carbon lifetime alters its climate effect. Nature Communications. www.nature.com/naturecommunications.


is expected to be completed by October 2014, with on-going Working Group consultations to be completed

by December 2015.

Ambient air quality levels in B.C. are typically set considering the impact of concentration levels on the

general public and ecosystems through the B.C. Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAQO), which were last

updated in August 2013. The B.C. AAQO have a three-tiered system for assessment. Level A is equivalent

to the federal NAAQO MDL, Level B is equivalent to the federal NAAQO MAL and Level C is equivalent to

the federal NAAQO maximum tolerable level. Under the B.C. AAQO, PM10 and PM2.5 are compared against

a provincial Air Quality Objective (AQO) and a long-term provincial planning goal (Goal) has been defined

for PM2.5. Each level within these regulations has a specific average concentration criterion for an individual

air contaminant over a specified period of time.

The Provincial Government of B.C. has the authority to delegate primary responsibility for air quality

management to regional and municipal jurisdictions. In 1972, an amendment to the Pollution Control Act,

established the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) as the single agency under which provincial

and municipal air pollution control activities in the Greater Vancouver urban area would be integrated. In

1982 and again in 2004, the Environmental Management Act (EMA) sustained that delegation of authority.

As part of the 2011 Integrated Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Management Plans, the GVRD, now Metro

Vancouver (MV) establishes and frequently reviews AAQOs that are used in policy planning, permitting of

air contaminant emission sources and overall air quality management.

The existing set of NAAQO, CWS, CAAQS, B.C. AAQO and MV AAQO for CACs are listed in Table 2.3. It

should be noted that the CAAQS will have new criteria for NO2 and SO2 in the 2015-2016 time frame. In

December 2014, the Provincial Government issued interim criteria for both NO2 and SO2 that would apply

to new sources until the new CAAQS are announced, while MV issued a new interim objective for SO2 for

public consultation.


Table 2.3 Air Quality Criteria for CACs

CAC Avg.

Period

Air Quality Criteria (µg/m3)1

NAAQO

CWS CAAQS

B.C. AAQO MV

AAQO MDL MAL Level A Level B Level C AQO / Goal

CO 1-hour (h) 15,000 35,000 - - 14,300 28,000 35,000 - 30,000

8-h 6,000 15,000 - - 5,500 11,000 14,300 - 10,000

NO2

1-h - 400 -

Dec. 2015

18812 200

24-h - 200 - see NAAQO3

-

1-year (y)2 60 100 - 40

SO2

1-h 450 900 - Dec. 2015

19613 900 900 - 19614

24-h 150 300 - 160 260 360 - 125

1-y2 30 60 - 25 50 80 - 30

PM 24-h - 120

- -

see NAAQO3

200 260 - -

1-y2 60 70 - - 60 70 75 - -

PM107

24-h - - - - - - - 50 50

1-y2 - - - - - - - - 20

PM2.5

24–h - - 308

284

275 - - - 25 25

1-y2 - - - 10.09

8.810 - - - 8 / 611 8 / 611

Notes:

1 µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre.

2 Arithmetic mean.

3 B.C. AAQO cite these NAAQO criteria as applicable to B.C.

4 Effective 2015; 3-y average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 24-h average concentrations for PM2.5.

5 Effective 2020; 3-y average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 24-h average concentrations for PM2.5.

6 Annual average value, averaged over three consecutive years.

7 Inhalable particulate matter.

8 Based on 98th percentile ambient measurement annually, averaged over 3 consecutive years (CCME 2000 and

CCME 2005).

9 Effective 2015; 3-y average of the annual average concentrations.

10 Effective 2020; 3-y average of the annual average concentrations.

11 Planning goal

12 Interim objective; 98th percentile over 1 year

13 Interim objective; 99th percentile over 1 year

14 Interim objective for discussion; 100th percentile


2.6 EXISTING AIR QUALITY

Metro Vancouver (MV), in conjunction with the Fraser Valley Regional District, operates a network of 27 air

quality monitoring stations in the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV). Information gathered from the LFV Air Quality

Monitoring Network is used to support and guide MV’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the region.

MV currently operates two air quality monitoring stations that are in relatively close proximity to the PCT

site and supply chain operations. The stations include North Vancouver Second Narrows (T6) and Port

Moody (T9). Figure 2.3 depicts the location of each station relative to the PCT site. It should be noted that

the close proximity of the Port Moody air quality monitoring station to the PCT site (approximately 700 m

east of PCT) means that any emissions from the PCT site likely influence observed air quality levels at

Station T9 to some extent. On the other hand, emissions from the Chevron oil refinery on Burrard Inlet,

located between the PCT site and Station T6, likely have a greater influence on air quality levels reported

from that station, as well as emissions from other industrial sources near the Second Narrows Bridge.

Both air quality monitoring stations will include emissions associated with traffic from on-road vehicles,

commercial and home heating (including fireplaces and wood or gas stoves), gas-powered gardening

equipment and backyard barbeques, restaurants, heavy-duty diesel-power construction and demolition

equipment, fishing boats and other small craft transiting through Burrard Inlet. Although traffic levels near

Station T9 are major contributors to air quality levels in Port Moody, emissions from on-road vehicles are

likely to be a greater influence on air quality near Station T6 due to the higher traffic volumes on the Second

Narrows Bridge.

Figure 2.3 Location of MV Stations T6 and T9

Designated as Station T6 in the MV network of monitoring stations, the monitoring site is located in the

District of North Vancouver near Second Narrows Bridge approximately 11.5 km west of the PCT site. The


T6 station provides monitoring data for CO, NO, NO2, SO2, O3 and PM2.5, as well as the meteorological

parameters of wind speed and wind direction.

The station was established in 1977 and is designated as “Special Purpose Industry’ since it is situated on

an active works yard adjacent to many nearby industrial emissions sources, and may not be representative

of air quality in surrounding residential areas.

MV provided five years of monitoring data for the T6 station site from January 2008 to the end of December

2012. The meteorological data indicates that air flow is largely channelled parallel to the Central Harbour

of Burrard Inlet, with prevailing winds from the east and northeast as shown in Figure 2.4. There is a lower

frequency of winds from the west in the general direction of PCT, and relatively few winds from the north,

northwest, southwest and southeast. Significant emissions from the PCT site are unlikely to be carried to

the Second Narrows; however, emissions from marine vessels travelling through the Second Narrows to

and from the PCT site will influence the T6 station.

Figure 2.4 2008-2012 Windrose for Station T6 Second Narrows

Designated as Station T9 in the MV network of monitoring stations, the monitoring site in Port Moody is

located approximately 700 m east of the PCT site in Rocky Point Park, within an area that has experienced

a reduction in industrial sources and an increase in mobile and residential sources over the last two

decades. The T9 station provides monitoring data for CO, NO, NO2, SO2, TRS, O3, PM2.5 and PM10, as well


as the meteorological parameters of wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity and

precipitation.

Similar to Station T6, Station T9 was also established in 1977 and is designated as “Super Site’ since it is

influenced by industry located along Burrard Inlet, including an oil refinery and a natural gas-fired power

generating station. However, the power plant rarely operates, such that the primary influences on air quality

at Station T9 are the Chevron oil refinery and on-road traffic.

MV provided five years of monitoring data for the site from January 2008 to the end of December 2012.

The meteorological data at the T9 station indicate that air flow is largely channelled parallel to the eastern

portion of the Port Moody Arm of Burrard Inlet, with prevailing winds from the east-southeast and southeast

as shown in Figure 2.5. There is a lower frequency of winds from the northwest in the general direction of

PCT, and relatively few winds from the north through east and south through west. Thus, emissions from

the PCT are most likely to follow the Burrard Inlet channel to the west northwest away from Station T9

toward Second Narrows, with emissions from PCT being transported toward the T9 Port Moody station

approximately 16% of the time.

Figure 2.5 2008-2012 Windrose for Station T9 Port Moody

A summary of air quality observations over the period January 2008 to December 2012 for all wind

directions are provided in Table 2.4 for Station T6 in North Vancouver and in Table 2.5 for Station T9 in


Port Moody. The observations are compared to the most stringent air quality criteria from Table 2.3. For

8-h CO and all 24-h values, the concentrations are calculated as sequential averages (i.e., not rolling

averages).

Table 2.4 Summary of Air Quality Observations at Station T6 (all wind directions)

Year Parameter

Concentration (µg/m3)

CO NO2 SO2 PM2.5

1-h 8-h 1-h 24-h 1-h 24-h 24-h

2008-2012

Max 3,062.5 978.1 141.9 62.4 183.8 40.5 24.6

Mean 217.0 216.9 26.8 26.9 5.4 5.4 4.9

Median 186.3 196.5 23.7 25.8 2.4 3.6 4.2

98th percentile 512.4 455.6 65.4 49.9 37.0 20.7 13.6

2008

Max 3,062.5 768.5 130.1 59.4 90.6 26.7 19.8

Mean 247.2 246.4 28.4 28.5 5.1 5.2 5.3

Median 221.2 225.6 26.8 26.9 2.7 3.7 4.8

2009

Max 2,235.7 978.1 122.4 62.4 183.8 40.5 24.6

Mean 239.4 238.4 28.4 28.4 5.4 5.4 5.8

Median 209.6 214.0 24.9 27.6 2.7 3.6 4.8

2010

Max 1,036.4 628.8 120.5 62.3 119.9 32.3 11.7

Mean 222.7 222.7 26.2 26.1 5.9 5.9 3.7

Median 198.0 205.2 23.0 24.7 2.4 4.2 3.2

2011

Max 2,259.0 941.7 124.3 56.0 127.6 40.3 10.8

Mean 177.6 177.2 25.4 25.5 5.4 5.4 4.5

Median 163.0 167.4 22.4 24.7 1.6 3.6 4.2

2012

Max 2,072.7 609.9 141.9 56.1 83.9 31.3 18.3

Mean 198.8 198.7 25.8 25.8 5.3 5.3 4.9

Median 174.7 186.3 22.4 24.4 1.9 3.3 4.2

Air Quality Criteria1 14,300 5,500 200 200 450 125 25

Note: 1 The most stringent criteria from Table 2.3.


Table 2.5 Summary of Air Quality Observations at Station T9 (all wind directions)

Year Parameter

Concentration (µg/m3)

CO NO2 SO2 PM10 PM2.5

1-h 8-h 1-h 24-h

1-h 24-h

24-h 24-h

2008-2012

Max 2,352.2 1,558.9 104.0 64.5 239.7 41.2 47.6 37.8

Mean 325.1 324.7 26.2 26.1 3.9 3.9 10.4 4.8

Median 279.5 285.3 24.1 24.9 2.1 2.6 9.5 4.0

98th percentile 861.7 761.8 59.3 49.0 24.5 15.9 22.3 12.8

2008

Max 2,189.2 1,363.9 93.7 63.8 133.2 29.7 25.8 17.7

Mean 365.9 365.7 28.9 28.8 4.4 4.4 10.2 4.8

Median 302.8 317.3 26.8 27.2 2.7 3.1 9.4 4.3

2009

Max 2,142.6 1,558.9 95.6 64.5 117.2 41.2 30.6 22.6

Mean 356.8 356.3 28.9 28.8 4.9 4.9 10.9 5.7

Median 291.1 302.8 26.8 28.1 2.7 2.9 10.0 5.0

2010

Max 1,362.4 938.8 104.0 51.4 239.7 38.0 47.6 37.8

Mean 303.0 302.2 24.1 24.0 3.8 3.8 10.6 4.5

Median 267.8 273.6 22.6 24.1 1.6 2.3 9.4 3.8

2011

Max 2,352.2 1,021.8 82.6 49.9 64.2 19.1 23.6 14.2

Mean 298.8 298.3 24.0 24.0 3.2 3.2 10.0 4.5

Median 256.2 263.5 22.0 22.7 1.3 2.1 9.5 4.0

2012

Max 1,711.7 912.6 86.8 54.2 80.7 23.2 28.8 17.9

Mean 300.5 300.3 25.0 25.0 3.4 3.4 10.5 4.6

Median 267.8 275.1 23.0 24.0 1.1 1.9 9.3 3.7

Air Quality Criteria1 14,300 5,500 200 200 450 125 50 25

Note: 1 The most stringent criteria from Table Values highlighted in pink exceed the most stringent criteria.

As indicated in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5, all of the observations are below the regulatory air quality levels,

with the exception of PM2.5 at Station T9.

The maximum observed 24-hr average PM2.5 concentration of 37.8 µg/m3 was recorded in 2010. Elevated

PM2.5 concentrations at Station T9 were observed on August 5, 2010 and coincide with similar exceedances

of the MV AAQO of 25 µg/m3 and elevated concentrations that occurred throughout the LFV, caused by

smoke from forest fires (MV 2011). MV issued two Air Quality Advisories with respect to the smoke: the

first on August 4th which lasted for four days, and the second on August 16th which lasted for three days.

In the absence of such external influences, the PM2.5 concentrations at Station T9 were well below the MV

AAQO at all other times during the period of record.


3.0 ACTIVITY LEVELS

An emissions inventory is generated through characterising the activity levels of all significant sources of

air emissions associated with site activities. The emissions estimates themselves are achieved by

application of emission factors that relate to engine power and duration of use to air contaminant emission

rates. In that sense, the accuracy of the PCT emissions inventory is directly dependent on the source

characterisation of marine, rail, trucking, off road and motor vehicle sources, as well as on how

representative the emission factors are for the type of activity being characterized.

Activity levels at PCT were compiled for:

the year 2015 to establish a baseline level of activity (and ultimately emissions levels);

the year 2020 not including potash handling;

the year 2020 including potash (first year that potash handling reaches projected maximum); and

the duration of the potash infrastructure construction project.

To the extent possible, the future activity estimates are based on projected changes to throughput levels.

For minor sources such as private motor vehicle usage, potential differences in activity for future years

could not be determined. However, it is unlikely that these differences constitute significant contributions

(either higher or lower) to the emissions inventory as a whole.

Activity levels are representative of movements and fuel use on the PCT site, with the exception of marine

vessels and rail locomotives associated with supply chain activity. All marine movements related to PCT

operations between the Strait of Georgia and the two PCT berths and all rail locomotive travel between the

switch yard east of PCT and the PCT gate are provided as emissions from supply chain activity.

3.1 OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT

Off-road equipment includes:

Heavy-duty off-road, diesel-powered equipment includes equipment that will be used for

construction of the potash storage and handling system;

Diesel powered front end loader (FEL) used for sulphur movement;

Natural gas powered stationary sources providing building heat;

Electric powered equipment (e.g., conveyors, stakerakes) and utilities (indirect emissions from the

generation of electricity);

Marine vessels; and

Rail locomotives.


3.1.1 Construction Equipment

Table 3.1 provides a list of off-road diesel equipment projected for the Construction emission scenario as

provided by the project design consultant.

Table 3.1 Projected Off-Road Equipment for Construction

Equipment Power

(hp) EPA Tier

Activity Time

(h/ project)

Equipment Power

(hp) EPA Tier

Activity Time

(h/ project)

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

Trucks 302 II 7680

CO

NC

RE

TE

W

OR

KS

Trucks 385 II 880

Grader 240 III 240 Concrete Pump

197 III 1200

30TN Crane 160 III 3840 Concrete Mixer

8 II 200

90 TN Crane 275 IV 800 Scabbler 5.5 II 170

FEL 211 IV 5400

MA

IN S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L

WO

RK

S

Trucks 385 II 1728

Light Plants 8 II 12000 30 TN Crane 160 III 2400

Air Compressor

15 II 8640 60 TN Crane 240 IV 1200

MA

IN E

LE

CT

RIC

AL W

OR

KS

Trucks 385 II 1848 Welding Machine

35.5 II 3200

Forklift 86 III 2772 Manlift 75 III 1600

Manlift 75 III 2880

MA

IN

ME

CH

AN

ICA

L

WO

RK

S

Trucks 385 II 1368

Scissor Lift 29 II 2880 120 TN Crane 330 IV 360

Trencher 45 II 480 Welding Machine

35.5 II 640

Backhoe 127 IV 240 Manlift 75 III 640

Generator 13 II 640

RA

IL

INS

TA

LL

AT

ION

Trucks 385 II 120

Welding Machine

20 II 720 FEL 211 IV 120

MA

IN C

IVIL

WO

RK

S Trucks 385 II 1680

Track Laying Machine

110 III 160

Cold Planer 225 III 40

ST

OR

AG

E

BU

ILD

ING

IN

ST

AL

LA

TIO

N Trucks 385 II 924

Asphalt Paver

142 III 120 30 TN Crane 160 III 1320

Backhoe 127 IV 6720 Welding Machine

35.5 II 440

Grader 240 III 1260 Manlift 75 III 1600

Dewatering Pumps

10 II 7560

ST

AC

KE

R/

RE

CL

AIM

ER

IN

ST

AL

LA

TIO

N

Trucks 385 II 600

PIL

ING

WO

RK

S Trucks 385 II 840

120 Ton Crane

330 IV 130

Generator 13 II 2520 90 TN Crane 275 IV 130

Pile Driver 179 IV 2112 Manlift 75 III 390

Downhole Vibrator

20 II 200 COMMISSION-

ING Trucks 385 II 1296

Welding Machine

20 II 840


3.1.2 On-site Material Handling Equipment and Stationary Source Activity

On-site off-road activity includes use of a diesel Front End Loader (FEL), natural gas fired furnaces and

boilers, and electrically powered equipment (stakerakes, conveyors, etc.) and utilities. Activity levels

associated with these emission sources are discussed further in the following sections, grouped by

fuel/power source. For a more detailed discussion and sample calculations refer to Appendix A.2.

Diesel

PCT will be using a single FEL (2013 260hp L110G Volvo Wheel Loader) at the site for the transfer of

sulphur to and from storage piles. An FEL activity time of 15 minutes per tonne of sulphur handled was

provided by PCT and is based on diesel fuel consumption records.

Natural Gas

Natural gas fired equipment includes furnaces and boilers which provide building heat. An annual usage

of 1006 GJ/y was derived from information provided by PCT based on fuel consumption records.

Electricity

Electrical equipment includes stakerakes, conveyors and annual electrical consumption is based on

information provided by PCT. Future emissions are scaled based on projected future commodity handling

activities.

3.1.3 Marine Vessels

PCT has two marine berths at which liquids are loaded onto tanker ships (Berth 1) and solids are loaded

onto bulk carriers (Berth 2). Air emissions associated with shipping are produced from commercial marine

vessel (CMV) engines and the tugboats that assist in vessel manoeuvring. When at berth or anchoring,

ships auxiliary engines and boilers operate to power ship equipment, including the operation of cranes used

for loading. When manoeuvring or in transit, the ships main engines also operate for propulsion.

