appendix 4.4.1-4 metro vancouver dispersion modelling plan€¦ · reference no....

APPENDIX 4.4.1-4

Metro Vancouver Dispersion Modelling Plan

Metro Vancouver Dispersion Modelling Plan

Version 2.1 HERE

Reference No. 1314220049-089-TM-Rev6-18000 10872407

MV Dispersion Modelling Plan v2.1 30 May 2018 Page 2 of 40

Table of Contents

Part 1: Information for All Levels of Assessment .................................................................................3

1.1 General Information ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Primary Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Purpose of Dispersion Modelling .................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Geographic Setting ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Air Contaminants and Averaging Periods to be Modelled............................................................ 5

1.6 Baseline Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.7 NO to NO2 Conversion (Section 8.2) ........................................................................................... 11

1.8 Building Downwash ..................................................................................................................... 11

1.9 Emission Sources and Characteristics ......................................................................................... 12

1.10 Dispersion Model ........................................................................................................................ 18

1.11 Planned Model Output ............................................................................................................... 18

Part 2: Information for Level 2 and 3 Assessments Only .................................................................... 19

2.1 Planned Model Domain and Receptor Grid ................................................................................ 19

2.2 Default Switch Settings ............................................................................................................... 19

2.3 CALMET Parameters ................................................................................................................... 22

2.4 Planned Geophysical Data Input (Section 4) ............................................................................... 23

2.5 Planned Meteorological Data Input and Processing ................................................................... 25

2.6 Special Topics .............................................................................................................................. 29

2.7 Quality Management Program ................................................................................................... 29

2.8 Additional Model Output for Level 2 and 3 Assessments ........................................................... 32


MV Dispersion Modelling Plan v2.1, Part 1 30 May 2018 Page 3 of 40

Part 1: Information for All Levels of Assessment 1.1 General Information

Date

21 February 2018

Facility Name

WesPac Tilbury Island Marine Jetty

Company Name

WesPac Midstream LLC

GVRD Air Quality Permit Number

Not Applicable, no current permit

Facility Address Tilbury Island along the South Arm of the Fraser River in Delta BC (Adjacent to the existing FortisBC Tilbury LNG Plant). See Figure 1.

1.2 Primary Contact Information

Information Company Air Quality Consultant

Name

Peter Gallenberger Jeffrey Ramkellawan/Rachel Wyles

Title

Senior Vice President – Engineering & Operations

Air Quality Specialist/Associate, Senior Air Quality Specialist

Telephone

916-934-3602 604-296-4355/604-296-2826

E-mail

[email protected] [email protected]/[email protected]

1.3 Purpose of Dispersion Modelling

Describe the purpose of the dispersion modelling study (e.g., in support of an application for a new permit or a permit amendment; in support of registration under Bylaw 1087; to fulfill a permit reporting requirement):

The Project is undergoing provincial and federal Environmental Assessment (EA) via a substituted EA process, led by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). The provincial EA process will meet both provincial and federal EA requirements, with separate decisions made by provincial and federal governments.

The Proponent must obtain an Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC) from the EAO and an EA Decision Statement from the Federal Minister of Environment before any work can be undertaken on the Project.

mailto:[email protected]



Within the Lower Mainland, Metro Vancouver have jurisdiction over air quality (under bylaw 1082). Since the Project is located within the Lower Mainland, Metro Vancouver air quality department will be providing comments on the detailed model plan and subsequent air quality assessment. Metro Vancouver are part of the working group for the Project. The BC Ministry of Environment (MOE) will be provided copies of the model plan for information.

A conceptual model plan was previously submitted to Metro Vancouver on 19 October 2015. Following this, a draft detailed model plan was previously submitted to Metro Vancouver on 6 January 2016 and comments were received from Metro Vancouver on the draft plan, which have been considered in the preparation of this plan.

If the dispersion modelling study is in support of an application for a new permit or permit amendment, a draft application should be submitted with the draft model plan. Has a draft application been submitted? (Y/N):

No, a draft application has not been submitted. The dispersion modelling is being undertaken to support an Environmental Assessment application.

What level of assessment is proposed – 1, 2 or 3? (Section 1.51):

Level 3 Provide the rationale for the proposed level of assessment (e.g., exceedances predicted for a Level 1 assessment):

Level 3 is required to provide modelled concentration and deposition data suitable for use in the subsequent human and ecological health risk assessment that will be undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment application.

1.4 Geographic Setting

Will complex flow (i.e., meteorology) need to be considered? Justify your response based on the terrain and land use characteristics within at least 5 km of facility location (e.g., flat, rolling, river valley, mountainous).

The terrain in the vicinity of the Project is relatively flat. No significant valley structures or complex terrain are present within 5 km of the Project. Complex flow will be considered by using the CALPUFF modelling system. What is the dominant land cover within 5 km of the facility location (e.g., urban, rural, forest, agricultural, industrial, water)?

Forest land, agricultural land, urban (including industrial areas), and water (the South Arm of the Fraser River). To provide context, provide the minimum distance to the nearest (note that for Level 2 and 3 assessments, several receptors for each category that span a range of potential wind directions should be modelled to ensure the maximum for each category is captured):

Business ~50 m

Residence ~750 m

1 Numbers in italics refer to applicable sections or tables of the British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline, 2015.



School ~3.5 km

Child care facility ~5.0 km

Seniors facility ~7.5 km

Hospital ~6.5 km

Are there any other nearby receptors of concern?

Additional receptors are shown on Figure 1.

For the purpose of the Environmental Assessment, the Local Assessment Area (LAA) has been defined as a 10 by 10 km area centred on the project, and a 2.5 km wide corridor along the LNG vessel shipping route between the Project and Sand Heads Lighthouse (Figure 1). The LAA is encompassed by the Regional Assessment Area (RAA); the RAA is a 25 by 30 km area surrounding the LAA.

A number of communities are located in the wider area including North Delta, Ladner, Richmond and Burnaby. Receptor grids will be used in these areas (Section 2.1).

In addition 1,090 discrete receptors were identified within the RAA, including a bike route, a boat launch, dykes, farms, a first nation heritage area, parks, wetland, recreational centres, hospitals, childcare facilities, senior facilities and schools. School locations were obtained from DataBC (British Columbia 2018a) and Ministry of Education (British Columbia Ministry of Education 2018). Childcare and hospital facilities location were obtained from DataBC (British Columbia 2018b, c). These discrete receptors will be included in addition to the gridded receptors (Figure 1). Within the RAA, gridded receptors at 200 m resolution over the urban area will be used, and contour plots will be used to confirm that the maximum concentrations occur within the LAA.

Results that will be presented include:

Concentration contours on figures overlain on a base map of the surrounding area. The contours will show the location of maximum offsite predictions. The contour maps will be provided for all air quality parameters (PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO) and for all relevant averaging periods as identified in Table 1.5 below.

Tables providing overall maximum offsite predicted concentrations as well as concentrations at all sensitive receptors within the Local Assessment Area shown on Figure 1.

Predicted concentrations at all receptors used in the dispersion modelling (all grid receptors and discrete receptors) will be used to generate contour plots. Predicted concentrations at all receptors will be used to establish maximum offsite predicted concentrations.

1.5 Air Contaminants and Averaging Periods to be Modelled Emission sources associated with the Project will be marine vessels (berthing, at dock and departing) and fugitive emissions. The air quality concern of greatest interest is anticipated to be the impact of combustion emissions associated with marine vessels docking, at berth and leaving the Project. Air quality parameters that have relevant ambient air quality criteria, and that will be included in the modelling are as follows:

• particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 microns (PM10);

• particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5);



• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2);

• Sulphur dioxide (SO2); and

• Carbon monoxide (CO).