Annual ship calls, provided by PCT, are based on projected commodity throughput for the baseline (2015)

and future (2020) years.


Table 3.2 Annual Activity for Marine Vessels, 2015 and 2020

Commodity Ship Berth

#

Annual Throughput (million tonnes)

Annual Ship Calls

2015 2020 No

Build 2020 Build

2015 2020 No

Build 2020 Build

Potash Panamax 70,000 DWT

2 0 0 2.2 0.0 0.0 44.0

Coal Panamax 70,000 DWT

2 0.3 0 0 5.0 0.0 0.0

Sulphur Panamax 70,000 DWT

2 1.5 1.06 1.06 48.0 34.0 34.0

Canola Handimax 40,000 DWT

1 0.425 0.575 0.575 10.63 14.38 14.38

Glycol Tanker 34,000 DWT

1 0.7 0.825 0.825 49.0 49.0 49.0

All Tug both na na na 112.63a 97.38a 141.38a

Notes: (a) This is number of ship calls per year for which tugs are required, not the number of tugs

Activity times for ships at berth were based on berth occupancy data provided by PCT for 2013 and adjusted

linearly according to throughput/ship changes for the relevant horizon years. Activity times for ships and

tugs manoeuvring and for ships in transit are based on the distances travelled and speeds, which were

estimated from information provided by PMV. Marine vessel activity is summarized in Table 3.2 and

described in more detail in Appendix A.3 and Appendix B. As indicated in Table 3.2, there is no expected

change in vessel capacity between 2015 and 2020, which is not controlled by PCT, but is controlled by the

shipping companies.

Table 3.3 Annual Activity for Marine Vessels, 2015 and 2020

Commodity

Activity Times (hr/ship call)

Ship Berth Maneuvering At Berth In Transit Anchoring

#

2015 2020 No

Build

2020 Build

2015 2020 No

Build

2020 Build

2015 2020

No Build

2020 Build

2015 2020

No Build

2020 Build

Potash Panamax 70,000 DWT

2 0 0 4 0 0 38 0 0 1 0 0 40

Coal Panamax 70,000 DWT

2 4 0 0 42 0 0 1 0 0 40 0 0

Sulphur Panamax 70,000 DWT

2 4 4 4 42 38 38 1 1 1 40 40 40

Canola Handimax 40,000 DWT

1 4 4 4 77 81 81 1 1 1 32 32 32

Glycol Tanker 34,000 DWT

1 4 4 4 77 81 81 1 1 1 32 32 32

All Tug both 7.5a 7.5a 7.5a na na Na na na na na na na

Notes: (a) This is the total hours of maneuvering activity for all tugs per ship call. (For every ship call, 3 tugs spend 1.5 hours maneuvering in and 2 tugs spend 1.5 hours maneuvering out)


3.1.4 Rail Transport

Unlike other port operations that have rail loops and/or large rail yards, PCT does not own any locomotives

or railcar pushers. This kind of equipment was eliminated from PCT in 1989 when the company modernized

its operation and installed electric power railcar positioners or “Indexers” for all on-site operations. An

Indexer, as it is called, is a cable operated trolley with an arm that engages railcars one by one between

each railcar. Mounted on the arm is a “yoke” that fits over the knuckles or drawbars of the railcars. When

engaged, this arm and trolley allows railcars to be controlled by cable winch and permits railcars to be

positioned very precisely in a manner that allows cars to be unloaded without the aid of locomotives.

Locomotive engine activity associated with the PCT operations relates to transporting rail cars to and from

the site and breaking apart and positioning individual rail cars. Locomotives do not sit at the site and idle

while commodities are unloaded from the railcars. Once the locomotives drop off the railcars by spotting

them in unloading tracks, they leave the PCT site, returning to the CP rail switching yard to perform other

duties.

Railcar movements associated with sulphur, coal, potash and canola operation are performed entirely by

road engines (also referred to as line-hauls) while the liquid glycol operations are performed almost entirely

by ‘switching’ locomotives operated by CP Rail. Switch locomotives tend to be relatively small and more

manoeuvrable than the larger locomotives that serve to pull/push large train sets (unit trains) over long

distances. They also tend to be older engines that were built prior to the establishment of engine emission

standards for locomotives (referred to as Tier 0 or Tier 1 engines). On rare occasions, larger line-haul

locomotives may bring a glycol unit train to PCT before indexers are used to position the cars. However,

the switch locomotives are typically used to bring the glycol cars from the CP switching yard to PCT. The

line-haul engines are used with the sulphur, coal, potash and canola unit trains due to their greater length

and additional power requirements when compared to the shorter glycol unit trains.

Before railcars are unloaded, they are positioned in the unloading area by the railway. Once there, cars

are secured in position and unloaded. After the liquid contents of the railcars are pumped to storage tanks,

empty railcars are replaced with loaded ones by the railway and the process is repeated. Empty railcars

are removed from the site and returned back to the CP Rail switching yard in preparation for their return

trip to various plants of origin in Alberta.

Bringing railcars to/from PCT and spotting them in position takes the railway approximately 1 – 3 hours

each day depending on the movement. For example, when CP Rail brings a sulphur unit train to PCT (a

unit train consists of approximately 113 railcars), the railway will bring cars alongside the terminal in a

storage track. After the unit train is brought to the terminal, smaller switching engines are deployed to break

the unit train into 3 shorter lengths and place railcars in a location where PCT’s Indexer can engage the

railcars. Once a sulphur unit train is “spotted” in the unloading tracks, switching locomotives will gather up


any empty railcars that may have been unloaded on the previous shift. Empty railcars will be connected

into a unit train length and then hauled back to the CP Rail switching yard (by switch locomotives) where

they are then prepared for their trip back to Alberta.

Each line-haul locomotive can spend an average of 20 minutes on-site (idling) to deliver or retrieve railcars

whereas each switch locomotive can spend 40 minutes on-site (idling) for the delivery/retrieval of glycol

railcars. Switch yard locomotive activity can take up to 120 minutes to break apart each unit train, place

railcars on the unloading tracks and reassemble the empty unit train for removal from PCT grounds. On a

day when railcar movements are well coordinated, time at the terminal can be as short as 1 hour for an

entire sulphur, coal, potash, canola or glycol unit train delivery cycle. When movements are more complex,

locomotives can be working at the terminal for 3 hours.

For the purposes of estimating locomotive activity for the emissions inventory, the following “rules of thumb”

were applied, which represent an average amount of time for each activity (as determined by discussions

between PCT and CP Rail):

Delivering or Retrieving a Sulphur/Coal/Potash/Canola Unit Train: 20 minutes – Line-Haul Engines;

Delivering or Retrieving a Glycol Unit Train: 80 minutes – Switcher Engines;

Spotting a Unit Train and Reassembling Unit Train: 120 minutes – Yard Switchers.

Table 3.4 provides a listing of projected annual rail movements and associated locomotive use following

the methodology outlined above.

In general, potash will arrive on site in covered bottom unloading railcars and will be brought into the new

railcar unloading building one car at a time. Within the enclosed building, potash will be released from the

bottom of each railcar onto an underground conveyor. A covered and/or fully enclosed conveyor will

continue through a series of transfer towers before entering the new Potash Storage Building. Inside the

building, two electrically powered stakerakes will handle three grades of Potash which are eventually loaded

into the bulk carriers via a conveyor. Dust collection systems will be located at transfer points to capture

dust originating from this process.


Table 3.4 Projected Annual Rail Activity at PCT in 2015 and 2020

Activity Sulphur Coal Potash Glycol Canola

Horizon Year 2015

Baseline 2020

No Build 2020 Build

2015 Baseline

2020 No Build

2020 Build

2015 Baseline

2020 No Build

2020 Build

2015 Baseline

2020 No Build

2020Build

2015 Baseline

2020 No Build

2020Build

Throughput (million metric tonnes)

1.5 1.06 1.06 0.3 0 0 0 0 2.2 0.7 0.825 0.825 0.425 0.575 0.575

Number of Railcars Unloaded

14,563 10,291 10,291 2,362 0 0 0 0 19,047 8,046 9,483 9,483 4,474 6,053 6,053

Number of Railcars per Unit Train

113 126 177 0 177 38 38

Number of Delivery Trains

129 91 91 19 0 0 0 0 108 213 251 251 118 160 160

Delivery Engine Type

Line-Haul Line-Haul Line-Haul Switcher Line-Haul

Per Delivery

# Locomotives 2 5 5 0 5 2 1

# Switchyard activity locomotives

1 1 1 0 1 2 1

On-Site Idling (minutes)

80 200 200 0 200 320 40

On-Site Travel (4-way, minutes)

16 39 39 0 39 16 8

Off-Site Travel (4-way, minutes)

128 321 321 0 321 128 64

Switchyard activity (minutes)

120 120 120 0 120 240 120

Per Year

On-Site Idling (hours)

172 121 121 62 0 0 0 0 395 1134 1337 1337 79 107 107

On-Site Travel (4-way, hours)

34 24 24 12 0 0 0 0 77 55 65 65 15 21 21

Off-Site Travel (4-way, hr)

276 195 195 100 0 0 0 0 633 455 536 536 127 171 171

Switchyard Activity (hours)

258 182 182 37 0 0 0 0 237 851 1003 1003 237 320 320

Note: “# locomotives” refers to the number of either line-hauls or switchers per commodity unit train. “# switchyard activity locomotives” refers to the number of switcher locomotives that are used to break apart and/or reassemble unit trains.


3.2 ON-ROAD VEHICLES

3.2.1 Commercial Trucking

Historically, some sulphur was shipped to the PCT site via heavy-duty (diesel) trucks. Currently, the only

heavy-duty (diesel) truck activity is a small number of trucks that remove ‘off-spec’ sulphur and soil from

the site. These trucks tend to be the Super Train or Dump type, with an average payload capacity of

42 tonnes. Each truck trip necessitates use of the Front-end Loaders (FELs) to load the truck. FEL activity

is discussed in the next section.

Trucking activity estimates are based on recorded truck visits per year. The following assumptions were

applied to estimate trucking activity:

Trucks do not idle on-site;

Trucks travel at a maximum speed of 30 kph on-site;

Route distance is 1.76 km, and;

A total of 203 truck visits per year.

Since the annual throughput amounts for the off-spec transport are unknown, future trucking levels cannot

be projected with any degree of certainty. Therefore, future trucking activity was assumed to be identical

to 2015.

3.2.2 Light-duty Vehicles

Light-duty vehicle use includes the operation of several trucks used for PCT business (mainly ½ ton trucks)

and private vehicle trips for both employees and visitors to the facility. Vehicle activity while on PCT grounds

is captured within this category.

Activity due to private vehicle use is based on an average gate count of 1000 vehicles per week. Although

this total includes heavy-duty trucking (and PCT truck trips), it was assumed for the purposes of the

inventory that 1000 private vehicles arrive and depart each week, for 52 weeks of the year. Therefore, the

activity and related emissions for private vehicle use may be over-estimated. This was not considered a

problematic issue, since emissions from this source group are relatively low compared to other source

groups.


4.0 EMISSION RATES

Activity-based emission factors relate to engine energy output (kWh), engine hours of use or vehicle

distance travelled (km). Activity based emission factors were used to determine the majority of air

emissions released on or near PCT grounds and accounted for within the inventories. In each case,

application of the emission factors follows a best-practices approach considered appropriate by both

Canadian and U.S. regulatory agencies for port-related operations.

4.1 OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT

4.1.1 Construction, On-site Material Handling and Stationary Source Equipment

Diesel

Emission factors for off-road diesel engine sources vary significantly depending on the size and age of the

diesel engine. The U.S. EPA’s NONROAD model methodology (EPA 2010) was used to determine

emission rates applicable to the FEL and construction equipment. Emission factors relate to a typical duty

cycle, which incorporates time spent idling as well as time spent loading and moving. For more details on

how emission factors were calculated, see Appendix A.1 and A.2.

Natural Gas

Emission factors for natural gas use were obtained from the U.S. EPA ‘AP-42’ compilation of emission

factors for commercial and industrial operations5. Specifically, the natural gas emission factors correspond

to uncontrolled small boiler use. Ammonia emission rates for natural gas use are insignificant and were

assumed to be zero for the purposes of the PCT emission inventories. 2005 natural gas usage, provided

by PCT, is assumed to be representative of 2015 and 2020 given that natural gas is used only for building

heat.

Electricity

Emission factors for the consumption of electricity at the PCT site were based on projected supply mix data

from the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines and emission factors from the U.S. EPA AP-42

database. B.C. has a relatively clean supply mix, consisting of over 80% hydroelectric power.

5 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/


4.1.2 Marine Vessels

Activity-based emission factors for CMV and tugboat engines are shown in Table 4.1. These emission

factors are derived from the most recent version of the Marine Emissions Inventory Tool (MEIT) developed

by Transport Canada and Environment Canada. CMV emission factors are listed for both main engines

and auxiliary engines and are representative of both the bulk carriers that transport sulphur, coal and

potash, and the tankers that transport glycol and canola.

Table 4.1 Marine Vessel Emission Factors

Ship Type

Engine Type

Year units NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5

Bulk/ Tanker

ME 2015

g/kW-h

17.5 0.42 1.4 0.60 0.3 0.27

2020 16.6 0.42 1.4 0.60 0.3 0.27

AE 2015 13.5 0.42 1.1 0.40 0.3 0.27

2020 12.5 0.42 1.1 0.40 0.3 0.27

Boiler 2015 g/tonne

fuel 12.30 2.00 4.60 0.38 0.53 0.49

2020 12.30 2.00 4.60 0.38 0.53 0.49

Tugs ME 2015

g/kW-h 10 0.0063 1.5 0.27 0.25 0.23

2020 9.8 0.0063 1.5 0.27 0.25 0.23

Ship Type

Engine Type

Year units DPM Black

CarbonNH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

Bulk/ Tanker

ME 2015

g/kW-h

0.27 0.007 0.021 621 0.060 0.017

2020 0.27 0.007 0.021 621 0.060 0.017

AE 2015 0.27 0.007 0.001 670 0.060 0.017

2020 0.27 0.007 0.001 670 0.060 0.017

Boiler 2015 g/tonne

fuel 0.49 0.449 0.01 3188 0.29 0.08

2020 0.49 0.49 0.01 3188 0.29 0.08

Tugs ME 2015

g/kW-h 0.23 0.007 0.005 690 0.09 0.020

2020 0.23 0.007 0.005 690 0.09 0.020

The emission factors in Table 4.1 were combined with effective engine power settings and the activity levels

discussed in Section 3.0, to determine a set of emission rates in tonnes of pollutant per year according to

the following general calculation:

Emissions (tonnes/yr) = [EF (g/kW-hr) * Traffic Count (ships/yr) * Ship Engine Size (kW/ship) * Load Factor

* Activity time (hr) * 1 tonne/ 1000,000 g]

Details of the calculation methodology are discussed in Appendix A. Emissions are summarized in

Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.


Table 4.2 2015 Marine Vessel Emissions (tonnes/year)

Ship Type

Activity NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5

2015

Bulk

At Berth (Facility)

22.50 0.99 2.48 0.67 0.54 0.50

Manoeuvring (Supply Chain)

6.86 0.19 0.85 0.44 0.14 0.13

In Transit (Supply Chain)

3.86 0.10 0.33 0.13 0.07 0.06

Anchoring (Supply Chain)

20.80 0.92 2.30 0.62 0.50 0.46

Tanker

At Berth (Facility)

22.90 1.53 3.69 0.69 0.63 0.58


5.10 0.16 0.71 0.35 0.11 0.10


3.29 0.09 0.29 0.11 0.06 0.05


9.54 0.64 1.53 0.29 0.26 0.24

Tugs Manoeuvring

(Supply Chain) 21.30 0.51 1.70 0.73 0.36 0.33

Ship Type

Activity DPM Black

Carbon NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

2015

Bulk

At Berth (Facility)

0.50 0.097 1010 0.003 0.142 0.040


0.13 0.011 234 0.005 0.027 0.008


0.06 0.004 135 0.005 0.014 0.004


0.46 0.092 928 0.002 0.132 0.037

Tanker

At Berth (Facility)

0.58 0.254 832 0.004 0.221 0.062


0.10 0.015 157 0.004 0.023 0.006


0.05 0.004 114 0.004 0.013 0.004


0.24 0.105 346 0.002 0.092 0.026

Tugs Manoeuvring

(Supply Chain) 0.33 0.009 755 0.026 0.073 0.021


Table 4.3 2020 No Build Marine Vessel Emissions (tonnes/year)

Ship Type


2020 No

Build

Bulk

At Berth (Facility)

12.0 0.57 1.42 0.38 0.31 0.28


4.2 0.12 0.55 0.28 0.09 0.08


2.4 0.06 0.21 0.08 0.04 0.04


12.4 0.59 1.48 0.40 0.32 0.30

Tanker

At Berth (Facility)

24.2 1.71 4.13 0.77 0.71 0.65


5.2 0.17 0.76 0.37 0.12 0.11


3.4 0.10 0.31 0.12 0.06 0.06


9.6 0.68 1.63 0.30 0.28 0.26

Tugs Manoeuvring

(Supply Chain) 17.5 0.44 1.47 0.63 0.31 0.29

Ship Type

Activity DPM Black


2020 No

Build

Bulk

At Berth (Facility)

0.284 0.056 577 0.001 0.081 0.023


0.084 0.007 150 0.003 0.017 0.005


0.040 0.002 87 0.003 0.009 0.003


0.295 0.059 595 0.002 0.085 0.024

Tanker

At Berth (Facility)

0.653 0.284 931 0.005 0.247 0.069


0.106 0.016 168 0.004 0.024 0.007


0.057 0.005 122 0.004 0.014 0.004


0.258 0.112 368 0.002 0.098 0.027

Tugs Manoeuvring

(Supply Chain) 0.287 0.007 653 0.022 0.063 0.018


Table 4.4 2020 Build Marine Vessel Emissions (tonnes/year)

Ship Type


2020 Build

Bulk

At Berth (Facility)

27.5 1.30 3.25 0.88 0.71 0.65


9.5 0.28 1.25 0.64 0.21 0.19


5.4 0.15 0.48 0.20 0.10 0.09


28.4 1.36 3.39 0.91 0.74 0.68

Tanker

At Berth (Facility)

24.2 1.71 4.13 0.77 0.71 0.65


5.2 0.17 0.76 0.37 0.12 0.11


3.4 0.10 0.31 0.12 0.06 0.06


9.6 0.68 1.63 0.30 0.28 0.26

Tugs Manoeuvring

(Supply Chain) 25.4 0.64 2.14 0.92 0.45 0.42

Ship Type

Activity DPM Black


2020 Build

Bulk

At Berth (Facility)

0.652 0.127 1320 0.003 0.186 0.053


0.192 0.017 345 0.007 0.040 0.011


0.091 0.005 199 0.007 0.021 0.006


0.677 0.136 1370 0.004 0.195 0.055

Tanker

At Berth (Facility)

0.653 0.284 931 0.005 0.247 0.069


0.106 0.016 168 0.004 0.024 0.007


0.057 0.005 122 0.004 0.014 0.004


0.258 0.112 368 0.002 0.098 0.027

Tugs Manoeuvring

(Supply Chain) 0.417 0.011 948 0.032 0.092 0.026

Auxiliary engines are much smaller in size than main engines and therefore usually do not contribute a

large proportion of the total exhaust emissions a ship releases while manoeuvring and in transit. However,

at least one auxiliary engine is used at all times while ships are at berth and anchoring. Since berthed and

anchoring times are much longer than the amount of time required to travel to/from the Strait of Georgia,

total auxiliary engine emissions constitute a dominant portion of the annual emissions attributable to CMVs.

4.1.3 Rail Transport

Emission rates for four of the CACs assessed, namely CO, NOx, VOCs, and PM, were derived from the

U.S. EPA locomotive emission standards for line-haul and switcher locomotives as published in the


Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2010 (RAC 2011). The emission rates for SO2 and GHGs (CH4

and N2O) were similarly derived from an EF provided by RAC (RAC 2011). The emission rate for ammonia

was assumed to be 0.005 g/L, identical to the rate used for the Deltaport Third Berth Project (SENES

2007b). CAC and GHG emission rates are detailed below.

Table 4.5 summarises the emission standards for the various tiers of line-haul and switcher locomotives as

adopted by the U.S. EPA (RAC 2011). It has been assumed that locomotive engines purchased for

Canadian railroads would be manufactured to the same emission standards because all locomotive engines

used in Canada are now manufactured in the United States.

Table 4.5 U.S. EPA Locomotive Emission Standards

Tier Year of

Manufacture Date

Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr)

CO NOx VOCs PM

Line-Haul Locomotives

0 1973-1992 2010 5.0 8.0 1.00 0.22

1 1993-2004 2010 2.2 7.4 0.55 0.22

2 2005-2011 2013 1.5 5.5 0.30 0.10

3 2012-2014 2012 1.5 5.5 0.30 0.10

4 2015 or later 2015 1.5 1.3 0.14 0.03

Switch Locomotives

0 1973-2001 2010 8.0 11.8 2.10 0.26

1 2002-2004 2010 2.5 11.0 1.20 0.26

2 2005-2010 2013 2.4 8.1 0.60 0.13

3 2011-2014 2011 2.4 5.0 0.60 0.10

4 2015 or later 2015 2.4 1.3 0.14 0.03

Note: g/bhp-hr = grams per brake horsepower hour

Emission rates for all CACs of concern on a per locomotive basis are summarised in Table 4.6. Emission

rates were calculated for each locomotive type and each engine setting based on the above emission

standards and the appropriate locomotive total effective power (see Appendix A.4 for details). If multiple

tiers of locomotives are expected to be in use, the above emission standards were blended based on the

fleet tier mixture. As per the U.S. EPA recommendations for estimating emissions from compression

ignition engines (U.S. EPA 2008), the relative PM2.5 emissions are estimated to be 97% of PM emissions

while PM10 emissions are assumed to be equal to PM emissions.

SO2 emissions are not dependent upon the locomotive tier rating, but rather the sulphur content in the fuel.

The Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations limited fuel sulphur content to 15 ppm in 2012 for the production or

import of fuel for use in locomotives. Although the sulphur limit for the sales of diesel fuel for use in


locomotives is 500 ppm until 2012, the limit in 2015 is 15 ppm. Most of the SO2 emissions from PCT were

determined to come from ships and the additional contribution from the locomotives would be marginal. As

a result, the sulphur content was assumed to be 15 ppm for 2015 and 2020. Emission rates were calculated

for each locomotive type and each engine setting based on these EFs and the appropriate locomotive total

effective fuel consumption shown in Table A.4.1 and Table A.4.2 in Appendix A.4.

Table 4.6 Locomotive CAC Emission Rates

Engine Setting Horizon

Year

Emission Rate (kg/hr)

CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3

Line-Haul

Idle 2015 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.03

2020 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.003 0.003 neg. 0.01

Work On-Site/Off-Site

2015 2.00 5.19 0.44 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.16

2020 1.36 4.73 0.31 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.16

Switch

Idle 2015 0.24 0.36 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.001 neg.

2020 0.08 0.33 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.001 neg.


2015 6.38 9.42 1.68 0.21 0.20 0.004 0.001

2020 2.00 8.78 0.96 0.21 0.20 0.004 0.001

Duty Cycle 2015 1.25 1.84 0.33 0.04 0.04 0.001 neg.

2020 0.39 1.72 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.001 neg.


Locomotive EFs are published in the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2010 (RAC 2011) for total

freight and total yard switching diesel locomotives however, as noted above, the RAC duty cycle and

therefore, the RAC EFs were not considered to be representative of the type of activity that the line-haul

locomotives would experience in the short distances of track between PCT and the CP rail switch yard.

Although the RAC duty cycle was assumed for switch yard locomotives on-site, the U.S. EPA emission

standards were used to calculate switcher locomotive emission estimates over the RAC EFs to remain

consistent with the methodology applied for line-haul locomotives.

Another advantage of using the U.S. EPA emission standards in place of the RAC EFs is the ability to tailor

the emission rates to the specific fleet of locomotives (i.e., tier mixture and power rating) operating at PCT.

RAC provides EFs up to 2010, but does not provide predictions of reduced EFs for future horizon years

which will result from locomotive fleet turnover, reduced fuel consumption and reduced sulphur in diesel

fuel.

Table 4.7 summarises the Rail Association of Canada’s EFs (RAC 2011) applicable to all tiers of both line-

haul and switcher locomotives.


Table 4.7 Rail Association of Canada EFs

EF (kg/L)

CO2 CH4 N2O

2.66 0.00015 0.0011

Emission rates for all GHGs, are summarised in Table 4.8 below.

Table 4.8 Locomotive GHG Emission Rates

Engine Setting

Horizon Year GHG Emission Rate (kg/hr)

CO2 CH4 N2O

Line Haul

Idle 2015 67.94 0.004 0.03 2020 30.24 0.002 0.01


2015 & 2020 382.90 0.02 0.16

Switch

Idle 2015 & 2020 67.94 0.004 0.03


2015 & 2020 382.90 0.02 0.16

Duty Cycle 2015 & 2020 124.07 0.01 0.05

4.1.4 Climate Forcing PM (Black Carbon)

Emission rates for climate forcing PM are summarised in Table 4.9. As described above, DPM emissions

were assumed to equal PM2.5 emissions listed in Table 4.6, and black carbon is a component of DPM.

Table 4.9 Locomotive Climate Forcing PM Emission Rates

Engine Setting Horizon Year Emission Rate (kg/hr)

Black Carbon

Line-Haul

Idle 2015 0.003 2020 0.002

Work On-Site/Off-Site 2015 0.11

2020 0.09 Switch

Idle 2015 & 2020 0.01 Work On-Site/Off-Site 2015 & 2020 0.17

Duty Cycle 2015 & 2020 0.03

Details of the calculation methodology are discussed in Appendix A. Annual emissions for the baseline,

future no build and future build operating scenarios are summarized in Table 4.10, Table 4.11 and

Table 4.12, respectively.


Table 4.10 2015 Baseline Rail Emissions (tonnes/year)

Locomotive

Type Activity NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5

2015

Line-Haul

Idle 0.04 0.0002 0.01 0.003 0.001 0.001

Work On-Site 0.32 0.0002 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.01

Work Off-Site 2.61 0.002 1.00 0.22 0.07 0.07

Switch

Idle 0.41 0.001 0.28 0.07 0.01 0.01

Work On-Site 0.52 0.0002 0.35 0.09 0.01 0.01

Work Off-Site 4.29 0.002 2.91 0.76 0.09 0.09

Duty Cycle 2.55 0.002 1.73 0.45 0.06 0.05

Locomotive

Type Activity DPM

Black Carbon

NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

2015

Line-Haul

Idle 0.001 0.001 0.01 21.28 0.001 0.01

Work On-Site 0.01 0.01 0.01 23.38 0.001 0.01

Work Off-Site 0.07 0.06 0.08 192.46 0.01 0.08

Switch

Idle 0.01 0.01 0.0001 77.08 0.004 0.03

Work On-Site 0.01 0.01 0.00004 21.18 0.001 0.01

Work Off-Site 0.09 0.08 0.0003 174.29 0.01 0.07

Duty Cycle 0.05 0.05 0.0003 171.54 0.01 0.07

Table 4.11 2020 Future No Build Rail Emissions (tonnes/year)

Locomotive


2020 No

Build

Line-Haul

Idle 0.02 0.0001 0.01 0.002 0.001 0.001

Work On-Site 0.21 0.0002 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01

Work Off-Site 1.73 0.001 0.50 0.11 0.04 0.04

Switch

Idle 0.45 0.001 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.01

Work On-Site 0.57 0.0002 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.01

Work Off-Site 4.71 0.002 1.07 0.51 0.11 0.11

Duty Cycle 2.58 0.002 0.59 0.28 0.06 0.06

Locomotive

Type Activity DPM

Black Carbon

NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

2020 No

Build

Line-Haul

Idle 0.001 0.0005 0.003 6.90 0.0004 0.003

Work On-Site 0.01 0.004 0.01 17.03 0.001 0.01

Work Off-Site 0.04 0.03 0.06 140.18 0.01 0.06

Switch

Idle 0.01 0.01 0.0002 90.84 0.01 0.04

Work On-Site 0.01 0.01 0.00005 24.96 0.001 0.01

Work Off-Site 0.11 0.09 0.0004 205.41 0.01 0.08

Duty Cycle 0.06 0.05 0.0004 186.71 0.01 0.08


Table 4.12 2020 Future Build Rail Emissions (tonnes/year)

Locomotive


2020 Build

Line-Haul

Idle 0.07 0.0002 0.02 0.004 0.002 0.002

Work On-Site 0.57 0.0004 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.01

Work Off-Site 4.72 0.004 1.36 0.31 0.12 0.11

Switch

Idle 0.45 0.001 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.01

Work On-Site 0.57 0.0002 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.01

Work Off-Site 4.71 0.002 1.07 0.51 0.11 0.11

Duty Cycle 2.99 0.002 0.68 0.33 0.07 0.07

Locomotive

Type Activity DPM

Black Carbon

NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

2020 Build

Line-Haul

Idle 0.002 0.001 0.01 18.83 0.001 0.01

Work On-Site 0.01 0.01 0.02 46.49 0.003 0.02

Work Off-Site 0.11 0.09 0.16 382.66 0.02 0.16

Switch

Idle 0.01 0.01 0.0002 90.84 0.01 0.04

Work On-Site 0.01 0.01 0.00005 24.96 0.001 0.01

Work Off-Site 0.11 0.09 0.0004 205.41 0.01 0.08

Duty Cycle 0.07 0.06 0.0004 216.09 0.01 0.09

4.2 ON-ROAD VEHICLES

4.2.1 Commercial Trucking

The Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model was used to develop on-road vehicle emission

rates for the years 2015 and 2020. The model estimates emissions for mobile sources covering a broad

range of pollutants. The results of the model produced activity-based emission rates on an annual basis

for heavy-duty diesel trucks that are specified in grams of pollutant per kilometre of travel. These annual

emission rates were estimated based on the maximum vehicle travel speed at PCT of 30 kph and are

presented in Table 4.13. The annual emission rates are representative of all heavy-duty diesel truck

engines, regardless of manufacturer, age or variation in engine size.

Table 4.13 Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Rates in 2015 and 2020

Horizon Year

Emission Rate (g/km)

CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 DPM

2015 1.73 5.77 0.41 0.53 0.30 0.22

2020 0.83 2.77 0.16 0.39 0.16 0.08

Black

Carbon SOx CO2 CH4 N2O NH3

2015 0.118 0.013 1,900 0.098 0.005 0.055

2020 0.033 0.013 1,900 0.100 0.005 0.055

Notes: Values are for Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV) travelling

at the site speed limit of 30 km/hr


Table 4.14 provides the annual estimated trucking emissions for operations at PCT.

Table 4.14 Annual Trucking Emissions at PCT in 2015 and 2020

Horizon Year

Annual Emissions (tonnes)


2015 0.00062 0.00206 0.00015 0.00019 0.00011 0.00008

2020 0.00030 0.00099 0.00006 0.00014 0.00006 0.00003

Black


2015 0.000042 0.000005 0.68 0.000035 0.000002 0.000020

2020 0.000012 0.000005 0.68 0.000036 0.000002 0.000020

4.2.2 Light Duty Vehicles

Light duty vehicle emissions at PCT result from the use of ½ ton and ¾ ton trucks for PCT operations and

from private vehicle use for employees and visitors to the facility. The average age of the private vehicles

visiting PCT is unknown but would be assumed to be similar to the age distribution in the overall fleet of

light duty vehicles in the Lower Fraser Valley, whereas the PCT trucks are on short-term lease and are

always relatively new (less than or equal to 2 years of age).

Table 4.15 provides a set of current and future activity based vehicle emission rates (g/km) developed to

represent light duty trucking. The emission rates were also determined by use of the U.S. EPA MOVES

model, using GVRD specific vehicle and fuel characteristics.

Table 4.15 Light Duty Vehicle Emission Rates in 2015 and 2020

Horizon Year

Emission Rate (g/km)


2015 2.78 0.24 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01

2020 2.15 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01

Black


2015 0.001 0.01 400.18 0.005 0.01 0.05

2020 0.001 0.01 360.94 0.004 0.004 0.04

Notes: Values are for Light Duty Vehicles (LDV) travelling at the site speed limit of 30 km/hr.

The annual estimated emissions for light duty vehicle activity on PCT grounds are listed in Table 4.16.


Table 4.16 Annual Estimated Light Duty Vehicle Emissions at PCT, 2001 - 2010

Horizon Year

Annual Emissions (tonnes)


2015 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.001

2020 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.001

Black


2015 0.0002 0.001 62.43 0.001 0.001 0.01

2020 0.0002 0.001 56.31 0.001 0.001 0.01

Notes: Values are for Light Duty Vehicles (LDV) travelling at the site

speed limit of 30 km/hr with estimated 52,000 trips/yr

Emissions due to light vehicle use at PCT are projected to significantly decrease due to advances in vehicle

emission technologies.

4.3 FUGITIVE DUST

Fugitive dust emissions from PCT operations are largely caused by sulphur, coal and potash handling

operations. Additionally, dust emissions can result from the action of wind on exposed sulphur storage and

handling areas. A prediction of fugitive dust emissions due to sulphur handling is achieved by consideration

of the volume of sulphur handled at PCT (throughput) and the mechanism with which the handling is

performed. Stockpile wind erosion estimates are achieved by consideration of local wind speeds and

sulphur constituency (particle size).

A ‘wind rose’ diagram for the Port Moody (T9) meteorological station operated by the GVRD was provided

in Figure 2.5. The diagram presents the distribution of wind direction (from which the wind blows) and wind

speed at a location on an annual basis. In addition, a summary distribution of wind speeds is provided in

Table 4.17.

Table 4.17 Statistical Distribution of Winds Speeds at Port Moody, 2008 - 2012

Percentile

(%)

Wind Speed

(km/hr)

Wind Speed

(m/s)

100 37.0 10.3

99.99 32.0 8.9

99.9 25.9 7.2

99 19.0 5.3

98 17.0 4.7

95 13.2 3.7

50 4.4 1.2


The Port Moody station is located near the PCT site and provides a good estimation of the winds

experienced at and near the sulphur stockpiles. Figure 2.5 shows that wind speeds tend to be low in the

area, due to the sheltering effect of Burnaby Mountain. Although the maximum wind speed experienced at

the station between 2008 and 2012 was 37 km/h, the 99th percentile speed was just 19 km/h, meaning that

speeds above 19 km/h are experienced less than 1% of the time on average.

PCT commissioned a study of fugitive sulphur dust emissions and potential dust mitigation through

application of a chemical binder in 2006, which is included in Appendix C. Although most of the sulphur

stored on site at PCT is coarse and not easily liberated from a storage area by the action of wind, fine

sulphur dust can be produced during normal sulphur handling operations. The effect of applying IPAC

Dustbind to collected samples of fine sulphur road dust was studied. Tests performed in a wind tunnel

showed that dry, untreated fine sulphur dust becomes airborne at 20 km/h and is completely airborne at

50 km/h. With use of Dustbind, the initial escape velocity increases to over 30 km/h. Figure 2.5 shows that

winds are above 30 km/h less than 0.1% of the time.

The study also displayed the positive residual effect of Dustbind application, showing that its mitigative

properties remain after sulphur dries completely. Since PCT now uses Dustbind for its dust mitigation

program and the historical wind speeds in the area are low, fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion

were determined to be negligible.

Dust emissions due to sulphur handling are very difficult to estimate in a realistic manner. Crude emission

factors are available that relate dust emissions to type of industrial activity and material throughput.

However, these factors do not properly account for differences in silt content or other material

characteristics. The GVRD has specified a generalized methodology for estimating fugitive dust emissions

for bulk commodity facilities in the Lower Fraser Valley. Although this methodology greatly over-estimates

the actual fugitive sulphur dust emissions from PCT, application of the methodology to current and future

operations allows a relative comparison to be made for baseline and future fugitive dust emissions. Formed

elemental sulphur such as that handled at PCT has an average fines content of just 0.64%. The GVRD

methodology is applicable to silt contents up to 19%, meaning that the estimates will be more representative

of materials with much higher silt percentages than formed sulphur.

The emission factors specified in the GVRD methodology were used, in combination with ‘control factors’

that account for dust suppression through mitigative measures such as application of water sprays or

chemical binders. The following control efficiencies were used to develop annual fugitive (sulphur) dust

emission estimates:

A 99.5% control factor was used for unloading rail cars to account for the enclosed rotary dumper

house used at PCT, with baghouse to remove suspended particulate matter (see also

Appendix A.5);


A combined control factor of 87.5% to represent all subsequent sulphur transport, due to watering

(50% control) and chemical wet suppression (75% control).