The averaging periods to be modelled for each parameter have been determined by the relevant Metro Vancouver ambient air quality criteria (Metro Vancouver 2016); additional criteria from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) Ambient Air Quality Objectives (2016) and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) published by Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (1999 and 2014) were also considered and are summarized in Table 1.5. Note that Metro Vancouver’s 8-hour and 24-hour objectives are based on rolling averages, while the provincial and federal 8-hour and 24-hour objectives are based on block averages. The air quality assessment will make comparisons to Metro Vancouver ambient air quality objectives and will also consider the most stringent objectives in Table 1.5. Model predicted concentrations and comparisons against relevant ambient air quality criteria will be one aspect of the overall determination of significance of potential effects within the Air Quality section of the Environmental Assessment application. Table 1.5 Air Contaminant, Criteria and Averaging Period (µg/m³)

Air Contaminant Averaging Period Metro Vancouver Objective(a)

Provincial Objective

Federal Standards

PM10 24-hour(e) 50(a) 50 N/A

Annual 20(a) N/A N/A

PM2.5 24-hour 25(a) 25 28 Annual 8(a) 8 10

NO2

1-hour 200(a) 188(h) 400

113(f) 79(f)

24-hour N/A(c) N/A 200

Annual 40(a) 60 60

32.0(g) 22.6(g)

SO2

1-hour 183(b) 196(d) 183(2020)(i) 170 (2025) (i)

24-hour N/A N/A N/A

Annual 13(b) 13 13.1 (2020) 10.5 (2025)

CO 1-hour 30,000(a) 14,300 15,000 8-hour 10,000(a) 5,500 6,000

(a) Metro Vancouver 2016. (b) Metro Vancouver has adopted a revised SO2 1-hour objective of 70 ppb and annual objective of 5 ppb

(Metro Vancouver 2017). (c) Not applicable. (d) Achievement based on 97th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentration over 2015 – 2017, annual

97.5th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentration over 2017 – 2019, with one allowable excursion



above 75 ppb to a maximum of 85 ppb over a three-year period prior to 2020. Superseded by CAAQS level and metric January 1, 2020 (BC MOE 2016).

(e) Metro Vancouver 8-hour and 24-hour objectives are based on rolling averages, while provincial and federal 8-hour and 24-hour objectives are based on block averages.

(f) Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has NO2 1-hour standards for 2020 and 2025 which are 113 µg/m³ (60 ppb) and 79 µg/m³ (42 ppb), based on the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of daily 1-hour maximum concentrations.

(g) CCME has NO2 annual standards for 2020 and 2025 which are 32.0 µg/m³ (17.0 ppb) and 22.6 µg/m³ (12.0 ppb), based on all 1-hour average NO2 concentrations.

(h) Achievement based on annual 98th percentile of daily 1-hour maximum (D1HM), over one year. (i) Achievement based on annual 99th percentile of D1HM averaged over three consecutive years.

In addition, the dispersion modelling will also provide data to support other Environmental Assessment disciplines such as human health. Expected parameters of interest for this discipline include:

• individual species of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs);

• individual species of metals;

• individual species of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); and

• individual species of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) defined by the human health team, potentially including hydrogen sulphide.

Within the Environmental Assessment, the assessment of the potential effects of individual species of VOCs, metals, PAHs, and HAPs will be undertaken within the Human and Ecological Health Risk Assessment (HEHRA). Air dispersion model predictions (maximum offsite concentrations and maximum concentrations at all potentially sensitive receptors) for individual species of VOC metals, PAHS and HAPS, will be provided to the human health team for use an input in the HEHRA. These results will be summarized in an appendix to the Air Quality Assessment report. Particulate matter from diesel combustion sources (PM diesel) will be quantified. However, there are no regional district or provincial ambient air quality objectives for PM diesel, therefore, PM diesel will not be modelled. 1.6 Baseline Air Quality

What metric will be used to determine baseline air quality for short-term averaging periods (98th, 99th or 100th percentile2)?

Background air quality concentrations (PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO, VOC, PAH, metals and HAPs) will be established using methods consistent with BC Dispersion Modelling Guidelines (BC MOE, 2015). The general steps that will be used to establish background conditions for the 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour and annual averaging periods are:

1) Where the 75% data completeness was not met in at least one quarter, that entire year of data will be excluded.

2) For each air quality parameter, determine the average concentration for the time period of interest (e.g., 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour). Metro Vancouver short term criteria (1-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour) are based on rolling averages (Metro Vancouver 2016). Average concentrations will be established for 8-hour and 24-hour averaging periods only if 75% of the previous hourly concentrations are



available. This means that for the 8-hour averaging period at least 6 previous hours of data are required and for 24-hour averaging period at least 18 previous hours of data are required.

3) Based on the averages calculated in step 2), the 98th percentile concentration over each year will be calculated for each air quality parameter and time period. This will establish a short term concentration (1-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour) for each year.

4) Years with acceptable data, the annual 98th percentile averages will be averaged. For example from Table 1.62 below, for NO2, SO2, and CO all years were found to have valid data, therefore this step will involve calculating the average of 5 years of 98th percentile average values.

5) Annual concentrations will be calculated using the steps outlined in 3) and 4) but rather than using the 98th percentile, the average annual concentration will be used.

Table 1.61 summarizes the monitoring data that will be used to develop background concentrations. Data will be preferentially selected from Richmond South station since that is the station nearest to the Project; if air quality indicators are not measured at Richmond South (i.e., PM10, VOC, PAHs) then data from Burnaby South (the next nearest) station will be used. Further information to support the selection of the monitoring years to be used in the assessment is provided in Table 1.62 and Table 1.63. In addition to these background concentrations, a baseline CALPUFF model run will be executed which includes emissions from the recently permitted Fortis Tilbury expansion; whose potential air quality effects are currently not captured in the background monitoring data. The baseline conditions for this assessment will be the summation of the background monitored air quality plus the results of the baseline CALPUFF execution.

2 Metro Vancouver’s ambient air quality objectives for SO2 and NO2 are “not to be exceeded” values and therefore the percentiles used to calculate the baseline values should be based on the hourly data set and not the daily maximum one-hour values indicated in Section 8.1.4. Baseline values for 24-hour averages should be calculated as rolling averages and not daily averages indicated in Section 8.1.4.



Table 1.61 Monitoring Data that will be used to Develop Baseline Concentrations Air Quality

Stations Source of

Data1 Air

Contaminants Years Will any wind directions be

excluded? (If yes, provide wind directions and

justification) 2

Richmond South Metro Vancouver

PM2.5 2013 to 2016

No PM10

(a) N/A NO2 2012 to 2016 SO2 2012 to 2016 CO 2012 to 2016

Burnaby South Metro

Vancouver and NAPS(c)

PM10(b) 2012, 2014 to 2016

No VOCs 2012 to 2016 PAHs 2012 to 2016

Metals 2012 to 2016 HAPs 2012 to 2016

1. It is recommended that data are obtain directly from Metro Vancouver to ensure that data are verified. 2. For excluding air quality data during certain wind directions, see Section 8.1.4. (a) PM10 monitoring at Richmond South station stopped in 2010. (b) Criteria provided in Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in British Columbia | (BC MOE 2015). (c) Concentrations for VOCs, PAHs, metals and HAPs will be based on the National Air Pollutant Surveillance

(NAPS) monitoring schedule which generally consists of one cumulative 24-hour sample every 6 to 12 days.


MV Dispersion Modelling Plan v2.1, Part 1 30 May 2018

Page 10 of 40

NAPs stations provide 24-hour data. This data will be converted to 1-hour background concentrations using the following formula (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change 2017):

𝐶𝐶0 = 𝐶𝐶1 × 𝐹𝐹 Where, Co = the concentration at the averaging period to

C1 = the concentration at the averaging period t1 F = factor to convert from the averaging period t1 to the averaging period t0 = (t1/t0)n n = 0.28 (constant), or value suggested by Metro Vancouver Table 1.62: Air Quality Monitoring Station Data Years

Substance Station 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

PM2.5 Richmond South NM3 Y Y Y Y PM10 Burnaby South Y DM Y Y Y NO2 Richmond South Y Y Y Y Y SO2 Richmond South Y Y Y Y Y CO Richmond South Y Y Y Y Y

1. "DM" indicates that the station data does not meet the recommended data completeness criteria provided (BC MOE 2015).

2. "Y" indicates that the station data meets the recommended data completeness criteria provided (BC MOE 2015).

3. “NM” = Not Monitored. PM2.5 monitoring using the PM2.5 SHARP started in 2013 (Reid 2017, pers. comm.).



Page 11 of 40

1.7 NO to NO2 Conversion (Section 8.2)

Results assuming 100% conversion of NOx to NO2 must be provided. If exceedances are predicted using 100% conversion, what alternative method and ambient data will be used?

Total conversion (100%) of NOX to NO2 will be provided for reference; however, for a more realistic NOX to NO2 conversion the ambient ratio (AR) method will be used as described within BC MOE (2015).

If the Ambient Ratio Method is proposed, what NOx and NO2 monitoring data will be used?

Ambient hourly NOX and NO2 from Richmond South for 2012 to 2016 will be used to establish the AR. With regards to the AR method, NOX will be converted to NO2 first then background NO2 concentrations will be added. Note: If the Ambient Ratio Method is proposed, predicted NOx should be converted to NO2 first and then a baseline NO2 value should be added. This differs from the guidance provided in Section 8.2.2. If OLM or PVMRM is proposed:

- Specify O3 concentration and how it was selected: Not applicable.

- Specify and provide rationale for any non-default in-stack ratio or equilibrium ratio: Not applicable.

1.8 Building Downwash Table 1.8 Building Downwash

Emission Source ID

Source Height

(m)

Is Emission Source on a Building? If no, provide distance to nearest building

(m)

Height of Building

(m)

Width of Building

(m) Vessel at

Berth1 20 yes 50 38

Control Room

20 20 4 20

Tilbury LNG Plant Storage

Tank2

20 450 20 40

1. The largest LNG carrier (98,000 m³ LNG capacity) will be modelled, which is expected to result in the highest hourly emission rates.

2. This structure is outside of the limits of public access (offsite); however, it may be subject to building downwash based on the height of the emission source (stack) and distance to the emission source.

Will building downwash be modelled? If no, provide rationale. Yes



Page 12 of 40

1.9 Emission Sources and Characteristics

Are there any liquid storage tanks? If yes, indicate whether they are fixed or floating roof tanks. Follow the guidance provided in Section 10.5. No



Page 13 of 40

Table 1.9 Emission Sources and Characteristics

Emission Number2

Description Type: Point (P), Area

(A), Line (L),

Volume (V)

Contaminants (SO2, NOx,

PM2.5(a), PM diesel,

PM10(a), VOCs, PAHs

HAPs, metals)

Basis of Emissions3 (Section 3.3)

Stack Orientation

(Vertical, Horizontal,

Angled)

Raincap (Section 10.4)

(Y/N)

N/A(b) Marine Vessels Berthing A

PM10, PM2.5, PM Diesel, NO2, SO2, CO, VOCs, PAHs, HAPs, metals.

Method and factors outlined in MEIT Tool(c)(d)

Schauer, et al. (1999) Measurement of Emissions from Air Pollution Sources.

2. C1 through C30 Organic Compounds from Medium Duty Diesel Trucks

Suncor Energy Inc. (1998) Technical Reference for the Meteorology, Emissions and the Ambient Air Quality in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region

N/A N/A

N/A Marine Vessels at Dock P


Vertical N

N/A Marine Vessels Departing A


N/A N/A

N/A Tugs, Security Vessels A


N/A N/A

2 Emission numbers should be the same as in existing permit or permit application. 3 If dispersion modelling is being conducted in support of an application for an air quality permit or permit amendment then current or proposed emission limits should be modelled. If it is being conducted for a registration under Bylaw 1087, the emission concentrations listed in Appendix 1 or 2 of the Bylaw should be modelled.

(a) Where data is available within the emission factor literature sources, particulate emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 will include both the filterable and condensable fraction.

(b) N/A = Not Applicable. (c) MEIT Tool data was provided by ECCC on 3 April 2018 (pers. comm. Rifkin 2018). (d) MEIT factors provided in Appendix 2.



Page 14 of 40

Emission Number2

Description Type: Point (P), Area

(A), Line (L),

Volume (V)

Contaminants (SO2, NOx,

PM2.5(a), PM diesel,

PM10(a), VOCs, PAHs

HAPs, metals)

Basis of Emissions3 (Section 3.3)

Stack Orientation

(Vertical, Horizontal,

Angled)

Raincap (Section 10.4)

(Y/N)

N/A Fugitive Losses A VOCs

Emission factors provided in Fugitive Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Activities (IPCC 2001). A LNG fugitive loss emission factor of 0.005% of total throughput will be used; which is the factor for a well maintained LNG Plant

N/A N/A



Page 15 of 40

Source Emission Rate Variability (Section 3.4)

Are there any batch processes? If yes, provide plots of emission rate vs. time for each batch process. A batch process for the Project is the loading (i.e. filling) of a single LNG vessel or barge. Vessels will be loaded on average one vessel every three days. Typical loading process can be described as follows:

• Berthing - The LNG vessel or barge will berth at the jetty, 3 tug boats will be used to maneuver the LNG vessel into place. The berthing process is expected to last up to 1.0 hours.

• LNG loading - During the LNG loading, the LNG vessel main engines will be off; however, the auxiliary engines will be on. Tug boats will not be present. For the largest LNG carrier class, loading is expected to last up to 26 hours.

• Departing - The LNG vessel will depart the jetty, 3 tug boats will be used to maneuver the LNG vessel out. The departing process is expected to last up to 1.0 hours.

When a vessel or a barge is loading, this batch process will occur continuously for up to 26 hours (i.e., during the day and night). When there is no vessel berthing, LNG loading or vessel departing from the jetty, the Project is not anticipated to emit any direct emissions to the air, with the exception of fugitive losses from project infrastructure. Fugitive losses associated with project loading and pipeline infrastructure are assumed to be continuous in the model and therefore will occur during berthing and departing activities. For two weeks out of the year dredging activities will occur at the jetty and in the LNG vessel berthing and departing zone. Dredging will be continuous (e.g., 24-hour operation) for the 2-week period. During this time (two week dredging period) no LNG vessels will call at the facility. The dredger will be assessed over the entire modelling period. Maximum 1-hour dredger emissions will be used for each hour over the modelling period. Are emissions expected to vary with load? If yes, describe how this will be modelled. The facility will load various sizes of LNG vessels, self-propelled LNG carriers up to 98,000 m3 storage capacity and LNG barges storage capacity of 2,000 to 12,000 m3 depending on the vessel. The average size of the LNG barge is expected to be 7,500 m3. The maximum load rate for the maximum vessel size (98,000 m3 LNG carrier) will be modelled for short-term (1-hour) emissions for the normal operation scenario.

The maximum hourly emission rates will be calculated for scenarios 1) and 2) described below, and the scenario resulting in the highest hourly emission rates will be the basis of the assessment for the maximum hourly emissions under normal operations.

1) Loading of the 98,000 m3 LNG carrier 2) Docking/departing of the 98,000 m3 LNG carrier

Emission sources from 1) will include exhaust emissions from LNG vessels (auxiliary engines), security vessels, and fugitive emissions.

For assessment against 1-hour criteria the maximum hourly emission rate will be used for every hour within in the model.