Table 4.18 provides the annual fugitive dust estimates for PCT.

Table 4.18 Annual Estimated Fugitive Dust Estimates at PCT, 2015 and 2020*

Horizon Year

Emissions Source Sulphur

Throughput (tonnes)

Coal Throughput (tonnes)

Emission Factor1

(kg/tonne)

Control Efficiency2 (%)

Sulphur Fugitive Dust3 (tonnes)

Coal Fugitive Dust3 (tonnes)

PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5

2015

Unloading from railcar

1,500,000 300,000 0.15 99.5% 99.0% 0.675 0.900 0.135 0.180

Conveying 1,500,000 300,000 0.1 87.5% 87.5% 11.250 7.500 2.250 1.500

Stacking to pile 1,500,000 300,000 0.045 87.5% 87.5% 5.063 3.375 1.013 0.675

Reclaiming to pile 1,500,000 300,000 0.045 87.5% 87.5% 5.063 3.375 1.013 0.675

Loading to ship 1,500,000 300,000 0.15 87.5% 87.5% 16.875 11.250 3.375 2.250

2020

Unloading from railcar

1,060,000 - 0.15 99.5% 99.0% 0.477 0.636 - -

Conveying 1,060,000 - 0.1 87.5% 87.5% 7.950 5.300 - -

Stacking to pile 1,060,000 - 0.045 87.5% 87.5% 3.578 2.385 - -

Reclaiming to pile 1,060,000 - 0.045 87.5% 87.5% 3.578 2.385 - -

Loading to ship 1,060,000 - 0.15 87.5% 87.5% 11.925 7.950 - -

Note: PM10 is assumed to be 60% of total particulate matter and PM2.5 is assumed to be 40% of total particulate matter.

Table 4.19 provides the annual dust collector emissions associated with the future on-site potash handling

activities.

Table 2.5 indicates that maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations measured at Station T9 did not exceed the

Metro Vancouver ambient air quality objective of 50 µg/m3 from 2008-2012. In addition, there is no

increasing trend to the ambient data, nor to the estimated fugitive dust emissions listed in Table 4.19. As

such, it is unlikely that the fugitive dust emissions from PCT sulphur and coal handling and future potash

handling is the primary determinant of ambient PM10 levels at Station T9.


Table 4.19 Dust Collector Emission Rate Estimates for Potash Activities at PCT, 2020

Description

Wind Speed

Moisture Content

Emission Factor (kg/Mg) Loading

Rate Control Efficiency Emission Rates (Mg/year)

(m/s) (%) PMTotal PM10 PM2.5 (Mg/year) PMTotal PM10 PM2.5 PMTotal PM10 PM2.5

Railcar Discharge Building

1.5 0.92 0.002 0.001 0.0002 2,200,000 99.5% 99.5% 99% 0.023 0.011 0.0034

Transfer Tower T-42 1.5 0.92 0.002 0.001 0.0002 2,200,000 99.5% 99.5% 99% 0.023 0.011 0.0034

Transfer Tower T-43 1.5 0.92 0.002 0.001 0.0002 2,200,000 99.5% 99.5% 99% 0.023 0.011 0.0034

T-44 & U-53 1.5 0.92 0.002 0.001 0.0002 2,200,000 99.5% 99.5% 99% 0.023 0.011 0.0034

T-45 & T-53 1.5 0.92 0.002 0.001 0.0002 2,200,000 99.5% 99.5% 99% 0.023 0.011 0.0034

Ship Loading 1.5 0.92 0.002 0.001 0.0002 2,200,000 99.5% 99.5% 99% 0.023 0.011 0.0034

Ship Loading 1.5 0.92 0.002 0.001 0.0002 2,200,000 99.5% 99.5% 99% 0.023 0.011 0.0034


5.0 EMISSION INVENTORIES

5.1 HISTORICAL EMISSIONS

Table 5.1 presents the results of an historic on-site emission inventory based on PCT operations from 2001

to 2005 (SENES, 2007a). Total emissions varied a considerable amount during the period from 2001 to

2005, with a general increasing trend over the five year period. Total estimated facility related emissions

were highest during 2004, which coincided with a maximum throughput of both glycol and sulphur volumes

(see Table 1.1). It is noted that emission estimation methodologies have changed since this previous

inventory was completed; however, there have been significant improvements in marine and locomotive

engine technologies, which results in lower predicted on-site emissions in 2015 and 2020 in comparison to

historic emission rates.

Table 5.1 Historical Annual Emissions at PCT from 2001 to 2005


Year CO NOx VOC

PM

(dust) PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O NH3

2001 16.0 116.8 6.0 166 6.8 6.3 58.2 5531 0.60 0.18 0.05

2002 17.1 123.2 6.4 175 7.2 6.6 60.4 5774 0.63 0.19 0.05

2003 16.8 121.2 6.4 188 7.0 6.4 57.9 5699 0.60 0.19 0.05

2004 19.8 150.1 7.7 218 8.8 8.0 74.1 6988 0.75 0.23 0.06

2005 19.4 144.8 7.4 197 8.5 7.8 71.8 6776 0.73 0.22 0.06

Additionally, in an effort to continually improve site operations, PCT has increased the use of electric

conveyor systems versus diesel off-road equipment (FELs). PCT will be using electric conveyors for the

transfer of potash to and from the storage piles, and electric stakerakes within the potash storage shed.

Other continuous improvement initiatives employed by PCT include installation of a new dust suppression

system on conveyor head chutes prior to the ship loading point and also the use of a chemical binder called

‘Dustbind’ that reduces fugitive emissions of fine sulphur dust (see Section 4.3).

5.2 BASELINE (2015) AND FUTURE (2020) EMISSIONS

The difference between the 2015 and 2020 emission inventories considers the incorporation of potash

handling to overall on-site air emissions. As outlined in Table 1.1, glycol and canola handling are also

projected to increase by 18% and 35% (respectively) from 2015 to 2020, with sulphur handling projected

to decrease by 29% and coal handling being discontinued over this time period.

The emission estimates used for 2015 and 2020 incorporated activity levels for marine vessels, rail

locomotives, on-road and off-road vehicles at PCT, and also consider changes in fuel quality and the normal


replacement of older equipment with newer equipment that meets new emission technology standards.

The estimated emissions in each time period were based on detailed consideration of activity levels for

each type of equipment associated with changes in commodity handling capacity.

Table 5.2 presents projected on-site emissions, while Table 5.3 presents projected off-site emissions

associated with the rail locomotive and ship supply chains and Table 5.4 presents indirect emission

associated with the consumption of electricity at the PCT site.


Table 5.2 Projected On-Site Pacific Coast Terminals Air Emissions in 2015 and 2020

Year Emission

Source

Contaminant (tonnes for assessment year)



2015 Baseline

Ships 6.19 45.63 1.36 2.53 1.18 1.08 1.08 0.35 1127.26 317.04 1842.60 0.36 0.10 1901.40 1885.52 0.01 Rail 2.49 3.83 0.65 0.003 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 222.85 62.68 314.45 0.02 0.13 350.78 353.76 0.02

Trucking 0.001 0.002 neg. neg. neg. neg. neg. neg. 0.13 0.04 0.68 neg. neg. 0.68 0.68 neg. Light Duty

Vehicle 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.003 0.001 neg. 0.66 0.19 62.43 0.001 0.001 62.73 62.71 0.01


0.04 0.10 0.01 neg. 0.003 0.001 0.001 neg. 1.41 0.40 84.00 0.002 0.003 85.07 85.04 neg.


2020 Future

No Build

Ships 5.54 36.22 1.15 2.28 1.02 0.94 0.94 0.34 1085.73 305.36 1508.10 0.33 0.09 1561.07 1546.76 0.01 Rail 0.89 3.84 0.41 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 235.65 66.28 326.44 0.02 0.13 364.16 367.25 0.01


Vehicle 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.007 0.003 0.001 neg. 0.53 0.15 56.31 0.001 0.001 56.51 56.50 0.01


0.04 0.10 0.01 neg. 0.003 0.001 neg. neg. 1.00 0.28 75.06 0.002 0.003 75.92 75.89 0


2020 Future Build

Ships 7.37 51.71 1.65 3.01 1.42 1.30 1.30 0.41 1315.58 370.01 2254.30 0.43 0.12 2324.25 2305.36 0.01 Rail 1.10 4.65 0.48 0.004 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 286.64 80.62 397.20 0.02 0.16 443.10 446.86 0.03


Vehicle 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.003 0.001 neg. 0.53 0.15 56.31 0.001 0.001 56.51 56.50 0.01


0.04 0.10 0.01 neg. 0.003 0.001 neg. neg. 1.00 0.28 75.00 0.002 0.003 75.86 75.83 neg.




Table 5.3 Expected Off-Site Supply Chain Air Emissions at Pacific Coast Terminals



CO NOx VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5 DPM Climate Forcing PM as CO2e GHG as CO2e NH3 BC CO2e20 CO2e100 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e20 CO2e100

2015 Baseline

Ships 7.71 70.70 2.66 2.60 1.50 1.38 1.38 0.24 769.11 216.31 2669.40 0.37 0.11 2729.77 2713.50 0.05

Rail 3.91 6.89 0.98 0.003 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 425.73 119.74 366.75 0.02 0.15 409.12 412.59 0.08

Total 11.62 77.59 3.64 2.61 1.66 1.54 1.54 0.37 1194.84 336.05 3036.15 0.39 0.26 3138.89 3126.09 0.13

2020 Future

No Build

Ships 6.40 54.51 2.19 2.16 1.22 1.13 1.13 0.21 667.82 187.82 2143.30 0.31 0.09 2193.34 2179.86 0.04

Rail 1.57 6.44 0.63 0.003 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 399.33 112.31 345.59 0.02 0.14 385.52 388.79 0.06

Total 7.96 60.95 2.82 2.16 1.38 1.28 1.28 0.33 1067.15 300.13 2488.89 0.33 0.23 2578.87 2568.65 0.10

2020 Future Build

Ships 9.95 86.88 3.46 3.36 1.95 1.80 1.80 0.30 962.89 270.81 3515.40 0.48 0.14 3593.33 3572.34 0.06

Rail 2.43 9.43 0.83 0.01 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.18 591.60 166.39 588.07 0.03 0.24 656.02 661.59 0.16

Total 12.37 96.31 4.28 3.37 2.18 2.02 2.02 0.49 1554.49 437.20 4103.47 0.52 0.38 4249.36 4233.92 0.22

Note: Rail supply chain extends from the PCT property line to a CP Rail switch yard east of the site Marine supply chain extends to the Strait of Georgia

Table 5.4 Expected Indirect Air Emissions from Electricity Usage at Pacific Coast Terminals

Year



NH3 BC CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e20 CO2e100

2015 Baseline

2.13 1.00 0.07 0.09 0.26 0.23 0.002 neg. 0.10 0.03 62.77 0.01 0.002 63.85 63.53 neg.

2020 Future

No Build 2.22 1.04 0.07 0.09 0.27 0.24 0.002 neg. 0.10 0.03 65.36 0.01 0.002 66.49 66.15 neg.

2020 Future Build

3.85 1.80 0.12 0.16 0.47 0.41 0.004 neg. 0.18 0.05 113.30 0.01 0.003 115.25 114.67 neg.



As outlined in Table 5.2, the largest source of on-site NOx emissions are ships at berth, which operate

auxiliary engines to power ship equipment, including cranes used for loading. The second largest source

of site emissions is locomotives, which travel approximately 800 m from the PCT gate to the unloading

area.

Figure 5.1 illustrates the on-site and total combined emissions by source group for NOx emissions in the

2020 Build scenario. The figure emphasizes that the majority of NOx emissions are generated by ship

activity with a minor influence from rail activity.

It should be noted that PCT has no direct control of marine vessels or rail operations other than the

scheduling frequency for commodity transportation. Due to PCT’s extremely low berth utilization, vessels

can generally berth on arrival (if within their laycan6). In cases where two vessels arrive simultaneously,

one vessel may have to wait 24-48 hours depending on the tides. PCT ensures that loading into vessels

is completed in an efficient and timely manner in order for the vessels to leave on the next appropriate tide.

Generally, PCT unloads trains upon arrival and may on occasion hold for 24 hours to put directly into a

vessel if the product matches up and following trains will not be delayed.

Figure 5.2 illustrates that the majority of PM2.5 emission are generated from the on-site sulphur and coal

material handling activities.

6 Laycan is short for Laydays and Cancelling and refers to the time when a ship must present herself to the charterer (e.., PCT). If the ship arrives before the laydays specifed, the charterer does not have to take control or start loading (depending on the type of charter) before the specified laydays. If the ship arrives after the Laydays, then the charterer ghas the right to cancel the contract.


Figure 5.1 Future 2020 Build Emissions by Source Group (NOx)

Future On-Site Future On-Site + Supply Chain

Figure 5.2 Future 2020 Build Emissions by Source Group (PM2.5)


Examination of Table 5.2 indicates that on-site contaminant emissions will increase between 10% to 30%

over the period from 2015 to 2020 (depending on the contaminant), which is based on an increase of

approximately 60% in commodity handling tonnage over the same time period. The difference between

the contaminant increase of 10% to 30% and the commodity handling increase of 60% is largely attributed

Ships

92%

Rail

8%

Trucking

0%

Light Duty Vehicle

0% Off‐Road0%

Ships

91%

Rail

9%

Trucking

0%

Light Duty Vehicle

0%Off‐Road

0%

Ships

6%

Rail

1%

Trucking

0%Light Duty Vehicle

0%Off‐Road

0%

Fugitive Dust

93%

Ships

14%

Rail

2%

Trucking

0%

Light Duty Vehicle

0%

Off‐Road0%

Fugitive Dust

84%


to a change from sulphur handling to potash handling, where the same type of ship will be used for both

commodities, however, approximately 50,000 tonnes of potash is expected to be shipped per vessel versus

approximately 31,000 tonnes of sulphur per vessel.

As outlined in Table 5.3 supply chain emissions are greater than site emissions; however, emissions are

dispersed along the supply chain corridor, whereas on-site emissions are concentrated to the PCT site. A

comparison of the increase in supply chain-related emissions in Table 5.3 indicates that over the period

from 2015 to 2020 emissions from ships are expected to increase by approximately 25% to 30% and

emissions from rail locomotives increased by approximately 55% to 65%. Again, comparing with the

expected commodity handling increase of 60% indicates that emissions per ship are expected to decrease

and emissions per rail locomotive are not expected to change significantly from 2015 to 2020.

5.3 POTASH PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Emissions from the construction of infrastructure to handle potash at the PCT are presented in Table 5.5.

As outlined in Section 3.0 construction emissions have been estimated based on off-road equipment

activity.

Table 5.5 Expected Total Air Emissions from Potash Construction Project

Contaminant (tonnes)

CO NOx VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5 DPM NH3

8.35 23.72 1.24 0.02 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.01

Climate Forcing PM (tonnes) GHGs (tonnes)

BC CO2e20 CO2e100 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e20 CO2e100

0.73 2341.59 658.57 3568.00 0.17 0.26 3652.65 3651.66

The construction project will predominantly involve excavation for the warehouse foundations and the

construction of the warehouse building. Emissions that are associated with the above construction activities

include typical combustion emissions from off-road equipment, with some fugitive dust emissions from site

traffic and excavation work. The water table is relatively close to the surface and fugitive dust emissions

from excavation activities are not expected to be significant due to a relatively high soil moisture content.

As with any construction site, emissions will be of relatively short duration and are unlikely to have any

long-lasting effect on the surrounding area. As well, fugitive dust impacts can be successfully mitigated

through the use of proper controls, such as:

periodic watering of unpaved (non-vegetated) areas;

periodic watering of any stockpiles;


limiting the speed of construction vehicular travel;

cover all trucks hauling any excess material;

use of water sprays during the loading, unloading of any aggregate materials;

sweeping and/or water flushing of the entrances to the construction zones; and

Install silt fences around site perimeter to prevent dust migration.

Therefore, the primary source of emissions from construction activities is considered to be from off-road

equipment tailpipe emissions, with any impacts anticipated to be temporary and relatively minor.


6.0 CONCLUSIONS

PCT commissioned an assessment of total facility air emissions due to the industrial activity associated

with the handling and transport of commodities at the PCT site for the years 2015 and 2020. The

assessment was completed to support a planned expansion to handle potash at PCT, which includes the

construction of a large warehouse for potash. The Emission Inventory presented in this report supports a

Project Permit Application to PMV to accommodate the proposed new potash operations.

Total annual air emissions were estimated for PCT operations for the years 2015 to 2020 by using projected

annual ship, rail and site activities at the facility, as well as projected fuel consumption. The year 2015 was

chosen for the baseline, which corresponds to the year immediately prior to the expected start of potash

handling activities, while the year 2020 was chosen as the expected future peak for potash handling at

2,200,000 tonnes annually.

Figure 6.1 compares the total estimated annual 2015 and 2020 nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions for PCT

operations to combined on-site and supply chain emissions. With the accounting used in this assessment,

NOx emissions are projected to increase due to the increased handling of commodities at PCT. A similar

pattern exists for most of the other air contaminants, with the notable exception of CO, PM10 and PM2.5.

CO emissions are projected to decrease due to improvements in engine technologies for rail locomotives.

Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 are projected to decrease due to the decrease in sulphur export and the

cessation of coal export in 2020. The full emission inventories for the baseline and future years are provided

in Table 5.2.

A previous emission inventory completed for PCT operations from 2001 to 2005 is also presented for

comparison purposes in Table 5.1. It is noted that emission estimation methodologies have changed since

this previous inventory was completed and the scope has increased (for example this inventory considers

in transit and anchoring activities, whereas the previous study did not). However, there have been

significant reductions in emissions based on fuel and engine technology improvements, which results in

lower predicted on-site emissions in 2015 and 2020 in comparison to historic emission rates. Overall, if the

same scope of activities is compared, the estimated emissions are lower for 2015 and 2020 than the

estimates provided for the 2001-2005 period.