Page 16 of 40

For assessment against 24-hour criteria, sensitivity analysis will be undertaken to identify the worst case 24-hour concentration that results in the maximum offsite concentration and the greatest impact to the population. The approach to determining which 24-hour results will be presented in the assessment report is provided in the following steps: 1) For the air quality assessment, for the substances that have a 24-hour air quality criteria, we will execute the model for all variable emission combinations (24 different scenarios). 2) For the 24 scenarios outlined in 1) above the model results will be analyzed to determine which results to present in the assessment report: ai) Identify the maximum concentration and corresponding number of exceedances (if any) associated with the maximum concentration at each receptor (grid and discrete) across all 24 scenarios aii) Identify the maximum concentration across all receptors (grid and discrete) bi) Identify the maximum number of exceedances (if any) and corresponding concentration associated with that maximum number of exceedances at each receptor (grid and discrete) across all 24 scenarios bii) for concentrations established in bi) identify the maximum concentration across all receptors (grid and discrete) Based on the analysis obtained in ai) and aii) we will present the maximum 24-hour offsite concentration, and will use the maximum concentration at each receptor (grid and discrete) established in ai) to generate the 24-hour contours which will be presented in the assessment. Based on the analysis obtained in bi) and bii) we will firstly verify if this dataset occurs from the same scenario as the dataset generated in ai and aii. If it is the same then no further results will be presented. If the dataset is different we will present the maximum offsite concentration from bii) and use the concentration dataset generated in bi) to create a contour plot using all receptors (grid and discrete). The 24-hour methods and results presented will be fully explained within the assessment report.

For assessment against annual criteria, all anticipated emissions over one year will be modelled.

In addition to the scenarios (1 and 2) described above, for two weeks out of the year dredging in the vicinity of the Jetty and in the marine control zone will occur. During dredging no LNG vessels will call at the facility. The dredger will be active for up to 24-hours per day over the two week period. Since dredging emissions will not occur concurrently with LNG vessel activities dredging emissions will be assessed in a separate model scenario comprising dredging and fugitive emissions. Model predicted concentration comparisons will be made against the short-term (1-hour, 8-hour and 24-hour) ambient air quality criteria.

To conservatively capture the different LNG vessel sizes within the dispersion model a sensitivity analysis will be undertaken for the source parameters (stack height, internal diameter, exit gas velocity, exit gas temperature and effective release height) of the 98,000 m3 LNG carrier and the 7,500 m3 LNG



Page 17 of 40

barge. The source parameters which result in the most conservative (highest) offsite concentrations will be used as the source parameters for the modelled scenarios.

Will actual emissions or flow rates be less than 75% of permitted levels? If yes, describe how this will be modelled (e.g., additional scenarios) See response directly above on modelling short-term emissions for the normal operation scenario. Modelling will be based on maximum hourly emissions for comparison to hourly criteria. Describe anticipated abnormal emission scenarios (e.g., start-up, shut-down, maintenance of control works) and their anticipated frequency: Anticipated abnormal emission activities would be exhaust emissions from annual dredging.

During power outages, power will be provided by the adjacent FortisBC Tilbury LNG Plant from backup generators located on the Fortis facility.

Annual dredging is required and is expected to last two weeks. It is currently understood that dredging will not occur concurrently with vessel loading, therefore emissions associated with dredging will not be included in the normal operation scenario. Peak hourly emissions associated with dredging activities will be quantified to confirm that they are below the peak hourly emissions for the normal operation model scenario. Does the proposed permit emission limit scenario represent the worst case scenario, in terms of ambient air quality concentrations, that can be anticipated (Section 3.4.2 and 10.1.2)? Modelled concentrations will represent conservative (maximum) hourly emissions.



Page 18 of 40

1.10 Dispersion Model

List model(s) and version(s) to be used (Section 2): The CALPUFF version 7.2.1 (level 150618) model executed in CALMET hybrid mode with WRF data and surface station data will be used. If modifications to any of the models are planned, provide a description and the rationale (Section 2.3.2): No modifications to the models are planned. If AERSCREEN is proposed, will it be run using:

1) The stand-alone MAKEMET program to generate the matrix of meteorological conditions and running AERMOD directly with the SCREEN option (preferred) or

2) The AERSCREEN command prompt interface? Please justify your response. Not applicable If a Level 1 assessment is proposed, indicate whether a standard screening dataset will be used or whether a project-specific dataset will be developed: Not applicable If a project-specific dataset will be developed for a Level 1 assessment, describe the proposed inputs (source and period of meteorological data, range of wind speeds and stability classes, range of wind directions, seasonal values of surface characteristics etc.): Not applicable If any of the emission sources have ambient exit temperatures, please explain how this will be modelled (e.g., buoyancy will be turned off, variable emission file with actual ambient temperature, exit temperature set to annual average ambient temperature). Not applicable

1.11 Planned Model Output

Model results for all levels of assessment should include a table comparing overall maximum predicted concentrations as well as maximum concentrations predicted for each sensitive receptor type (e.g., school, hospital, daycare) to Metro Vancouver ambient air quality objectives or other relevant criteria. Please confirm the planned model output (Section 8.3.1). The model results will be summarized in a tabulated format that show maximum off-site concentrations and maximum predicted concentrations at the discrete receptors identified within the LAA in Section 1.4. The concentrations will be compared to all air quality criteria listed in Table 1.5. Contour plots will also be provided for each parameter considered within the air quality assessment. Predicted concentrations at all receptors used in the dispersion modelling (all grid receptors and discrete receptors) will be used to generate contour plots. Predicted concentrations at all receptors (discrete and grid receptors) will be used to establish maximum offsite predicted concentrations.



Page 19 of 40

Part 2: Information for Level 2 and 3 Assessments Only 2.1 Planned Model Domain and Receptor Grid

Dimensions of proposed model domain (Section 7.1): The Air Quality study area (LAA) is comprised of a 10 by 10 km area centred on the Project and a 2.5 km wide corridor along the LNG vessel shipping route between the Project and Sand Heads Lighthouse (Figure 1).

The model domain, which also corresponds to the human health assessment area (RAA) will be a 25 by 30 km rectangle encompassing the LAA (Figure 1). Proposed receptor spacing (Section 7.2): In addition to the discrete potentially sensitive receptors identified in Section 1.4, a nested receptor grid will be used. The grid will consider the limit of public access, on land this will mean the facility fenceline, and for the water based section of the Project this will mean the marine control zone, within which public access will be deterred, that will be established in the Fraser River around the Project infrastructure and docked vessels during loading. The marine control zone has not been finalized. The draft marine control zone is defined as follows: the control zone extends on a 250 m radius from the centre of the LNG loading platform, whilst remaining well outside the southern perimeter of the established ship navigation channel.

The following receptors will be included:

• Discrete receptors identified in Section 1.4;

• 20 m spacing along the limit of public access;

• 50 m spacing within 500 m of the limit of public access;

• 250 m spacing within the densely populated of North Delta, Ladner, Richmond, Burnaby and Vancouver; and

• 1000 m spacing for the rest of the area in RAA.

Provide a map of the proposed model domain and receptor grid that also shows the locations of all schools, hospitals, daycares and senior facilities within the study domain (Figure 1). Please see Figure 1 Please use a flagpole receptor height of 1.5 m. If a different height is proposed, please provide the height and rationale. A flagpole receptor height of 1.5 m will be used.

2.2 Default Switch Settings

For AERMOD identify any switch settings that could be different than the recommended defaults (see Section 7.7). Provide rationale. Not applicable



Page 20 of 40

For CALPUFF/CALMET identify any switch settings in CALMET Input Groups 4 & 5 and CALPUFF Input Groups 2 & 12 that could be subject to deviation from the “black (do not touch)” defaults as per Tables 6.2 and 7.1. Provide rationale. The switch settings will be consistent with the settings shown in Table 6.2 (CALMET) and Table 7.1 (CALPUFF) of British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline (BC MOE 2015). Table 2.21 provides the CALMET switch settings and Table 2.22 provides the CALPUFF switch settings and their rationale.

Table 2.21: CALMET Switches

Parameter BC MOE

Recommended Setting

Values Used in the

Modelling Comment

NOOBS 0, 1 or 2 1 A combination of observations and WRF ICLOUD 4 4 IWFCOD 1 1 IFRADJ 1 1 IKINE 0 0 IOBR 0 0

ISLOPE 1 1 IEXTRP -4 -4 ICALM 0 or 1 0 ICALM = 0, if NWP model output is used BIAS Varies n/a Not used when NOOBS = 1

RMIN2 -1 n/a Not used when NOOBS = 1 IPROG 0 or 14 14 Use WRF as initial guess field

ISTEPPGS 3600 3600 IGFMET 0 0 LVARY F F RMAX1 Varies 4 See section 2.5 RMAX2 Varies 4 RMAX3 Varies 4 RMIN 0.1 0.1

TERRAD Varies 5 See section 2.5 R1 Varies 2 See section 2.5 R2 Varies 2

RPROG 0 n/a Only used when IPROG = 1 DIVLIM 5x10-6 5x10-6 NITER 50 50

NSMTH (NZ) 2,4,4,4… 2,4,4,4… NINTR2 99 99,99,99,99… CRITFN 1 1 ALPHA 0.1 0.1

FEXTR2 (NZ) NZ * 0.0 n/a Not applicable, no barriers will be modelled



Page 21 of 40

NBAR 0 depends n/a Not applicable, no barriers will be modelled KBAR Varies n/a Not applicable, no barriers will be modelled

XBBAR, YBBAR, XEBAR, YEBAR

Varies n/a

Not applicable, no barriers will be modelled

IDIOPT1 0 0 ISURFT -1 -1 IDIOPT2 0 0

IUPT -1 -1 ZUPT 200 200

IDIOPT3 0 0 IUPWND -1 -1 ZUPWND 1, 1000 1, 1000 IDIOPT4 0 0 IDIOPT5 0 0 LLBREZE F F

NBOX 0 0

XG1, XG2 0 0,0

YG1, YG2 0 0,0

XBCST 0 0

YBCST 0 0

XECST 0 0

YECST 0 0

NLB 0 0

METBXID (NLB) 0 0

Table 2.22: CALPUFF Switches

Parameter BC MOE

Recommended Setting

Values Used in the

Modelling Comment

MGAUSS 1 1 MCTADJ 3 3 MCTSG 0 0 MSLUG 0 0

MTRANS 1 1 MTIP 1 or 2 1 Stack-tip downwash modelled.

MRISE 1 1



Page 22 of 40

MBDW 1 or 2 2 PRIME method MSHEAR 0 0 MSPLIT 0 0 MCHEM 0 or 6 0 No chemical transformation

MAQCHEM (1) n/a Used only if MCHEM =6 MLWC (1) n/a Used only if MAQCHEM = 1

MWET 0 or 1 0 and 1 Concentration and deposition will be modelled separately

MDRY 0 or 1 0 and 1 Concentration and deposition will be modelled separately

MTILT 0 or 1 0 No plume tilt for small particles MDISP 2 2

MTURBVW (3) n/a Used only if MDISP is 1 or 5 MDISP2 (3) n/a Used only if MDISP is 1 or 5 MTAULY 0 0

MTAUADV 0 0 MCTURB 1 1 MROUGH 0 0 MPARTL 1 1

MPARTLBA 1 1 MTINV 0 0 MPDF 0 or 1 1 MDISP = 2

MSGTIBL 0 or 1 0 Do not use MBCON 0 0 MFOG 0 0

MREG 0 0

SVMIN SWMIN

σv = 0.2 for A, B, C, D, E or F σw = default

0.2 default

2.3 CALMET Parameters

If CALMET is planned to be used, provide (Section 6.4.2): • a domain map (Figure 1b) • anticipated grid resolution:_200____ (m) • number of grids in X and Y direction (NX = _162__ , NY = _137__) • vertical levels (m): __20,__40,__80,_110,_150,_200,_300,_400,_800,_1400,_2000,_3000.



Page 23 of 40

2.4 Planned Geophysical Data Input (Section 4)

Source of terrain data: GeoBC Source of land use data: GeoBC Is modification of the land use data necessary? If so, please describe the proposed modification and provide the rationale4. Land use data from GeoBC was downloaded, and was reassigned a raster value to adjust to the 200 m resolution grid within the RAA. The modified land use figure is provided as Figure 2. Based on Table 4.7 provided in BC Modelling Guideline (BC MOE 2015), GeoBC BTM land use categories were converted to CALMET land use categories, and the following land use types were used in Figure 2.

• Urban or Built-up Land • Agricultural Land • Rangeland • Forest Land • Water • Wetlands • Barren Land

The converted land use codes were remapped on a georeferenced aerial image and terrain elevation data and the following modifications were made:

• Water (small water body) and Water (large water body) land use type have the same recommended geophysical parameters within BC Modelling Guidelines. Therefore, this was assigned as Water, rather than two separate land use type. T

• The northern channel of the Fraser River, flowing to south of Vancouver Airport, was realigned. • In the area over Fraser River, discontinued waterways were manually reconnected. • The land (defined as urban) and water grids were realigned. • The area over Burns Bog were modified from barren land and wetland to forest land and wet

land. • The area over Vancouver landfill was modified from urban and wetland to rangelands. • The area north of Burns Bog was modified from rangeland to urban. • The area north of Roberts Bank, at the border of the ocean and land, land use codes were

modified from wetlands to rangelands. • For the area between Roberts Bank and Tsawwassen Terminal, land use codes were modified

from wetlands to rangelands. • The area over Boundary Bay Airport was modified from urban to urban and rangelands. • The area near Boundary Bay and Beach Grove was modified from wetlands to agricultural land. • The area over Iona Beach Regional Park was modified from urban to rangelands. • Waterways from Fraser River to ocean were reconnected and modified from wetlands to water.

4 Modification of land use may be necessary to appropriately represent features such as a continuous Fraser River or large forested parks that may be absent from the land use data.



Page 24 of 40

• The area over Fraserview Golf Academy and Everett Crowley Park were modified from agricultural land, wetlands, and barren land to forest land.

• An area in eastern Richmond was modified from barren land to agricultural land. • The western end of Richmond was modified from wetlands to rangelands.

Provide a land use map (Figure 2) plotted from the dispersion model input data (e.g., GEO.DAT). See Figure 2. If AERMOD is proposed, will land use surrounding the meteorological station or the location of emissions be used? Provide rationale. Not applicable If surface characteristics are required, use Tables 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.12 for summer, autumn, winter and spring, respectively. If these Tables are not used, indicate source of data. Tables 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.12 will be used. If CALMET is proposed, it is recommended that four GEO.DAT files be used to represent different seasons (Section 4.4) as outlined below5:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 3 3 3 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 3

If this is not followed, please indicate an alternative approach and rationale. If building downwash is applicable, use BPIP-PRIME. If not BPIP-PRIME, indicate method used to specify downwash parameters. BPIP-PRIME will be used to assess building downwash.

5 This differs from guidance in the British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline (2015) since the climate in Metro Vancouver is different than the rest of BC.



Page 25 of 40

2.5 Planned Meteorological Data Input and Processing Data Processing The WRF data will be used in conjunction with surface data (surf.dat) from meteorological stations specified in Table 2.5a. Meteorological data from 2015 will be used. The data completeness (90%) recommendation described in BC MOE (2015) will be considered, however, all station data listed in Table 2.5a will be used. The meteorological surface dataset (surf.dat) requires hourly data for the following parameters:

• Wind speed • Wind direction • Ceiling height • Cloud cover • Temperature • Relative humidity • Pressure • Precipitation • Precipitation type code

Table 2.5a Surface Meteorological Data

Station ID Location (lat/long or indicate on

map)

Data Source MOE, MV, MSC,

Site Specific, other (specify) 1

Parameter(s)2 Year % of Wind Speeds = calm 3(b)

Anemometer Height (m) 4

T17 (Richmond South)

49.1414º N 123.1082º W

Metro Vancouver

Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation

2015 0.5% 12.5

T31 (Vancouver International Airport #2)

49.1864º N 123.1522º W

Metro Vancouver

Wind speed(c), wind direction(c), temperature(c), relative humidity(c), precipitation(c), pressure(c)

2015 <0.1%(c) 10.3

T18 (Burnaby South)

49.2153º N 122.9856º W

Metro Vancouver

Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation

2015 <0.1% 19.9

T13 (North Delta)