Figure 6.1 Projected Annual 2015 and 2020 NOx Emissions


Figure 6.2 Projected Annual 2015 and 2020 PM2.5 Emissions


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2015 2020 withoutPotash

2020 withPotash

Annual N

Ox Emissions (tonnes)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


2020 withPotash

Annual N

Ox Emissions (tonnes)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


2020 withPotash

Annual PM

2.5Emissions (tonnes)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


2020 withPotash

Annual PM

2.5Emissions (tonnes)

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory January 2015

APPENDIX A

DETAILED EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - A-1 - January 2015

A.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Emission estimates from construction equipment are based on the EPA’s NONROAD model methodology

(EPA 2010). The general emission rate calculation is:

Emissions (tonnes/construction period) = [EF (g/hp-hr) * Equipment Count (Count/period) * Engine

Rating (hp) * Load Factor * Activity Time (hr)] tonne/1,000,000 g

A.1.1 EQUIPMENT COUNT, ENGINE RATINGS AND ACTIVITY TIMES

A detailed listing of construction equipment, as provided by PCT, included type of equipment, power rating

of the equipment and hours of operation (Table A.1.6).

A.1.2 LOAD FACTORS

Load factors from the NONROAD model (U.S. EPA 2010b) were used for this assessment and are detailed

in Table A.1.6.

A.1.3 EFS

Table A.1.1 shows the U.S. EPA NONROAD model equations used to calculate the EFs relevant in this

assessment (U.S. EPA 2010a).

Table A.1.1 EF Adjustment Equations

Contaminant

Diesel Equation

Equation Reference

(U.S. EPA 2010)

HC, CO, NOx EFadj1 = EFSS

2 x TAF3 x DF4 Equation 1

PM EFadj = EFSS x TAF x DF- SPMadj5 Equation 2

BSCFadj6 EFadj(BSFC) = EFSS

4 x TAF Equation 3

SPMadj SPMadj = BSFCadj x 453.6 x 7.0 x soxcnv7 x 0.01 x (soxbas8 -soxdsl9) Equation 5

CO2 CO2 = (BSFC x 453.6 -HC10) x 0.87 x (44/12) Equation 6

SO2 SO2 = (BSFC * 453.6* (1 -soxcnv) -HC) * 0.01 * soxdsl * 2 Equation 7

Notes: The constants in these equations serve to convert units. 1 EFadj = final EF used in model, after adjustments to account for transient operation and deterioration (g/hp-hr) 2 EFSS = zero-hour, steady-state EF (g/hp-hr) 3 TAF = transient adjustment factor (unitless) 4 DF = deterioration factor (unitless) 5 SPMadj = adjustment to PM EF to account for variations in fuel sulphur content (g/hp-hr) 6 BSFCadj = in-use adjusted brake specific fuel consumption (lb fuel/hp-hr) 7 soxcnv = g PM sulphur/g fuel sulphur consumed 8 soxbas = default certification fuel sulphur weight percent 9 soxdsl = episodic fuel sulphur weight percent 10 HC is the in-use adjusted HC emissions in g/hp-hr


Note that Equation 2 is incorrectly stated in the U.S. EPA NONROAD NR-009d report (U.S. EPA 2010a).

The incorrect version indicates that the equation is to be multiplied by the SPM adjustment factor. However,

in some cases the SPM adjustment factor could be zero and the resultant EF would therefore, also be zero.

The corrected version is listed in the example calculations of the NR-009d report, and the correct form of

the equation is included in the table above.

Most of the parameters in the above equations vary depending on the engine size. In addition, the diesel

equipment parameters such as EFSS, TAF, DF, SPMadj and BSFC vary depending on Tier, which is

determined by equipment age.

A.1.3.1 Unadjusted Steady State EF

Base unadjusted (steady state) EFs for diesel equipment vary by engine rating and Tier assignment

(equipment age), and were obtained from Table A4 of the NONROAD model NR-009d report (U.S. EPA

2010a). The unadjusted steady state EFs for each piece of equipment and each contaminant are listed in

Table A.1.6.

A.1.3.2 Equipment DF

Equipment deteriorates over time leading to increased emissions for some contaminants, with PM

emissions increasing up to 47% over the lifetime of the piece of equipment (U.S. EPA 2010a) as listed in

Table A.1.2. Other contaminants such as NOx experience increased emissions of approximately 2% over

the lifetime of the equipment. While CO has a relative DF of approximately 10-15%, with an average

lifespan of greater than 15 years for the Off-Road equipment, the increase in emissions is approximately

1% per year.

The DF is calculated as follows:

DF = 1 + A*(fraction of useful life)

Where A is a constant for a given pollutant/technology type, as listed in Table A.1.2.

Table A.1.2 A, constant used to calculate DF for Diesel Equipment

Tier CO NOx HC PM

Tier 0 0.185 0.024 0.047 0.473

Tier 1 0.101 0.024 0.036 0.473

Tier 2 0.101 0.009 0.034 0.473

Tier 3 0.151 0.008 0.027 0.473

Tier 4 0.151 0.008 0.027 0.473


The equipment DF was calculated for each piece of equipment for each contaminant based on Tier

assignment (i.e. equipment age). A complete list is included in Table A.1.6.

A.1.3.3 TAFs

EFs for engines are generally based on tests conducted using stationary use cycles. Actual emissions

under dynamic use in real world situations can be substantially different from those determined in static test

conditions. TAFs try to account for the variability in the loading, engine speed, and other differences under

variable load operating conditions. The adjustment factors vary by equipment type. The U.S. EPA

NONROAD model (U.S. EPA 2010a, Table F6) characterises diesel equipment and provides a TAF cycle

and assignment. For example, Cranes, Lifts and Material Handling Equipment such as Stackers, Loaders

and Backhoes were given the Source Classification Code (SCC) 2270003050 - Industrial Equipment Other

Material Handling Equipment, and had a representative cycle of Backhoe and a TAF assignment of Lo LF.

Given TAF Cycles and Assignments, TAFs for diesel engines were obtained from Table A5 of the U.S. EPA

NONROAD model NR-009d report (U.S. EPA 2010a) and are listed in Table A.1.3. Table A.1.6 shows the

TAF adjustment factors for each piece of equipment and each contaminant.

Table A.1.3 – Diesel TAFs

TAF

Cycle & Assignment

CO HC BSFC NOx PM

Base

Tier 3

Base

Tier 2 Tier 3

Base

Tier 2 Tier 3

ArcWelder / Backhoe Lo LF

2.57 2.29 1.18 1.1 1.21 1.97 2.37

RT Loader / Crawler Hi LF

1.53 1.05 1.01 0.95 1.04 1.23 1.47

Note that TAF for Tier 4 is 1.

A.1.3.4 BSFC adjusted

For some of the EFs (CO2, SO2, PM), the BSFC adjusted factor (BSFCadj) was calculated by multiplying

the unadjusted (steady state) BSFCss by the TAF previously listed in Table A.1.3. For Tier 4, TAF=1, so

the BSFCadj = BSFCss. BSFCss, values which vary with engine size, were obtained from the U.S. EPA

NONROAD model (U.S. EPA 2010a, Table A4).

The steady state BSFC for Tiers 1-3 are listed in Table A.1.4. Table A.1.6 shows the BSFC adjusted factors

for each piece of equipment.


Table A.1.4 BSFC adjusted, lb/hp-hr

TAF Category Engine Power, hp BSFCadj

Tier 1-3 Lo LF >75-100 0.481

Lo LF >100-750 0.433

Hi LF >100-750 0.371

None >75-100 0.408

None >100-750 0.367

Tier 4 N/A >75-100 0.408

N/A >100-750 0.367

A.1.3.5 Sulphur considerations

Both SO2 and PM steady state EFs are based on a sulphur content of 0.33 percent sulphur by weight. The

fuel used at PCT is 15 parts per million (ppm), or 0.0015%, as mandated by the Sulphur In Diesel Fuel

Regulations (SOR/2002-254).

The following values were used for the sulphur parameters.

soxcnv = 0.02247 for Base – Tier 3 engines, 0.3 for Tier 4 engines.

soxbas = 0.33% for Base – Tier 3 engines, 0.0015% for Tier 4 engines

soxdsl = 0.0015%

The sulphur EFs were adjusted according to these parameters.

A.1.3.6 SPM adjustment factor

The SPM adjustment factor considers the difference in sulphur content and the adjusted BSFC. For Tier 4

engines, the fuel sulphur content is assumed to be the same as the fuel sulphur content currently in use at

PCT and therefore, the adjustment factor is 0 for Tier 4 engines.

The SPM adjustment factors for Tier 1-3 Diesel engines, calculated per Equation 5 in Table A.1.1 above,

are outlined in Table A.1.5.


Table A.1.5 SPM Adjustment Factors

TAF Category Engine Power, hp SPM Adj Factor

Tier 1-3 Lo LF >75-100 0.11

Lo LF >100-750 0.10

Hi LF >100-750 0.09

None >75-100 0.10

None >100-750 0.09

Tier 4 N/A All 0

As per equation 2 listed in Table A.1.1 above, this quantity is subtracted from the EF.

Table A.1.6 shows the SPM adjustment factors for each piece of equipment.


Table A.1.6 SPM Adjustment Factors for Each Piece of Equipment

Equipment / Vehicle

HP Total hours

Load Factor

TAF DF BSCFadj SPMadj EFss VOC CO NOx PM BSFC VOC CO NOx PM VOC CO NOx PM SO2 CO2

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

Trucks 302 7680 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 Grader 240 240 0.59 1.05 1.53 1.04 1.47 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.75 2.50 0.15 0.00 536 30TN Crane 160 3840 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.01 1.03 1.00 1.14 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.87 2.50 0.22 0.00 530 90 TN Crane 275 800 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.07 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 FEL 211 5400 0.59 1 1 1 1 1 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.09 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.07 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 Light Plants 8 12000 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 589 Air Compressor

15 8640 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 589

MAIN ELECTRICAL WORKS

Trucks 385 1848 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 Forklift 86 2772 0.59 1.05 1.53 1.04 1.47 1.01 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.18 0.41 0.10 0.18 2.37 3.00 0.20 0.00 596 Manlift 75 2880 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.21 2.37 1.18 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.18 0.48 0.11 0.18 2.37 3.00 0.20 0.00 695 Scissor Lift 29 2880 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.48 0.11 0.28 1.53 4.73 0.34 0.00 695 Trencher 45 480 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.28 1.53 4.73 0.34 0.00 595 Backhoe 127 240 0.21 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.09 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 Generator 13 640 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 589 Welding Machine

20 720 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.48 0.11 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 693

MAIN CIVIL WORKS Trucks 385 1680 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 Cold Planer 225 40 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.21 2.37 1.18 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.43 0.10 0.18 0.75 2.50 0.15 0.00 625 Asphalt Paver

142 120 0.59 1.05 1.53 1.04 1.47 1.01 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.21 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.87 2.50 0.22 0.00 536

Backhoe 127 6720 0.21 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.09 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 Grader 240 1260 0.59 1.05 1.53 1.04 1.47 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.75 2.50 0.15 0.00 536 Dewatering Pumps

10 7560 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 589

PILING WORKS Trucks 385 840 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 Generator 13 2520 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 589 Pile Driver 179 2112 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.09 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.07 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 Downhole Vibrator

20 200 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 589

Welding Machine

20 840 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.48 0.11 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 693

CONCRETE WORKS Trucks 385 880 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 Concrete Pump

197 1200 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.75 2.50 0.15 0.00 530

Concrete Mixer

8 200 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 589

Scabbler 5.5 170 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.41 0.10 0.44 2.16 4.44 0.27 0.00 595


Equipment / Vehicle

HP Total hours

Load Factor

TAF DF BSCFadj SPMadj EFss VOC CO NOx PM BSFC VOC CO NOx PM VOC CO NOx PM SO2 CO2

MAIN STRUCTURAL WORKS

Trucks 385 1728 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 30 TN Crane 160 2400 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.01 1.03 1.00 1.14 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.87 2.50 0.22 0.00 530 60 TN Crane 240 1200 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.07 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 Welding Machine

35.5 3200 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.48 0.11 0.28 1.53 4.73 0.34 0.00 695

Manlift 75 1600 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.21 2.37 1.18 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.18 0.48 0.11 0.18 2.37 3.00 0.20 0.00 695 MAIN MECHANICAL WORKS

Trucks 385 1368 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 120 TN Crane

330 360 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.08 2.50 0.01 0.00 531

Welding Machine

35.5 640 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.48 0.11 0.28 1.53 4.73 0.34 0.00 695

Manlift 75 640 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.21 2.37 1.18 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.18 0.48 0.11 0.18 2.37 3.00 0.20 0.00 695 RAIL INSTALLATION Trucks 385 120 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536

FEL 211 120 0.59 1 1 1 1 1 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.09 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.07 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 Track Laying Machine

110 160 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.21 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.87 2.50 0.22 0.00 530

STORAGE BUILDING INSTALLATION

Trucks 385 924 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 30 TN Crane 160 1320 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.01 1.03 1.00 1.16 0.37 0.09 0.18 0.75 2.50 0.15 0.00 530 Welding Machine

35.5 440 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.27 0.48 0.11 0.28 1.53 4.73 0.34 0.00 695

Manlift 75 1600 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.21 2.37 1.18 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.18 0.48 0.11 0.18 2.37 3.00 0.20 0.00 695 STACKER/RECLAIMER INSTALLATION

Trucks 385 600 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536 120 Ton Crane

330 130 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.08 2.50 0.01 0.00 531

90 TN Crane 275 130 0.43 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.07 2.50 0.01 0.00 531 Manlift 75 390 0.21 2.29 2.57 1.21 2.37 1.18 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.18 0.48 0.11 0.18 2.37 3.00 0.20 0.00 695

COMMISSIONING Trucks 385 1296 0.59 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.10 1.01 1.47 0.37 0.09 0.17 0.84 4.34 0.13 0.00 536


A.1.4 REFERENCES

ICF International, Inc. 2009. Current Methodologies for Preparing Mobile Source Port-related Emission

Inventories. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics

and Innovation, Sector Strategies Program.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010. Exhaust and Crankcase EFs for Nonroad Engine Modeling -

Compression-Ignition. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards

Division. EPA-420-R-10-018, NR-009d, July 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010b. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for

Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling. EPA-420-R-10-016, NR-005d, July 2010.


A.2 ON-SITE MATERIAL HANDLING AND STATIONARY SOURCE EQUIPMENT

On-site off-road activity includes use of a diesel Front End Loader (FEL), natural gas fired furnaces and

boilers, and electrical equipment (stakerakes and conveyors).

Diesel

PCT will be using a single FEL (2013 260hp L110G Volvo Wheel Loader) at the site for the transfer of

sulphur to and from storage piles. FEL emissions were calculated using the EPA’s NONROAD model

methodology (EPA 2010).

The general emission rate calculation is:

Emissions (tonnes/yr) = [EF (g/hp-h) * Equipment Count * Equipment Power (hp) * Load Factor * Activity

Time (h/tonnes commodity) * Throughput (tonnes commodity/yr)] *

tonne/1,000,000 g

This methodology was also used to calculate emissions from construction equipment. The calculations are

explained in detail in Section A.1.

Emission Factors for the FEL are summarized in the following table.

Table A.2.1 Front End Loader Emission Factors (g/hp-h)

NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5 DPM Black Carbon NH3 CH4 N2O

2015 0.28 0.003 0.075 0.13 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.001 0.03 0.04

2020 0.28 0.003 0.075 0.13 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.001 0.03 0.04

Note: PM-related emission factors are expected to increase from 2015 to 2020 due to the age of the site FEL

The other parameters needed to calculate FEL emissions are:

Load Factor: 0.59 (per EPA’s NONROAD model methodology (EPA 2010))

Engine Power: 260 hp (provided by PCT)

FEL Activity: 15 minutes / 1000 tonnes sulphur (provided by PCT)

Natural Gas

Natural gas fired equipment includes furnaces and boilers which provide building heat. The following

annual usage was provided by PCT based on 2013 fuel consumption records:

1006 GJ


This is considered representative for the Baseline (2015) and Future (2020) horizon years since natural

gas is used for building heat and does not fluctuate with commodity throughput. The general emission rate

calculation for natural gas combustion is:

Emissions (tonnes/yr) = [EF (g/GJ) * Fuel Consumption (GJ/y) * tonne/1,000,000 g

Natural Gas emission factors are from AP-42 (EPA 1998) based on uncontrolled small boilers and are

summarized in the following table:

Table A.2.2 Natural Gas Emission Factors (g/GJ)

NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5 DPM Black Carbon NH3 CH4 N2O

84.44 0.27 37.33 2.44 3.24 2.98 2.98 2.48 0 1.02 0.98

NH3 emissions from natural gas are insignificant and the emission factor is considered to be zero.

Electricity

Projected electricity consumption data was provided by PCT and is summarized in Table A.2.3. Emission

rates were estimated based on the B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines projected electric generation and

supply data (http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Electricity/supply/Pages/default.aspx) and emission factors

from U.S. EPA AP-42 data.

Table A.2.3 Projected Electricity Consumption Data (kWh)

Year Sulphur Handling

Potash Handling

Glycol Handling

Canola Handling

Site Activities Annual Total

2015 1,680,501 0 777,563 412,675 3,258,720 6,129,459 2016 1,680,501 76,598 777,563 461,225 3,258,720 6,254,607 2017 1,680,501 2,127,716 804,375 524,340 3,258,720 8,395,652 2018 1,680,501 2,659,645 831,188 558,325 3,258,720 8,988,379 2019 1,680,501 3,191,574 858,000 558,325 3,258,720 9,547,120 2020 1,680,501 4,680,975 884,813 558,325 3,258,720 11,063,334

Table A.2.4 Estimated Emission Factors Based on the B.C. Electrical Supply Mix (kg/kWh)

NOx SOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5 DPM Black Carbon CO2 NH3 CH4 N2O

1.63E‐04 1.48E‐05 3.48E‐04 1.07E‐05 4.23E‐05 3.70E‐05 3.30E‐07 5.12E‐09 1.02E‐02 4.50E‐08 1.18E‐06 2.82E‐07

Note: Energy supply mix data source: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Electricity/supply/Pages/default.aspx


A.2.1 REFERENCES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010. Exhaust and Crankcase EFs for Nonroad Engine Modeling -

Compression-Ignition. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010b. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for

Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling. EPA-420-R-10-016, NR-005d, July 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1998, AP-42 Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 1: External Combustion

Sources, Section 1.4 Natural Gas Combustion, Final Section, Supplement D. July 1998.

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf).


A.3 SHIP EMISSIONS

Calculating emissions from ships involves the consideration of a number of parameters including:

Ship size;

Number of ships;

Activity times;

Ship locations;

Ship age;

Types and sizes of engines;

The loading on the engines; and

EFs and changes in EFs over time due to changes in fuel or engine technologies.

The general calculation of emissions for ships is as follows:

Emissions (tonnes/y) = [EF (g/kW-hr) * Traffic Count (ships/y) * Ship Engine Size (kW/ship) * Load Factor

* Activity time (hr) * 1 tonne/ 1000,000 g]

Ships are considered to have three sources of combustion emissions: the main engine (ME), the auxiliary

engines (AE), and the Boilers. Ship activities include manoeuvring (from the Strait of Georgia to PCT) and

at berth (moored at PCT). Load factors are specific to the activity and vary by ship type and combustion

source, while EFs are primarily dependent on the type of ship and the combustion source. In some cases,

where control technologies are mandated through legislation, EFs are also dependent on horizon year.

Tugboats are also included in the assessment and are discussed separately. Parameters used in the

assessment are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

A.3.1 SHIP SIZE

PCT provided the ship capacities presented in Table A.3.1. The corresponding engine sizes are based on

previous emission inventory assessments completed for Port Metro Vancouver and Puget Sound (SENES

2014; Starcrest 2012)) and reports on propulsion trends in bulk carriers and tankers (Man Diesel 2004; Man

Diesel c2010).


Table A.3.1 Ship Capacity and Engine Size

Size Category

Representative Capacity

Commodity ME Power,

kW AE Power, kW

Panamax Bulk Carrier 70,000 DWT

Sulphur

Coal

Potash

10,280 2,325

Handimax Tanker 40,000 DWT Canola 9,000 900

Tanker 34,000 DWT Glycol 7,400 900

A.3.2 SHIP QUANTITIES

The annual ship calls used for each of the horizon years are based on projected commodity throughput as

provided by PCT. A ship call represents a ship entering and leaving a berth, and forms the basis of the

calculation methodology as the emissions are directly proportional to the number of ships that are moving

in and out of the port operations (Table A.3.2).

Table A.3.2 Annual Ship Calls

Commodity Berth No. 2015

Baseline

2020

No Build

2020

Build

Potash 2 0 0 44

Coal 2 5 0 0

Sulphur 2 48 34 34

Canola 1 11 14 14

Glycol 1 49 49 49

A.3.3 SHIP ACTIVITY TIMES

As mentioned previously, the four ship activities assessed are in transit, manoeuvring, at berth and

anchoring. Ships travelling in transit mode through Georgia Strait are restricted to a speed of 12 knots.

Ships enter the harbour in transit mode from the Georgia Strait to the Lions Gate Bridge, and then slow

down to manoeuvring mode. Within the inner harbour east of the Lions Gate Bridge, ships are required to

travel at a safe speed, sufficient for the vessel to take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be

stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions (PMV 2014). The

speed of the vessel must also have due regard for small craft, towing, log loading, bunkering, diving


operations. Since the Harbour Operations Manual does not specify a numerical speed limit in this portion

of the harbour, the speed of all PCT vessels in this portion of manoeuvring mode operations has been

assumed to be 9 knots for all PCT vessels.

As ships approach the Second Narrows Bridge and travel through the Movement Restricted Area (MRA),

they slow down further to 6 knots, and this is often where tugs will begin to escort the ships to the PCT

berths. Some ships, particularly tankers, may receive escorts through the inner harbour to the Lions Gate

Bridge, but this is not always the case. To be conservative, and to account for some ships that may have

tug escorts prior to reaching the MRA, it has been assumed that tugs assist the ships all the way to PCT.

Upon leaving the MRA east of Berry Point, they speed up and continue to manoeuvre to berth. When berths

are not available, ships wait in anchor mode in English Bay, west of the Lions Gate Bridge. Ships remain

at berth while loading and unloading. Each of the four ship activities discussed above is associated with

an applicable time frame for the activity.

Activity times for ships at berth were based on berth occupancy data provided by PCT for 2013, and

adjusted linearly according to throughput/ship changes for the relevant horizon years. Activity times for

anchoring are based on 2005 data provided by PMV. The data provided is conservative in that some of

the ships that stop at PCT also call on other terminals. Due to the built-in conservatism and lack of

anchoring data for 2015 and 2020, the 2005 data is assumed to be representative for the baseline and

future horizon years. Activity times for ships and tugs manoeuvring, and for ships in transit, are based on

distances travelled, tug assist distances, and ship speed. These parameters, summarized in Figure A.3.1,

were estimated based on professional knowledge and information provided by PMV from the Second

Narrows MRA Procedures (PMV, 2010) and the Harbour Operations Manual (PMV, 2014).

Figure A.3.1 Distance, Speed and Tug Assist Information for Ships In Transit and Manoeuvring


Activity times for all four ship activities and for tug manoeuvring are summarized in Table A.3.3.

Table A.3.3 Ship Activities Times

Ship Size Category (TEU) Manoeuvring (h/ship call)

In Transit

(h/ship call)

At Berth

(h/ship call) Anchoring

(h/ship call) 2015 2020

Panamax Bulk Carrier 4 1 42 38 40

Handimax Tanker 4 1 77 81 32

Tanker 4 1 77 81 32

Activity times are constant across horizon years.

A.3.4 LOAD FACTORS

Load factors (LFs) vary by ship activity and engine type, but are constant across horizon years. LFs for

ships are from MEIT 4.0 (Table A.3.4).

Table A.3.4 Ship Load Factors

Ship Type Engine Type

In Transit Manoeuvring Berthed Anchoring

Bulk ME 0.4 0.10 - -

AE 0.3 0.30 0.29 0.28

Tanker ME 0.4 0.10 - -

AE 0.3 0.30 0.30 0.3

The MEs are not operational while ships are berthed or anchoring. As per MEIT 4.0, low load adjustment

factors are applicable to marine engines at reduced load movements such as manoeuvring. Scale factors

by air contaminant in Table A.3.5 are used to adjust emission rates for all ships manoeuvring with an ME

load of 0.1.

Table A.3.5 Low Load (ME load 0.1) Scale Factors

NOx SOx CO HC PM10 PM2.5 DPM Black

Carbon CO2 NH3 CH4 N2O

1.22 1.0 2.0 2.83 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


A.3.5 SHIP EFS

Ship EFs are from MEIT 4.0 and have the following considerations.

All ships run on Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) (note that the type of fuel used is controlled by shipping

companies);

EFs vary by ship type - Bulk vs Tanker;

EFs vary by engine type;

Some EFs vary by horizon year; and

Some EFs vary by ship age.

EFs for CO, VOC, CO2, NH3, CH4 and N2O are from MEIT 4.0 (Table A.3.6). Black Carbon EFs are from

an emission monitoring program conducted on a Post-Panamax Class container ship off the coast of

California by Murphy et al. (2009).

Table A.3.6 CO, VOC, CO2, CH4, NH3, N2O, Black Carbon EFs, g/kW-hr

Engine Type

CO VOCs CO2 NH3 CH4 N2O Black

Carbon

AE 1.10 0.40 670 0.001 0.06 0.017 0.007

ME 1.40 0.60 621 0.021 0.06 0.017 0.007

Note: The CO2 emission factor of 621 g/kW-hr is from MEIT 4.0 for ME 2-stroke Category 3 HFO and 670 g/kW/hr is from MEIT 4.0 for AE 4-stroke Category 2.

These EFs are constant by horizon year and ship type.

EFs for the remaining contaminants (NOx, SOx, PM10, PM2.5) are calculated per the methodology discussed

in the next sections.

A.3.5.1 NOx EFs

NOx EFs vary with horizon year to reflect improved technology in newer ships that results in lower NOx

emissions. These improvements are driven by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) limits on NOx

emissions from ship exhausts (Table A.3.7). Ships operating within 200 miles of the coastline of North

America are considered to be within the zone of the North American Emission Control Area as of 2012.


Table A.3.7 IMO NOx Emission Limits

Tier Engine RPM ‘n’ NOx Emission Limit

(g/kW-hr) Year Relevance

Tier 1

n < 130 17.0

2000 Applies to all vessels

constructed during or after this year.

n = 130-2000 45 * n-0.2

n > 2000 9.8

Tier 2

n < 130 14.4

2011 Applies to all vessels

constructed during or after this year.

n = 130-2000 44 * n-0.23

n > 2000 7.7

Tier 3

n < 130 3.4

2016 Only applies to vessels operating in ECA area.

n = 130-2000 9 * n-0.2

n > 2000 1.96

Ship age distribution, based on a report on propulsion trends in bulk carriers (Man Diesel 2004) is presented

in Table A.3.8.

Table A.3.8 Ship Age Distribution

Fleet Age 2015 2020

0 to 5 years 20% 25%

6 to 10 years 20% 20%

11-15 years 15% 15%

16-20 years 15% 15%

>20 years 30% 25%

NOx Tier allocation and the corresponding NOx EF (per Table A.3.7) by ship age are shown in Table A.3.9.


Table A.3.9 NOx Tier and EF by Ship Age

Ship Age

Ranges

(years)

Ave Construction Year

Tier NOx EF

Baseline (2015)

Future (2020)

Baseline (2015)

Future (2020)

Baseline (2015) Future (2020)

ME AE ME AE

0-5 2010 2015 Tier I Tier II 17 12.5 14.4 10.1

6-10 2005 2010 Tier I Tier I 17 12.5 17 12.5

11-15 2000 2005 Tier I Tier I 17 12.5 17 12.5

16-20 1995 2000 pre-Tier Tier I 18.1 14.7 17 12.5

>20 1985 1990 pre-Tier pre-Tier

18.1 14.7 18.1 12.5

Notes:

Tier I-III ME EFs were obtained from Table A.3.7

Tier I-III AE EFs were calculated with equations from Table A.3.7 assuming AEs run at 600 rpm (SENES 2014)

pre-Tier EFs were obtained from MEIT 4.0.

Based on the ship age distribution (Table A.3.8), a weighted average of the EFs in Table A.3.9 is used in

this assessment (Table A.3.10).

Table A.3.10 NOx EFs

Baseline (2015) Future (2020)

ME AE ME AE

17.5 13.5 16.6 12.5

A.3.5.2 SO2 and PM EFs

SO2 and PM EFs are calculated based on sulphur levels in fuel. A fuel sulphur level of 0.1% was assumed

for all ships and engines for all horizon years because this level is mandated by the IMO for all vessels

operating in an ECA area as of January 1, 2015. As mentioned in the previous section, ships operating

within 200 miles of the coastline of North America are considered to be within the zone of the North

American ECA as of 2012.

Assuming this sulphur level, SO2 and PM EFs are presented in Table A.3.11. They are calculated per MEIT

4.0 with the following equation and adjustment factors (Table A.3.11):

EF (g/kW-hr)= A * sulphur[%] + B


Table A.3.11 SO2 and PM Adjustment Factors and Emission Factors

Description A B

EF Value Units2 Value Units

SOx Sulphur for reciprocating engines [energy based]

4.2 g / %

sulphur 0 n/a

0.42

PM PM for reciprocating

engines [energy based] 0. 465

g / % sulphur

0.25 g 0.3

PM10 EFs are equal to PM EFs and PM2.5 EFs are 92% of PM10 EFs (ICF 2009). DPM is equal to PM2.5 per

the EPA NONROAD Model (U.S. EPA 2010).

A.3.6 BOILERS

Boilers in ships are not associated with ship propulsion. Boilers provide heat and hot water and they also

warm residual fuel oil prior to use. Boiler sizes in general are not correlated with the size of the ship. Boiler

emission calculation methodology follows the same general approach as previously described for the ships,

except it is based on fuel consumption instead of engine size:

Emissions (kg/period) = [EF (kg/tonnes fuel) * Traffic Count (ships/period) * Fuel Consumption Rate (tonnes

fuel/h) * Activity time (hr)]

Boilers operate while ships are manoeuvring and while at berth, and therefore share the same assumptions

as identified for ships in section A.3.3 with respect to ship movements and activity times.

Boiler EFs are expressed in kg/tonne of fuel used and the majority were obtained from MEIT 4.0 as

summarised in Table A.3.13. SOx and PM EFs are calculated per MEIT 4.0 using the following equation

and adjustment factors (Table A.3.12) and assuming a sulphur fuel content of 0.1% per IMO:

EF (g/kW-hr)= A * sulphur[%] + B

Table A.3.12 SO2 and PM Adjustment Factors for Boilers

Equation Code

Description A B

Value Units2 Value Units

SO2 Sulphur for boilers based on fuel

consumption rate 20 kg / % sulphur 0 n/a

PM PM for boilers based on fuel

consumption rate 1.17 kg / % sulphur 0.41 kg

Source: EPA AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Chapter 1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/).


PM10 EFs are equal to PM EFs and PM2.5 EFs are 92% of PM10 EFs (ICF 2009). DPM is equal to PM2.5 per

the EPA NONROAD Model (U.S. EPA 2010). Since information on Black Carbon emission rates from ship

boilers is not readily available, the conservative assumption that Black Carbon is equivalent to PM2.5 was

applied. Boiler EFs are listed in Table A.3.13.

Table A.3.13 Boiler EFs, kg/tonne

Horizon Year

NOx SOx CO VOCs PM10 PM2.5 DPM Black

Carbon NH3 CH4 N2O

All 12.30 2.0 4.60 0.38 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.29 0.08

Boiler Fuel Consumption Rates are from MEIT 4.0 and vary by ship type (Table A.3.14).

Table A.3.14 Boiler Fuel Consumption Rates

Boiler Fuel Consumption Rate

(tonnes/hr)

Bulk 0.08

Tanker 0.11

A.3.7 TUGBOATS

Tugboats assist the ships in manoeuvring to and from the port. Tugs do not berth near the PCT facility and

therefore manoeuvring is the only activity assessed for tugs. The tugboat emission calculation methodology

follows the same general approach as previously described for the ships:

Emissions (g/period) = [EF (g/kW-hr) * Traffic Count (tugs/period) * Tug Engine Size (kW/tug) * Load Factor

* Activity time (hr)]

Assumptions include:

Fuel type is marine diesel oil;

Main engine load of 32% during manoeuvring; and

Engine power of 4500 kW.

Activity Times

Seven and a half hours of tug manoeuvring per ship call is based on the following assumptions:

3 tugs per ship during approach;

2 tugs per ship during departure

During approach and departure, tugs escort ships between the west end of the MRA and PCT,

which take approximately 1.5 hours (as per Figure A.3.1)


LFs

A load factor of 32% during manoeuvring is from a report evaluating tugboats prepared for CARB by the

University of California (Varalakshmi, 2010).. The 32% manoeuvring load factor is further supported by the

U.S. EPA’s Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (ICF

2009).

EFs

EFs were reviewed from a number of sources including MEIT 4.0 and previous studies completed for

Roberts Bank terminals. MEIT 4.0 EFs are for international ocean going tugs and therefore not suitable for

the harbour tugs in this study. Instead, NOx, CO, VOC, CH4, and N2O EFs for Category 1 Harbour Vehicles

from the EPA’s Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (ICF

2009) are considered representative of the most current knowledge (Table A.3.15). To be conservative,

Tier 0 EFs are used for the 2015 Baseline year (indicating all tugs were built prior to 1999), and Tier 1 EFs

are used for the 2020 Future year (indicating all tugs were built 2000-2003). An NH3 EF specific to tugs is

not available from the sources discussed here and therefore the NH3 EF for ships from MEIT 4 was applied

as a conservative best estimate.

SO2 and PM EFs are calculated using the same equations and adjustment factors discussed in the previous

section A.3.5.2 SO2 and PM EFs, assuming a fuel sulphur level of 0.0015% as mandated by the Sulphur

In Diesel Fuel Regulations (SOR/2002-254). These regulations apply to the tugs since they are Canadian

Flagged and operate in Canadian waters for domestic use.

Because Black Carbon emission rates are not readily available, the Black Carbon EF assumed for the tugs

is the same as the ships per the paper by Murphy et al. (2009).

Table A.3.15 Tugboat EFs, g/kW-hr

Horizon Year

NOx SO2 CO VOC PM10 PM2.5 DPM Black

Carbon NH3 CH4 N2O

2015 10.0 0.0063 1.5 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.007 0.005 0.09 0.02

2020 9.8 0.0063 1.5 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.007 0.005 0.09 0.02

Notes:

NOx, CO, VOC, CH4 and N2O per ICF 2009

NH3 per MEIT 4 for ships

SO2 and PM per MEIT 4.0

PM10 = PM and PM2.5 = 92% PM10 (ICF, 2009), DPM=PM2.5

Black Carbon EF=0.007 g/kW-h is from Murphy et. al. (2009)


A.3.8 REFERENCES

ICF International, Inc. 2009. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission

Inventories. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics

and Innovation, Sector Strategies Program.

MAN Diesel & Turbo 2004. Propulsion Trends in Bulk Carriers.

http://www.mandiesel.com/files/news/filesof4538/p9056.pdf

MAN Diesel & Turbo c2010. Propulsion Trends in Tankers.

http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof11535/Propulsion%20trends%20in%20tankers.h

tm.pdf

Marine Emission Inventory Tool, Version 4.0. 2012. Developed for Environment Canada by SNC-Lavalin

Environment.

Murphy, S.M., H. Agarwal A. Sorooshian , L.T. Padro , H. Gates , S. Hersey ,W.A. Welch, H. Jung, J.W.

Miller, D.R. Cocker, A. Nenes, H.H. Jonsson, R.C. Flagan, and J.H. Seinfeld. 2009.

Comprehensive Simultaneous Shipboard and Airborne Characterization of Exhaust from a Modern

Container Ship at Sea. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(13):4626-4640.

Port Metro Vancouver 2014. Harbour Operations Manual. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Vancouver,

B.C.

SENES Consultants Limited 2007. Air Emission Inventories for Pacific Coast Terminals Past, Present and

Future. Prepared for Pacific Coast Terminals, Vancouver, B.C., January 2007.

SENES Consultants Limited 2014. DRAFT Air Quality Assessment Roberts Bank Terminal 2, prepared

for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C., March 2014 (DRAFT).

SNC-Lavalin 2012. 2010 National Marine Emission Inventory for Canada. Prepared for Environment

Canada and Transport Canada.

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC 2012. 2011 Puget Sound Maritime Air Emissions Inventory. Prepared

for the Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Exhaust and Crankcase EFs for Nonroad Engine Modeling

- Compression-Ignition. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards


Varalakshmi, J. et. al. 2010. Evaluating Emission Benefits of a Hybrid Tug Boat. Prepared for California Air

Resources Board.