49.1583º N 122.9017º W

Metro Vancouver

Wind speed(c), wind

2015 <0.1%(c) 18.3



Page 26 of 40

Station ID Location (lat/long or indicate on

map)

Data Source MOE, MV, MSC,

Site Specific, other (specify) 1

Parameter(s)2 Year % of Wind Speeds = calm 3(b)

Anemometer Height (m) 4

direction(c), temperature, relative humidity, precipitation(c)

T39 (Tsawwassen)

49.0099º N 123.0820º W

Metro Vancouver

Wind speed(c), wind direction(c), temperature(c), relative humidity(c), precipitation

2015 0.3(c) 10.8

T38 (Annacis Island)

49.1657º N 122.9607º W

Metro Vancouver

Wind speed(c), wind direction(c), temperature(c), relative humidity(c), precipitation(c)

2015 <0.1%(c) 10.0

1108395 (Vancouver Intl A)(a)(d)(e)(f)

49.1947º N 123.1839º W

Government of Canada

Ceiling height(e), cloud cover

2015 n/a n/a

1. If data from a non - ministry, MV or MSC station is proposed, follow guidance in Section 5.8 or 5.9. 2. List all meteorological parameters that will be used from each station (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, air

temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover). 3. For light wind/calm treatment of Metro Vancouver data consult with Metro Vancouver. For other data

sources, follow guidance in Section 5.8.2. 4. Not all meteorological stations measure winds at the standard 10 m height (e.g., some MV observations are

different heights). http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/AirQualityPublications/LowerFraserValleyAirQualityMonitoringNetwork2012StationInformation.pdf.

(a) Vancouver Int’l A station (1108447) station has no data in 2015, and therefore the data from Vancouver Intl A (1108395) will be used.

(b) Values for percent calms were calculated using data provided by Metro Vancouver (Reid 2017, pers. comm.) and Government of Canada website (Government of Canada 2017).

(c) Some of the months do not meet BC MOE’s recommended data completeness of 90% for 2015; however, station data will be included in the dispersion model.

(d) Metro Vancouver has requested that the method of wind speed and wind direction measurement be clarified with ECCC (Doerksen 2018, pers. comm.). The hourly wind speed and wind direction measurements from ECCC stations are the two-minute means (ECCC 2015). Therefore, winds data from this station will not be included in the model.

(e) NAVAN Ceiling height data will be calculated from the raw Aviation Routine Meteorological Report (METAR) data. Further information on this is provided below the table.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/AirQualityPublications/LowerFraserValleyAirQualityMonitoringNetwork2012StationInformation.pdf





Page 27 of 40

Data infilling will not be required for wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation parameter, since at least one of the 8 stations (Table 2.5a) have data for these parameters for each hour in 2015.

Data infilling will be required for pressure since there are data gaps in the pressure measurements from station T31. Infilling of the data gaps for pressure will be consistent with the data infilling methods detailed in the BC modelling guidelines (BC MOE 2015). There are three instances in 2015 where data gaps are greater than 6 hours and data substitution is required, in these instances pressure data from the Government of Canada’s YVR meteorological station (id 1108395) will be used; a comparison of the pressure measurements from both stations for the days prior and days after each of the three extended data gaps demonstrates that both stations monitor a similar pattern and that data substitution would be appropriate.

Data completeness analysis for cloud cover at Vancouver Intl A station shows a completeness of 97.6% to 100% for months in 2015. Therefore, cloud cover data will be infilled by linear interpolation as recommended in BC Modelling guidelines (BC MOE 2015). Note that the cloud cover measurement is taken once in three hours. Therefore, the cloud cover data will be applied for the subsequent two hours, whenever there is observed data.

Quality checked ceiling height data completeness at Vancouver Intl A station provided by ECCC was substantially lower than the recommended data completeness in BC Modelling guidelines (BC MOE 2015) for all months other than January 2015. Golder requested the Aviation Routine Meteorological Report (METAR) data, the raw data used to calculate ceiling height; ECCC also provided the methods used to calculate ceiling height data from the METAR data (Appendix 3). Based on a review and comparison of the METAR data to the quality checked ceiling height data generated by NAVCAN it was observed that the NAVCAN ceiling height data was not consistent with the ceiling height data description provided by ECCC. Golder has informed ECCC of this issue and ECCC are investigating. For the purpose of this assessment Golder proposes to generate ceiling height data from the METAR data following the method provided ECCC (Appendix 3). Additionally the ceiling height dataset generated from METAR will be compared to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Integrated Surface Database (ISD) data for YVR (1108395). The ISD is a data product developed by NOAA which provides consistent quality checked hourly data for stations around the globe; the METAR data measured at YVR (1108395) are inputs to the ISD. The data completeness for the METAR generated ceiling height data is greater than 97%; METAR derived ceiling height data will be infilled by linear interpolation as recommended in BC Modelling guidelines (BC MOE 2015).

Precipitation type code, where unavailable, will be calculated using the SMERGE preprocessor. Table 2.5b Upper-Air Meteorological Data No direct upper air station data (up.dat) will be used for the assessment. WRF will be used instead.



Page 28 of 40

Table 2.5c Mesoscale Meteorological Model Output (attach map of domain) Model (name, version,

configuration)

Model Output

Provider

Horizontal Grid

Resolution (km)

Height of Vertical Levels

(m)

Years Planned Model Output Use 1

WRF Exponent 4x4 0.0, 10.9, 34.1, 60.3, 89.6, 122.5, 160.0, 202.1, 249.6, 303.7, 364.8, 433.5, 511.5, 600.1, 700.4, 814.4, 944.1, 1092.1, 1261.5, 1455.3, 1677.7, 1934.1, 2230.9, 2576.1, 2980.0, 3455.7, 4021.9, 4628.0, 5180.4, 5705.6, 6265.0, 6866.0, 7545.5, 8317.4, 9224.7, 10311.2, 11426.7, 12261.6, 12875.1, 13547.3, and 14290.2

2015 ___CALMET Hybrid mode

1. Sections 6.1 & 6.4.1.

If CALMET Hybrid mode is proposed, describe in detail the choice of R1, RMAX1 and TERRAD. RMAX1: The areas surrounding the Project is relatively flat and the approximate distance between neighboring weather stations are 6 km therefore the maximum diameter of influence for meteorological stations was selected as 4 km. R1: Since the terrain surrounding the project is relatively flat, the distance where the observation station and the first guess field are equally weighted was selected as half the distance of RMAX1, which is 2 km. TERRAD: The area surrounding the project is relatively flat, the region where winds are likely to be subject to terrain influences are found in the northeast corner of the RAA (figure 1) around the Fraser River, northeast of Annacis Island. The distance between terrain features (hilltops) in this area is roughly 5 km; therefore TERRAD was selected as 5 km.



Page 29 of 40

2.6 Special Topics Indicate the conditions that are planned to be considered as part of the assessment.

Stagnation Conditions

Provide an estimate of the frequency of stagnation based on local meteorological data. If AERMOD is proposed, provide methodology on how stagnation periods will be treated (see Section 10.2) Calm wind periods, which may result in stagnation conditions, are expected to occur up to 6 % annually. The proposed air dispersion model is CALPUFF in 3D mode which models stagnation conditions using diffusion parameters. Shore/Coastal Effects

No If Yes, indicate whether sub-grid-scale Thermal Internal Boundary Layer option is selected along with the required input coastline coordinate data (see Section 10.3)

Plume Condensation (Fogging) and Icing

No If Yes follow guidance in Section 10.6 Chemical Transformation No If Yes, specify transformation method and provide details on inputs if Secondary PM2.5, Acid

Deposition or Visibility effects are to be estimated. Depending on the transformation method, this could include ammonia, ozone, hydrogen peroxide concentrations, nighttime loss and formation rates for nitrates and sulphates.

Particle Deposition

Yes If Yes follow guidance in Section 3.7. If non-recommended particle size distributions are used, provide table of particle (including heavy metals) emission size/density distribution and indicate the basis for the table.