A.4 RAIL LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS

The assessment of emissions from rail locomotives considered line-haul and switch delivery locomotives

as well as on-site switch yard locomotive activities. Emission projections from rail locomotives involved the

consideration of a number of variables to define locomotive emission rates and activity levels including:

Emission Rate Variables

Locomotive Parameters

o Power Rating

o Load Factors and Duty Cycle

o Fuel Consumption

o Fleet Tier Mixtures

EFs

Activity Level Variables

Traffic Counts

Activity Time

Idle Time

Distance and Speed Travelled

Some of these variables, such as the traffic counts, have been derived and projected into the future using

future throughput data from PCT records and are therefore, considered to be accurate, site specific

parameters. For other variables, a number of assumptions were applied in order to complete the

calculations of emissions from locomotive operations. These include projections of how the fleet of

locomotives in use at the PCT could change over time and typical line-haul locomotive activities and

switcher locomotive duty cycle.

Approaches to calculating emission rates varied depending on the contaminant being assessed. In general,

emission rates were defined for each contaminant based on EFs and locomotive parameters and varied

based on the horizon year, locomotive type (i.e., line-haul or switcher), and locomotive engine setting (i.e.,

idle, work both on and off-site or switch yard duty cycle).

The general rail locomotive emissions calculation is as follows:

Emissions (tonnes/year) = [Emission Rate (kg/hr-locomotive) * Traffic Count (trips/period) * Locomotives

(locomotives/trip) * Operating Time (hr)]

Due to some of the assumptions that had to be applied in order to calculate rail locomotive emissions, there

is a possibility that future emissions are over-estimated. For instance, work fuel consumption rates were

assumed to be constant overall assessment years, whereas more efficient engines are anticipated to use

less fuel in the future. Emission increases over time were generally tracked to increased activity at the


sites, while decreases were generally noted when the quality of engines and fuel (e.g., sulphur content)

improved.

A.4.1 LOCOMOTIVE PARAMETERS

The parameters used to estimate the rail locomotive EFs include power rating, load factors, fuel

consumption rates, duty cycles, and projected locomotive fleet tier mixtures for each horizon year. The

line-hauls and switchers in the locomotive fleet are assumed to have power ratings of 4,200 hp and

3,800 hp, respectively. Load factors, fuel consumption rates and duty cycles used in the assessment as

well as the calculated total effective power and fuel consumption rates are listed in Table A.4.1 for switcher

locomotives and Table A.4.2 for line-haul locomotives.

The Railway Association of Canada (RAC) duty cycle for switcher locomotives as published in the

Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2010 (RAC 2011) was used for all yard switcher locomotives

that break apart and reassemble unit trains at PCT. However, for the switcher and line-haul locomotives

that deliver commodities to the PCT site, the RAC duty cycle was considered to be unrepresentative of the

type of activity that these locomotives would experience in the short distances of track between PCT and

the off-site project boundary at the CP rail switchyard approximately 6.42 km to the east. Instead, it was

assumed that the unit train delivery locomotives operate 50% in notch 2 and 50% in notch 3 from the CP

switchyard to the PCT site. It was assumed that while the unit train is disassembled by the smaller yard

switchers at the PCT site, the delivery locomotives are in idle mode.

The load factors for the throttle settings were derived from the Port of Long Beach 2007 Air Emissions

Inventory (Starcrest 2009) for switcher and line-haul locomotives as repeated in the Port of Los Angeles

Inventory of Air Emissions - 2010 (Starcrest 2011) for line-haul locomotives.

The assumed fuel consumption rates for switcher work (all horizon years) and idle (horizon year 2015) and

for line-haul work (all horizon years) and idle (horizon year 2015) were derived from Measurement and

Evaluation of Fuels and Technologies for Passenger Rail Service in North Carolina (Department of Civil,

Construction, and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University 2012). As a result of the

assumed fleet turnover, however, the assumed line-haul idle fuel consumption rate is reduced to 11.4 L/hr

(3 gallons/hr) for the 2020 horizon year (HOTSTART, Inc. 2014).


Table A.4.1 Switcher Locomotive Effective Power and Fuel Consumption

Parameter

Throttle Notch Position

Total Idle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dynamic Brake

Percent of Time in Notch Position.1

0.8 4.7 14.2 27.8 42.0 57.3 72.5 89.7 105.3 3.8 -

Effective Power [hp]

30 179 540 1,056 1,596 2,177 2,755 3,409 4,001 144 -

Effective Fuel Consumption [L/hr]2, 3

25.5 49.7 93.4 194.2 295.4 385.7 544.9 665.9 761.1 33.4 -

Idle


100.0 - - - - - - - - - 100


30.4 - - - - - - - - - 30.4

Effective Fuel Consumption [L/hr] 2, 3

25.5 - - - - - - - - - 25.5

Delivery Work On-Site/Off-Site


- - 50.0 50.0 - - - - - - 100


- - 269.8 528.2 - - - - - - 798.0


- - 46.7 97.1 - - - - - - 143.8

Yard Switching Work On-Site

Duty Cycle (%)4

84.9 5.4 4.2 2.2 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 100


25.8 9.6 22.7 23.2 22.3 13.1 8.3 6.8 24.0 0.3 156


21.7 2.7 3.9 4.3 4.1 2.3 1.6 1.3 4.6 0.1 46.6

Sources: 1 The Port of Long Beach 2007 Air Emissions Inventory (Starcrest 2009). 2 Measurement and Evaluation of Fuels and Technologies for Passenger Rail Service in North Carolina (Department

of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University 2012). 3 L/hr = litres per hour. 4 Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2010 (RAC 2011).


Table A.4.2 Line-Haul Locomotive Effective Power and Fuel Consumption

Parameter

Throttle Notch Position

Total Idle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dynamic Brake

Load Factor (%)1,2

0.4 5.0 11.4 23.5 34.3 48.1 64.3 86.6 102.5 2.1 -

Fuel Consumption by Notch Position (L/hr)3

25.5 49.7 93.4 194 295 386 545 666 761 33.4 -

Fuel Consumption (L/hr) (2020 idle)

11.4 - - - - - - - - - -

Idle On-Site


100 - - - - - - - - - 100

Effective Power (hp)

16.8 - - - - - - - - - 16.8

2015 Effective Fuel Consumption (L/hr)

25.5 - - - - - - - - - 25.5

2020 Effective Fuel Consumption (L/hr) 4

11.4 - - - - - - - - - 11.4

Delivery Work On-Site/Off-Site


- - 50.0 50.0 - - - - - - -

Effective Power (hp)

- - 239 494 - - - - - - 733

Effective Fuel Consumption (L/hr)

- - 46.7 97.1 - - - - - - 144

Sources: 1 The Port of Long Beach 2007 Air Emissions Inventory (Starcrest 2009) 2 Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions - 2010 (Starcrest 2011) 3 Measurement and Evaluation of Fuels and Technologies for Passenger Rail Service in North Carolina (Department

of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University 2012) 4 http://www.hotstart.com/home/products/locomotive-products/fuel-consumption-calculator/emd-fuel-consumption-at-

idle/ (HOTSTART, Inc. 2014)

All switch locomotives in 2015 are assumed to be older engines meeting Tier 0 emission levels, while line-

haul locomotives are split between 25% Tier 0, 50% Tier 1 and 25% Tier 2 engines. For the year 2020,

line-haul locomotives are assumed to be replaced through fleet turnover however, Canadian National

Railway Company (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP) will continue to place older engines on


this line through to 2030. Switch locomotives will be conservatively assumed to be replaced with Tier 1

engines by 2020. The projected locomotive fleet tier mixtures for each locomotive type and each horizon

year are summarised in Table A.4.3.

Table A.4.3 Locomotive Fleet Tier Mixtures

Horizon Year Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2

Line-Haul Locomotives

2015 25% 50% 25%

2020 0% 50% 50%

Switcher Locomotives

2015 100% 0% 0%

2020 0% 100% 0%

Source: B.C. Rail

A.4.2 LOCOMOTIVE ACTIVITIES

The number of line-haul and switch delivery locomotives operating (on-site and en-route), as well as the

number of switch yard locomotives on-site, formed the basis of the calculation methodology as the

emissions are directly proportional to the number of locomotives. The emissions are also dependent on

the operational time of each locomotive at each engine setting and an assumed travel speed.

A.4.2.1 Line-haul Locomotives

As discussed in Section 3.1.4, line-haul locomotives are used to transport sulphur, coal, potash and canola

to the PCT site. The number of locomotives used per unit train depends on the commodity being delivered.

Annual traffic counts for line-haul delivery trains were determined using the maximum annual throughput,

number of railcars per delivery train and tonnes of commodity per railcar. The data was provided by PCT

for each horizon year. The en-route travel speed to and from the CP rail switch yard to the PCT site was

assumed to be 24 kilometres per hour (km/hr). Additional details of the line-haul locomotive activities can

be found in Table 3.4.

A.4.2.2 Switcher Locomotives

As discussed in Section 3.1.4, switch locomotives are used to transport glycol to the PCT site. Each glycol

unit train may have up to two locomotives per delivery. For yard work at the PCT site, it is assumed that

disassembling and reassembling a unit train involves two switcher locomotives which operate according to

the duty cycle listed in Table 3.4. Similar to the line-haul locomotives, the en route travel speed to and from

the CP rail switch yard to the PCT site was also assumed to be 24 kilometres per hour (km/hr). Additional

details of the switch locomotive activities can also be found in Table 3.4.


A.4.3 REFERENCES

HOTSTART, Inc. 2014. EMD Fuel Consumption at Idle.

http://www.hotstart.com/home/products/locomotive-products/fuel-consumption-calculator/emd-

fuel-consumption-at-idle/Railway Association of Canada. Locomotive Emissions Monitoring

Program 2010. Prepared in partnership with Transport.

SENES Consultants Limited 2007a. Air Emission Inventories for Pacific Coast Terminals Past, Present

and Future. Prepared for Pacific Coast Terminals, Vancouver, B.C., January 2007.

SENES Consultants Limited 2007b. Baseline Air Contaminant Emissions for Deltaport and Terminal 2 in

2005 and 2021. Prepared for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (currently Port Metro

Vancouver), Vancouver, B.C.

SENES Consultants 2014. DRAFT Air Quality Assessment Roberts Bank Terminal 2, prepared for Port

Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C., March 2014 (DRAFT).

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC 2009. The Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory - 2007. Prepared

for the Port of Long Beach, California.

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC 2011. Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions - 2010. Prepared for

the Port of Los Angeles, California.

Transport Canada. 2010. Locomotive Emissions Regulations Consultation Paper.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acs-consultations-paper-2158.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air

Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters

per Cylinder. Assessment and Standards Division. Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

EPA420-R-08-001a.


A.5 FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS

The assessment of emissions from fugitive dust considers material handling operations for sulphur and coal

and dust collector emissions from potash handling. Emission projections from fugitives involved the use of

emission factors, expected annual throughput and an assumed control efficiency.

A.5.1 Material Handling of Sulphur and Coal

Emission factors were derived from the GVRD methodology described in Bylaw No. 725 Guideline and

Procedures Document. In addition, it was assumed that PM10 is 60% of total particulate matter and PM2.5

emissions are 40% of total particulate. Baghouse control efficiencies for the different size fractions of

particulate matter were derived from the U.S. EPA, AP-42 Appendix B.2 document (99.5% control of PM10

and 99.0% control of PM2.5).

The general fugitive dust emissions calculation is as follows:

Emissions (tonnes/year) = [Annual Throughput (tonnes) * Emission Factor (kg/tonne) * (1-control efficiency)

* 1tonne/1000kg]

A.5.2 Dust Collector Emissions from Potash Handling

Emission factors were calculated using the U.S. EPA, AP-42 drop equation with the average wind speed

of 1.5 m/s recorded at Port Moody station from 2008-2012 and an assumed average material moisture

content of 0.92% based on slag. Baghouse control efficiencies for the different size fractions of particulate

matter were derived from the U.S. EPA, AP-42 Appendix B.2 document (99.5% control of PM10 and 99.0%

control of PM2.5).

The general dust collector emissions calculation is as follows:

Emission Factor = k × 0.0016 × [U)/2.2]1.3 × [M/2)-1.4

where:

E = emission factor (kg/Mg handled)

k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)

U = mean wind speed (m/s)

M = material moisture content (%)

Emission Rate [Mg/yr] = Emission Factor [kg/Mg] × Loading Rate [Mg/year] × (1-Control Efficiency [%]) ÷

1,000 [kg/Mg]


A.5.3 REFERENCES

Greater Vancouver Regional District 1993. Bylaw No. 725 Guidelines and Procedures, Guideline 8.02G

Estimation Procedure for Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Bulk Commodities Terminals.

U.S. EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) Volume I: Fifth Edition.

U.S. EPA, AP-42. 1990. Appendix B.2 Generalized Particle Size Distributions Document.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/appendix/appb-2.pdf


APPENDIX B

PCT HISTORIC AND PROJECTED SHIPMENTS

FROM 2001 to 2020

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - B-1 - January 2015

APPENDIX B: PCT Historic and Projected Shipment from 2001 to 2020

Outlined below are tables and figures that illustrate historic and projected future commodity handling

activities at PCT. It should be noted that in the tables and figures, regardless of commodity, throughput

and therefore emission rates can vary with any of the following:

Customer orders – PCT responds to order requests which affect when commodities are transferred

and tonnage transferred. PCT does not control this element of the business.

Different equipment – different commodities are moved by equipment with different loading rates.

Specifications on key equipment including motors, pumps, pipe diameter and length, and so on will

affect loading rates.

Loading rates can even change pending operational sequences, for example, if commodities are

sent to storage (e.g., sulphur to pile) or “hotloaded” (e.g., sulphur direct to vessel, by-passing

storage).

Projected future commodity handling activities (for all commodities combined) are based on expected

activities and do not represent theoretical maximum operations, which would be approximately 13.7 million

tonnes annually (2 shifts per day at 18,900MT/train x 365 days per year). Note that this figure does not

take into consideration shared Sulphur equipment (e.g., C-89 conveyor) and Berth 2; availability and

capacity of carriers (vessels); and perhaps most importantly, mine production rate. The latter would limit

Potash theoretical throughput to 4 million tonnes should future mine site expansion proceed.

Loading rates Summary

Commodity Loading Rate – Single (from train to vessel)

(tonnes / hr)

Single – Stockpile / Shed to Vessel

(tonnes / hr)

Dual – both train to vessel and stockpile to

vessel at same time (<20% of time)

Sulphur 3000 3500 5000

coal 4000 n/a n/a

Sulphur 3000 3500 5000

n/a – coal is only hotloaded (no storage)


Annual Total(Tonnes) Rail Cars IN Vessels OUT Total (Tonnes) Rail Cars IN Trucks IN Vessels OUT Total (Tonnes) Rail Cars IN Vessels OUT Total (Tonnes) Rail Cars IN Vessels OUT Total (Tonnes) Rail Cars IN Vessels OUT Total (Tonnes) Rail Cars IN Vessels OUT Total (Tonnes)

2001 3,981,823 33,004 2,666 83 3,390,454 6,528 66 591,369

2002 4,334,465 35,844 3,671 89 3,590,350 8,259 65 744,115

2003 4,602,433 37,383 3,522 92 3,847,937 8,380 72 754,496

2004 5,407,626 63 1 6,273 43,827 2,325 106 4,411,495 11,025 79 989,858

2005 4,962,498 39,589 3,548 94 4,038,407 10,300 82 924,091

2006 4,888,410 78 1 7,780 37,852 3,979 90 3,957,244 10,320 63 923,386

2007 4,422,869 86 1 8,675 33,110 3,487 84 3,397,000 11,348 71 1,017,194

2008 3,769,015 26,707 2,877 75 2,851,932 10,282 70 917,083

2009 3,325,443 57 1 5,734 23,898 3,625 57 2,474,398 9,410 67 845,311

2010 2,914,998 22,199 2,002 57 2,289,040 7,190 53 625,958

2011 2,809,300 19,844 1,812 53 2,025,274 1,304 3 168,229 7,078 51 615,797

2012 2,636,189 16,927 1,362 49 1,735,229 2,248 5 287,696 7,049 43 613,264

2013 2,660,000 15,218 0 50 1,580,000 3,359 7 430,000 7,471 45 650,000

2014 2,650,000 14,563 0 48 1,500,000 2,362 5 300,000 7,759 49 675,000 1,842 4 175,000

2015 2,925,000 14,563 0 48 1,500,000 2,362 5 300,000 8,046 49 700,000 4,474 11 425,000

2016 2,916,000 13,398 0 44 1,380,000 2,362 5 300,000 340 1 36,000 8,333 49 725,000 5,000 12 475,000

2017 3,590,000 12,621 0 41 1,300,000 9,523 20 1,000,000 8,621 49 750,000 5,684 14 540,000

2018 3,820,000 11,844 0 39 1,220,000 11,904 25 1,250,000 8,908 49 775,000 6,053 14 575,000

2019 4,015,000 11,067 0 37 1,140,000 14,285 30 1,500,000 9,195 49 800,000 6,053 14 575,000

2020 4,660,000 10,291 0 34 1,060,000 20,952 44 2,200,000 9,483 49 825,000 6,053 14 575,000

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Year

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Seam Sulphur Coal Potash Glycol Canola

Commodities

tonnes/Car tonnes/Vessel tonnes/Car tonnes/Truck tonnes/Vessel tonnes/Car tonnes/Vessel tonnes/Car tonnes/Vessel tonnes/Car tonnes/Vessel tonnes/Car tonnes/Vessel

2001 100 30 40,849 91 8,960

2002 97 30 40,341 90 11,448

2003 100 30 41,825 90 10,479

2004 100 6,273 99 30 41,618 90 12,530

2005 99 30 42,962 90 11,269

2006 100 7,780 101 30 43,969 89 14,657

2007 101 8,675 99 30 40,440 90 14,327

2008 104 30 38,026 89 13,101

2009 101 5,734 99 30 43,410 90 12,617

2010 100 30 40,159 87 11,811

2011 99 30 38,213 129 56,076 87 12,074

2012 100 30 35,413 128 57,539 87 14,262

2013 104 30 31,600 128 61,429 87 14,444

2014 103 30 31,250 127 60,000 87 13,776 95 40,000

2015 103 30 31,250 127 60,000 87 14,286 95 40,000

2016 103 30 31,364 127 60,000 106 36,000 87 14,796 95 40,000

2017 103 30 31,707 105 50,000 87 15,306 95 40,000

2018 103 30 31,282 105 50,000 87 15,816 95 40,000

2019 103 30 30,811 105 50,000 87 16,327 95 40,000

2020 103 30 31,176 105 50,000 87 16,837 95 40,000

Seam Sulphur

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Coal Potash Glycol CanolaYear

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a


0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Total Commodity Throughput (tonnes)

Year

Total PCT Commodity Throughput

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

Tonnes T

hroughput

Year

Annual Throughput by Commodity

Seam Sulphur Coal Potash Glycol Canola


Below are figures illustrating a comparison between commodity throughput and the number of vessels

loaded for each year. Changes over time for each commodity are attributed to the following:

Tonnes/vessel increasing over time:

o Glycol – depends on orders and vessel capacity

o Potash – depends on capacity of vessel at the time it reaches PCT; it may have picked up

product elsewhere in the Inlet (e.g., Neptune) and come to PCT for different product or more of

the same

o Coal – again, capacity driven as Potash

Tonnes/vessel decreasing over time:

o Seam – Seam orders decreased until they ended in 2010

o Sulphur – overall throughput declining; tonnage ordered per vessel varied; capacity at time of

docking at PCT if vessel not empty (e.g., arrived at PCT with partial loads)

Tonnes/vessel no change over time:

o Canola – static conditions projected as orders are expected to plateau, vessels with similar

capacity are expected to arrive empty

Tonnes/car increasing over time:

o Seam – table interpretation error; Seam tonnage decreasing over time and no longer moved

after 2010

Tonnes/car decreasing over time:

o Potash – fixed car volume; varies with order tonnage

o Glycol – fixed car volume; varies with order tonnage

o Coal – fixed car volume; varies with order tonnage

Tonnes/car no change over time:

o Canola – vast majority fixed car volume

It should also be noted that vessels can arrive at PCT empty or with a partial load of another product, which

will reduce the volume of commodity transferred.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

# of vessel loadings

tonnes throughput

Sulphur Throughput vs Vessel Loadings

Throughput # of Vessels

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000


tonnes throughput

Glycol Throughput vs Vessel Loadings



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


tonnes throughput

Potash Throughput vs Vessel Loadings


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


tonnes throughput

Canola Throughput vs Vessel Loadings



APPENDIX C

DUSTBIND SULPHUR DUST REMEDIATION STUDY

Pacific Coast Terminals SENES Consultants Emission Inventory - C-1 - January 2015

Dustbind Sulphur Dust Remediation Study

IPAC Chemicals

August 14th, 2006

Executive summary:

This report is a summary of the application IPAC Dustbind dust control program on surface road sulphur

dust. During normal operations and handling of granular sulphur products at the west coast terminals, like

Pacific Coast Terminal (PCT), significant amounts of fine dust can be generated. This dust is a result of

crushing the sulphur. This material collects on the surface of the storage pads and can become air borne

under some conditions. The air borne dust is undesirable. A dust control program was studied to reduce

air borne dust.