Deposition will be modelled, and the geometric mean diameters provided within Table 3.1 of BC MOE (2015) will be used and a separate model run will be executed for deposition.

Important: a separate model run should be conducted with deposition turned on. Maximum predicted concentration results should be presented with deposition turned off.

2.7 Quality Management Program Geophysical and Meteorological Input Data

Strikeout the tests that will not be undertaken to assure the quality of the inputs and provide rationale. Geophysical input data: contour plot of topography plots of land use and land cover

Meteorological data: wind rose (annual and/or seasonal) frequency distribution of surface wind speeds average hourly temperature plot (annual and/or seasonal)



Page 30 of 40

NWP output (Section 6.1) wind rose at selected locations and heights (annual and/or seasonal) average hourly temperature plot at selected locations and heights (annual and/or seasonal) wind field plots for selected periods that indicate topographic influences such as channeling

and thermally generated flows AERMOD QA/QC

List the tests that will be conducted to confirm the quality of the model input and output

n/a

CALMET/CALPUFF QA/QC

Strikeout the tests that will not be conducted and provide justification (Section 9.1). All plots or other proof that the tests have been conducted should be provided in an appendix to the dispersion modelling report. We recommend that you provide a draft of this appendix to Metro Vancouver for review prior to commencing CALPUFF modelling to limit the need to remodel; however, this review should not be considered final approval of the CALMET. Metro Vancouver may have additional comments on the CALMET methodology once it reviews CALPUFF model results.

CALMET/CALPUFF QA Files: Plot the locations of the grid, NWP grid points, and source locations and compare to

Google Earth or aerial photographs Check for blanks, comma instead of period, wrong UTM zone etc.

CALMET Input data: Plot of terrain and land use from the GEO.DAT input files to ensure they match with other maps

of the area. Plot the locations of the meteorological observation stations to check whether they are located

properly in the horizontal and vertical. Compare all the CALMET-ready input files with the raw data to ensure no errors in data

conversion to CALMET-ready files (reformatting, unit conversions, etc.). Compare each month of CALMET input meteorological files with each other to ensure all

parameters are consistent from month to month. Review all source information (values, formats, units) associated with Input Group 13-16 of the

CALPUFF.INP file to ensure emission information is correct. Plot the source locations to ensure that they are located properly and ensure that their vertical

location (stack base relative to terrain height for that location) is correct. Review locations (horizontally and vertically) of all specified receptors.

CALMET Output data: For a few representative periods where thermally driven flows would be expected, plot the

wind vector fields at various levels to confirm that the wind fields are reasonable given the terrain and the meteorological conditions.

For a few representative periods, when thermally driven flows would be expected, plot wind speed isopleths, derived from all grid cells in CALMET.

Plot the frequency distribution of surface wind speeds for different locations in the domain and at the surface station locations and check for reasonableness.



Page 31 of 40

Plot annual and seasonal surface wind roses for different locations as well as the surface station locations and check for realism (compare with observations, consider the location, and what might be expected based on topography).

For different 24-h periods within a summer and winter season, plot a surface, mid-level and upper-level wind field every hour for a 24-h period with light winds and stable conditions. Check for reasonableness of the wind fields in the domain (extent of terrain effects and the appropriateness of the settings that require expert judgment).

Plot time series of average surface temperature by month for the source location as well as surface station locations. Compare with observations/climate normals. Check for reasonable monthly variation for the given locations.

Plot time series of average surface temperature by hour-of-day for the source location as well as surface station locations. Compare with observations/climate normals. Check for reasonable diurnal variation for the given locations.

Plot time series of average precipitation by month (if precipitation is an input) for one location as well as surface station locations. Compare with observations. Check for reasonable monthly variation for the given locations.

Plot the frequency distribution of mixing heights for different locations. Check for reasonableness.

Plot a time series of mixing heights for a 24-h summer and winter period during a light wind, and a clear sky period. Examine the diurnal behaviour for reasonableness.

Plot the frequency distribution of P-G stability class for the source location as well as surface station location. Compare to the airport observation P-G class frequency distribution (if available). Check for reasonableness for the given locations.

If NWP model output is used, examine CALMET-generated wind fields for a 24-h period of light winds, and clear skies at surface, mid and upper levels with and without NWP output and check for reasonableness.

Note: Metro Vancouver may request submission of all computer files associated with the modelling.



Page 33 of 40

References British Columbia. 2018a,b,c. Data Catalogue. Web Database. [accessed April 2018]

https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/child-care-map-data

https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/hospitals-in-bc

https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-schools-school-locations

British Columbia Ministry of Education. 2018. School Information. [accessed April 2018]

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/apps/imcl/imclWeb/SchoolContactSelector.do

BC MOE (British Columbia Ministry of Environment). 2015. British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline. BC MOE Environmental Protection Division Environmental Standards Branch Clean Air Section. [accessed November 2017] https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/air/reports-pub/bc-dispersion-modelling-guideline-2015.pdf.

BC MOE. 2016. BC Ambient Air Quality Objectives – Updated 16 December 2016. Provincial Air Quality Objective Information Sheet. [accessed November 2017] https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/air/reports-pub/aqotable.pdf.

BC MOE. 2017. BC Air Data Archive Website. [accessed November 2017] https://envistaweb.env.gov.bc.ca/.

Bramwell G. 2018. Regional Services Climatologist, Prediction Services Operations West, Meteorological Services of Canada, ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). Email to Baba T, Air Quality Specialist, Golder Associates. 5 January 2018.

CCME (Canadian Council Ministers of the Environment). 2014. Current Priorities – CAAQS. [accessed January 2018] https://www.ccme.ca/en/current_priorities/air/caaqs.html

Doerksen G. 2017. Air Quality Planner, Air Quality and Climate Change, Metro Vancouver. Email attachment to Wyles R, Environmental Engineer, Golder associates. 20 December 2017.

ECCC. 2015. MANOBS Manual of Surface Weather Observations. Seventh Edition, Amendment 19.

Government of Canada. 2017. Historical Data. [accessed November 2017] http://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html.

Metro Vancouver. 2017. Metro Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Approval - Approval GVU 1095. [accessed November 2017] http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/Permits-regulations-enforcement/air-quality/apply-permit/AirQualityPermitsSigned/1095%20-%20FortisBC%20Energy%20Inc.%20Approval%20-%20Issued%202017-05-17.pdf.

Metro Vancouver. 2017. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Board of Directors. Meeting held on 12 November 2017. Electronic resources last accessed 16 March 2017. http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/GVRD/RD_2017-Nov-24_MIN.pdf.

https://envistaweb.env.gov.bc.ca/



Page 34 of 40

Metro Vancouver. 2016. Metro Vancouver’s Ambient Air Quality Objectives. [accessed November 2017] http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/AirQualityPublications/CurrentAmbientAirQualityObjectives.pdf.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2017. Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario. [accessed November 2017] https://files.ontario.ca/admgo-id50_aoda_v2b.pdf.

SNC Lavalin Environment. 2012. 2010 National Marine Emissions Inventory for Canada, Final Report. Prepared for Environment Canada. Gatineau, QC.

Reid K. 2017. Super Intendent, Environmental Sampling and Monitoring. Metro Vancouver. Air Quality and Climate Change. Email to Baba T. Air Quality Specialist, Golder Associates. 21 November 2017.

Rifkin J. 2018. Head, Environmental Assessment. ECCC. Email to Ramkellawan J, Air Quality Engineer, Golder Associates. 3 April 2018.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

(

(((

(

(

(

(

(

(( (

(

(

(

((

((

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

((

((

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(((

(

(

(

(

(

(( (

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

FRASER RIVER ( SOUT H ARM)

STRAIT OFGEORGIA

CLIENT

LEGEND!( SENSITIVE RECEPTOR

! GRIDDED RECEPTOR

PROJECT AREAA

LOCAL ASSESSMENT AREA

REGIONAL ASSESSMENT AREA

FRASER RIVER SHIPPING CHANNEL

CANADA - U.S.A BORDER

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

0 01

2018-04-17

JP

TB

TB

RW

Pat

h: Y

:\bur

naby

\CA

D-G

IS\C

lient

\Wes

Pac

_Mid

stre

am_L

LC\T

ilbur

y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\131

4220

049_

Mar

ineJ

etty

\02_

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N\1

6000

\MX

D\R

epor

t\Air_

Qua

lity\

Det

aile

d_M

odel

_Pla

n\20

17\T

ILB

UR

Y_A

IR_1

6000

_Fig

ure_

01_D

OM

AIN

_RE

CE

PTO

R.m

xd

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

: AN

SI B

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 2500 5000

1:110000 METRESSCALE

1. SHIPPING CHANNEL OBTAINED FROM AUSENCO-100761-0000-W-K50-A 04-17-2015.2. IMAGERY © 20040603 ESRI AND ITS LICENSORS. SOURCE: DIGITALGLOBE,VANCOUVER 2006. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

WESPAC MIDSTREAM - VANCOUVER LLC

TILBURY MARINE JETTYDELTA, B.C.

SENSITIVE AND GRIDDED RECEPTORS

13-1422-0049 16000 / 16070

NOTESA. THE EXACT LOCATION AND EXTENT OF THE MARINE CONTROL ZONE(REPRESENTED BY THE DASHED LINE) HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED.

FRASER RIVER (SOUT H ARM)

STRAIT OFGEORGIA

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT AREAA



CALMET MODEL DOMAIN

LAND USEURBAN OR BUILT-UP LAND

AGRICULTURAL LAND

RANGELAND

FOREST LAND (CONIFEROUS)

WATER (SMALL AND LARGE WATER BODY)B

WETLAND

BARREN LAND



REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049 16000/16070 0 02

2017-11-28

JP

TB

TB

RW

Pat

h: Y

:\bur

naby

\CA

D-G

IS\C

lient

\Wes

Pac

_Mid

stre

am_L

LC\T

ilbur

y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\131

4220

049_

Mar

ineJ

etty

\02_

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N\1

6000

\MX

D\R

epor

t\Air_

Qua

lity\

Det

aile

d_M

odel

_Pla

n\20

17\T

ILB

UR

Y_A

IR_1

6000

_Fig

ure_

02_L

AN

D_U

SE

_MA

P.m

xd

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

: AN

SI B

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 2,750 5,500

1:120,000 METRESSCALE

LAND USE MAP




NOTESA. THE EXACT LOCATION AND EXTENT OF THE MARINE CONTROL ZONE(REPRESENTED BY THE DASHED LINE) HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED.B. WATER (SMALL WATER BODY) AND WATER (LARGE WATER BODY) LAND USE TYPEHAVE THE SAME RECOMMENDED GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS WITHIN BC MODELLINGGUIDELINES. THEREFORE, THIS WAS ASSIGNED AS WATER, RATHER THAN TWOSEPARATE LAND USE TYPES.

FRASER RIV ER (S OUTH ARM)STRAIT OFGEORGIA

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT AREAA



CALMET MODEL DOMAIN

APPROXIMATE WRF DOMAINB



REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049 16000/16070 0 03

2017-11-28

JP

TB

TB

RW

Pat

h: Y

:\bur

naby

\CA

D-G

IS\C

lient

\Wes

Pac

_Mid

stre

am_L

LC\T

ilbur

y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\131

4220

049_

Mar

ineJ

etty

\02_

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N\1

6000

\MX

D\R

epor

t\Air_

Qua

lity\

Det

aile

d_M

odel

_Pla

n\20

17\T

ILB

UR

Y_A

IR_1

6000

_Fig

ure_

03_D

OM

AIN

S_A

ER

IAL_

PH

OTO

.mxd

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

: AN

SI B

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 5,600 11,200

1:250,000 METRESSCALE

ASSESSMENT AREAS AND MODEL DOMAINS




NOTES

A. THE EXACT LOCATION AND EXTENT OF THE MARINE CONTROL ZONE(REPRESENTED BY THE DASHED LINE) HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED.B. WRF DOMAIN EXTENT IS APPROXIMATE (± 2 KM). DOMAIN WILL BE FINALIZED ONCEBC MOE WRF DATASET IS PURCHASED FROM EXPONENT.



Page 38 of 40

APPENDIX 1 Response to MV Comments

AQ Monitoring Plan Comment Tracking Table for WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

Consultant: Golder Modelling Plan Received Date: 7-Dec-17Report Title: Metro Vancouver Dispersion Modelling Plan MV Comments Sent Date: 21-Dec-17

Consultant/Applicant Response Received Date:MV Follow-up Comment Sent Date:

Consultant/Applicant Response Received Date:Reviewer 1: GDReviewer 2: SMSReviewer 3: KH

Comment ID Reviewer MV CommentConsultant/Applicant Response MV Follow-up Comment Consultant/Applicant Response MV Follow-up Comment Consultant/Applicant Response MV Follow-up Comment

1 GD

Section 1.4 - Figure 1 - the nearest sensitive receptors are plotted. Note that it is expected that the table of maximum predicted concentrations at each type of sensitive receptor will be based on predicted concentrations at any sensitive receptor, not just the nearest sensitive receptor. In other words, if the nearest school is 1.5 km to the southwest but a higher concentration is predicted at a school 1.6 km to the northeast, it is expected that the latter concentration would be included in the table and not the former. Please confirm this will be the case.

Maximum predicted concentrations at each discrete sensitive receptor within the LAA will be provided in the assessment in addition to the maximum offsite prediction. See section 1.4.

It is understood that predictions will be provided for discrete receptors modelled. However, we request that all schools, hospitals, daycares and senior facilities contained within the study area be included as discrete receptors, and not just some of them. Further, we request that results of the maximum predicted concentrations be provided for each of these sensitive receptor types.

1,033 discrete receptors were identified within the RAA, including a bike route, a boat launch, dykes, farms, a first nation heritage area, parks, wetland, recreational centres, hospitals, childcare facilities, senior facilities and schools. School locations were obtained from DataBC (British Columbia 2018a) and Ministry of Education (British Columbia Ministry of Education 2018). Childcare and hospital facilities location were obtained from DataBC (British Columbia 2018b, c). These discrete receptors will be included in addition to the gridded receptors (Figure 1).

Please clarify what results are proposed to be presented as outlined in Section 1.4. It is not clear what is meant by "the predicted concentrations at each individual receptor will not be presented within the assessment report". Also it is not clear which receptors will be used to present the contour plots and tables of maximum predicted concentrations. All receptors should be used in the determination of maximum predicted concentrations.

1) Results that are proposed to be presented include: -Concentration contours on figures overlain on a base map of the surrounding area. The contours will show the location of maximum offsite predictions. The contour maps will be provided for all air quality parameters (PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO) and for all relevant averaging periods as identified in Table 1.5 of the model plan.-Tables providing overall maximum offsite predicted concentrations as well as concentrations at all sensitive receptors within the Local Assessment Area shown on Figure 1.

2) "Due to the number of discrete receptors modelled, the predicted concentrations at each individual receptor will not be presented within tables within the assessment report" is clarified as follows: Tables providing the predicted concentrations for all modelled parameters and all relevant averaging periods will not be provided for all 1090 discrete receptors.

3) Predicted concentrations at all receptors used in the dispersion modelling (all grid receptors and discrete receptors) will be used to generate contour plots.

4) Predicted concentrations at all receptors will be used to establish maximum offsite predicted concentrations.

No further comment.

2 GD

Section 1.5 - Please note that Metro Vancouver no longer has a 24-hour objective for SO2. A revised SO2 1-hour objective of 70 ppb and annual objective of 5 ppb were adopted by Metro Vancouver's Board on November 24, 2017. Please update Table 1.5 accordingly.

Updated Table 1.5 and removed the Metro Vancouver 24-hour SO2 objective. The new 1-hour and annual SO2 objectives have been included.

A more appropriate reference for Metro Vancouver newly adopted SO2 Objectives would be the November 24, 