In order to evaluate the dust control program, typical untreated road sulphur dust was collected from PCT.

The effect of various wind speeds was tested in a wind tunnel on this dust before and after numerous

treatments. The sulphur dust was placed in the wind tunnel in a cone shaped pile to simulate dust lying on

a surface pad like that observed in the field. This report presents the initial observations of the screening

tests that will be used to fine tune further testing for optimization of the dust control program. The typical

road sulphur dust collected was screened through a 1 mm mesh to remove large particles

Summary results are:

1. Moisture content of as received dust was between 5.0 and 0.5%.

2. The dust was treated in numerous ways to simulate field conditions.

a. Addition of Dustbind S3 or S5 to both wet and dry sulphur;

b. Simulated sun dried sulphur dust by halogen heat lamps placed over a thin layer of sulphur

dust.

3. Untreated sulphur dust begins to be air borne at 20 km/hr and is completely air borne by 50 km/hr.

4. Dustbind S3 and S5 dust suppressant showed a dramatic effect, resulting in less air borne road

sulphur dust.

5. Dustbind S5 demonstrated slightly better dust control than Dustbind S3 especially under wetter

conditions.

6. The immediate effect of Dustbind was a reduction in the number of larger dust particles being

airborne at higher wind speeds.

7. Dustbinds effects were more apparent with lower moisture content dust. The initial escape velocity

of sulphur dust increased from 20 km/h to over 30 km/hr at near zero moisture content.

8. There was a demonstrated residual effect of Dustbind after sulphur dust was sun dried and all

moisture was removed.


9. A negative effect was observed with moderate moisture on sulphur dust such that the dust can be

air borne at lower wind speeds. This should not be surprising because sulphur is a hydrophobic

substrate thus repelled by water. The wetting agents in Dustbinds help to counteract this repulsion

effect and minimize the negative effects of moisture. Dustbind treatments remains effective after

the sulphur dust is dry because of the adherence properties of other additives in S3.

10. Dustbind S3 and S5 both demonstrated residual affect even after as much as 6 mm of precipitation.

S5 was more affected under heavy precipitation.

Introduction:

This study was initiated to optimize a dust remediation program for crusted road sulphur dust. During the

terminal handling and machinery operation involving sulphur, finely crushed sulphur can accumulate on the

storage pad and ground. This material can collect in crevices and depressions on the pad surface to several

cm’s in depth. For this report the crushed sulphur will be referred to as road sulphur dust. Road sulphur

dust is a heterogeneous mixture of particle sizes from fine dust (>300 mesh) up to coarse granular material

(<1 mm). The road sulphur dust lying on the pad surface can be air borne generating a dust cloud under

windy conditions and during heavy machine operation. The control of this air borne dust was investigated

with the goal to optimize the dust control program.

Methods:

Dust substrate:

Representative road sulphur dust used in this study was collected from Pacific Coast Terminals (PCT) at

the existing operational pads. The road sulphur dust collected had no dust control additives applied when

collected. The collected sulphur dust was initially screened through a 1 mm mesh to remove any large

debris or granular sulphur. The screened sulphur dust was referred to as wet sulphur dust. The moisture

content was determined by 24 hr drying at 800C in an oven. Wet sulphur dust that had been dried for 72

hrs at 400C in an oven was referred to as dry sulphur dust in this report.

Solar simulation:

The solar simulation was achieved using halogen heat lamps. Two 500 watt halogen lamps were positioned

approximately 15 cm over a 5-10 mm thick layer of sulphur dust such that the sulphur surface temperature

was 40-500C. Surface temperature was determined with a thermister located on the sulphur surface.

Sulphur dust treated in this manner for 8 hours was referred to as 8H Sun Dried Sulphur.

Dust control application:


The dust control product DUSTBIND S3 (S3) was diluted in water and applied at typical doses by a manual

spray application. Amount applied was recorded by weight. All S3 applications were applied onto the dust

surface after located in the wind tunnel, except the 8H sun dried treated sulphur. Wet sulphur dust, with

S3 spray applied and mixed into the dust was then placed under the heat lamps for 8 hrs as described

above was referred to as 8H Sun Dried Treated Sulphur. This 8H sun dried treated sulphur had no

residual water from the S3 spray application because all residual water was evaporated under the heat

lamps.

Wind tunnel dust loss measurements:

A 30 cm x 30 cm rectangular linear laminar flow wind tunnel 3.7 M long was used to measure dust loss at

various wind speeds. Wind was generated by a 45 cm variable speed fan. The fan was positioned in a

53 cm square frame which was directed into the wind tunnel through a reducing flange. Wind speed

measurements were determined using either a hot wire or turbine anemometers. Hot wire anemometers

are most accurate at low wind speeds and turbine anemometers are typically used at higher wind speeds.

The wind tunnel produced laminar wind flow at speeds from 0 to 60 km/hr.

Dust loss testing in the wind tunnel was achieved by weight loss measurements. A 100-120 g cone shaped

pile of sulphur dust to be tested was placed in the wind tunnel 30 cm down wind of the fan. The dust once

in place was treated with diluted S3 by manual spray application if required. Once the dust was in place

and treated as required, the access port was closed and the fan started at the preset wind speeds. The %

weight loss in dust after 5 minutes at the prescribed wind speed was recorded.

Rain application:

The normal rainfall for the Port Moody Glenayre area in British Columbia was found on the Environment

Canada website. The wettest month being November with approximately 293.8 mm of rain, with an average

9.8 mm of rain per day. 5 mm and 1 mm of daily rain would be studied, because of the limitations of the

wind tunnel. The sulphur dust tested at 10 mm application of rain exceeded saturation and the water run

off. The sulphur cone placed in the wind tunnel had an average diameter of 12 cm that translates into an

area of 113.0 cm2. Thus for 5 mm of rain 56.52 ml of water would be applied for a twenty-four hour period,

or 2.36 ml per hour; while for 1 mm of rain, 11.30 ml of water would be applied for a day, or 0.47 ml per

hour. The rain was applied manually by spraying mist (rain) over the sulphur cone. The weight difference

was back calculated to give an average of 1.4 mm and 5.6 mm of rain. The sulphur was first dried using

the halogen lamps for 8 hours to remove all moisture, than the S5 Dustbind applied followed by the rain

application, while the untreated rain sulphur had no S5 addition. Sulphur treated in this manner was referred

to as rain sulphur.


Results and Discussion:

As received road sulphur dust referred to as wet sulphur dust had 5.0-0.5% moisture. Both oven dried and

sun dried sulphur were considered dry as determined by a 0.5% loss in weight.

Table A1: Percent weight loss in dust after 5 minutes after various dust treatments and various

wind speeds.

Speed

(km/h)

% Loss

Wet S

% Loss

Dry S

% Loss

8H Sun

S

% Loss

Wet S

(S3)

% Loss

Dry S

(S3)

% Loss

8H Sun

S (S3)

9.2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.37 0.00

18.3 0.46 0.10 0.18 0.60 0.54 0.15

27.4 3.20 2.18 2.55 1.90 1.54 1.79

37.0 32.59 17.34 17.29 23.63 7.63 15.40

45.8 99.92 58.96 99.92 99.80 100.52 78.97

49.8 92 99.97

Note: Red highlighted numbers have had statistically adjustments for graphically purposes.

Typical statistical Standard Error on data was established to be 5-10% by several repetitions of data points


Figure A1: The effect of wind speed on wet sulphur dust with and without S3 addition

In this test the initial escape velocity (wind speed at which measurable dust loss can be detected) for the

wet road sulphur dust was determined to be 20 km/h with and without S3. Dustbind S5 affects were slightly

better with a slightly high escape velocity of 28 km/h (data not shown). At higher wind speeds the S3

treated dust loss had decreased indicating that immediate application of S3 to wet sulphur assists in binding

larger dust particles together and preventing them from being air borne.

Wind Speed VS Wet Sulfur Dust Loss

y = 0.0154e0.1964x

R2 = 0.9922

y = 0.0513e0.1589x

R2 = 0.9411

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Wind Speed (km/hr)

% D

us

t L

os

t

% Loss Wet S % Loss Wet S (S3) Expon. (% Loss Wet S) Expon. (% Loss Wet S (S3))


Figure A2: The effect of wind speed on treated and untreated oven dried road sulphur dust

Dry sulphur dust had a higher initial escape velocity of 30 km/hr (fig A2) compared to the wet sulphur (fig A1)

of 20 km/h. This suggest that when dried fine sulphur dust particles will adhere together thus changing the

particle size distribution. The S3 and S5 (data not shown) treated dry sulphur dust again indicated less

dust loss at high wind speed. It is interesting to observe that the initial escape velocity of the S3 treated

dried sulphur dust had returned to the similar 20 km/h observed in fig 1 of wet sulphur dust. This change

in initial escape velocity is likely due to moisture added to the sulphur dust when treated with S3. By adding

S3, which is diluted in water, the dust was no longer dry and behaved more like wet sulphur.

Wind Speed VS Oven Dried Sulfur Dust Loss

y = 0.0473e0.1505x

R2 = 0.9136

y = 0.0004e0.27x

R2 = 0.9384

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Wind Speed (km/hr)

% D

us

t L

os

t

% Loss Dry S % Loss Dry S (S3) Expon. (% Loss Dry S (S3)) Expon. (% Loss Dry S)


Figure A3: The effect of wind speed on 8 hrs sun dried sulphur dust that has been

treated or untreated with S3.

In this test the S3 was added to the sulphur dust prior to sun dried such that no water remained on the

sulphur dust. This was to determine the residual effect of S3 on sulphur dust after the dust had dried. Both

treated and untreated sulphur dust indicated a higher initial escape velocity of 30 km/hr. As previously

discussed high initial escape velocities (fig A2) indicate that both samples behaved as dry dust. The S3

treated sun dried sulphur dust, even though it was dry, again lost less dust at higher wind speeds as

observed. Also the initial escape velocity increased slightly to 33-34 km/h. These observations confirm

that S3 does have a residual effect. S5 was found to have similar affect (data not shown)

Wind Speed VS Sun Dried Sulfur Dust Loss

y = 0.0002e0.3001x

R2 = 0.9404

y = 0.0004e0.2701x

R2 = 0.9403

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Wind Speed (km/hr)

% D

us

t L

os

t

% Loss 8H Sun S % Loss 8H Sun S (S3)

Expon. (% Loss 8H Sun S) Expon. (% Loss 8H Sun S (S3))


Figure A4: The effect of wind speed on S3 treated sulphur dust applied immediately

and after drying.

This graph represents the most likely field situations for road sulphur dust, where the dust is either:

a. Not treated at all;

b. Or immediately after S3 treated;

c. Or after S3 treated and had dried in the sun.

The blue line represents wet untreated sulphur dust as a reference of the worst case where dust begins

to be air borne at about 20 km/hr and is rapidly all air borne. When the sulphur dust was immediately

treated with S3 (red line) the effect is observed first at the higher wind speeds. This indicates that

immediately after S3 treatment, dust particles begin to adhere and stick to each other, such that a high

escape velocity is required for larger particles. However, S3 has little immediate effect on the fine dust

particles. Once S3 treated dust has sun dried for 8 hrs (green line), the fine dust is more adherent as

indicated by a higher initial escape velocity. The initial escape velocity of S3 treated sun dried sulphur

dust is still higher than untreated sun dried sulphur dust (fig A3). This increased initial escape velocity

indicates that S3 does have a residual adherent effect on dust. The smaller dust particles, which have

adhered to each other, behave as large particles thus require a higher initial wind speed to be air borne.

(S5 behaved similarly data not shown)

Wind Speed VS Dust Loss (Treated and Untreated)

y = 0.0002e0.3001x

R2 = 0.9404

y = 0.0004e0.2701x

R2 = 0.9403

y = 0.0513e0.1589x

R2 = 0.9411

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Wind Speed (km/hr)

% D

us

t L

os

t

% Loss Wet S % Loss 8H Sun S (S3) % Loss Wet S (S3)

Expon. (% Loss Wet S) Expon. (% Loss 8H Sun S (S3)) Expon. (% Loss Wet S (S3))


Figure A5. The effect of wind speed on S3 treated sulphur dust at various moisture levels.

As a reference the untreated wet sulphur dust (red line) is represented which has about 0.5% moisture.

The effect of immediate S3 treatment on wet sulphur dust (blue line) is most apparent at higher wind speeds

where the amount of dust lost is decreased. After immediate addition of S3 on the dust the moisture level

will increase by about 0.1% to a total of about 0.6%. The effect of S3 is more prominent on dry sulphur to

wet sulphur. The escape velocities of most particles were increased. This dry dust (green line) would have

approx 0.1% moisture after addition of S3. These curves would suggest that the addition of water to dry

dust would produce a negative effect such that more dust is air borne at lower wind speed. This difference

in initial escape velocity observed in wet sulphur (fig A1) and oven dried sulphur (fig A2) suggests that

added water to dry sulphur dust is not preferred. The addition of S3 minimizes the negative effects of

moisture. This is not surprising since sulphur is hydrophobic and therefore does not like water. The wetting

agents present in S3 reduces the negative moisture effect. These observations would suggest the water

addition should be minimized. These results suggested dust suppressant S3 should be added with as little

water as possible on hydrophobic substrates like sulphur. (S5 behaved similarly data not shown)

Wind Speed VS Treated Sulfur Dust Loss as it Drys

y = 0.0473e0.1505x

R2 = 0.9136

y = 0.0004e0.27x

R2 = 0.9384

y = 0.0154e0.1964x

R2 = 0.9922

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Wind Speed (km/hr)

% D

us

t L

os

t

% Loss Wet S (S3) % Loss Dry S (S3) % Loss Wet S

Expon. (% Loss Dry S (S3)) Expon. (% Loss Wet S (S3)) Expon. (% Loss Wet S)


Figure A6. The effect of precipitation on sulphur treated with S5 Dustbind

The addition of rain equaling 1 mm of precipitation over a 24 hr period on sulphur untreated or treated with

S5 had little affect most likely because moisture addition was not significant. The moisture equaling 6 mm

of rain over 24 hrs offered more of a difference between the untreated and S5 treated sulphur. S5

significantly reduced sulphur losses compared to the untreated sulphur with 6 mm of precipitation. From

this it can be seen that there was likely a residual effect from the S5 after application of the rain.

Figure 13: Rain Sulphur

Wind Speed versus Rain Sulfur Loss: With and without 13% S5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Wind Speed (km/h)

% S

ulf

ur

Lo

ss

1mm 6mm 1mm with S5 6mm with S5


Conclusion:

1. The typical road sulphur dust from crushing of sulphur during handling begins to be air borne

at 20 km/hr and is completely air borne by 50 km/hr.

2. The largest particle size in the tested road sulphur dust was 1 mm.

3. Dust suppressants like Dustbind S3 or S5 have a dramatic effect on air borne road sulphur

dusts.

a. Immediate effect of S3 was a reduction in larger dust particles being airborne at high

wind speeds.

b. The effect of S3 is more prominent as the moisture content of the dust decreases. At

near zero moisture content the initial escape velocity of sulphur had increased from 20

km/h up to over 30 km/hr.

4. There is a clear residual effect of S3 on sulphur dust even after all moisture is removed such

that only S3 remains.

5. Moderate water addition to sulphur dust results in a negative effect allowing the dust to be more

easily air borne. This is most likely relevant from moisture addition in sprayers and rainbirds.

This is not surprising since sulphur is a hydrophobic substrate and is repelled by water. The

wetting agents in S3 help to counter act this repulsion effect thus minimizing the negative

effects of water addition.

6. After the water is evaporated, S3 treatment remains effective because of other additives which

allow the dust particles to adhere to each other. These results would suggest water usage on

sulphur should be minimized.

7. Under significant precipitation (6 mm of rain in a 24 hr period) Dustbind S5 continues to provide

dust suppression.

Documents

PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS EMISSION INVENTORY...PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS EMISSION INVENTORY Prepared for: PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS 2300 Columbia St. Port Moody, BC V3H 5J9 Prepared by: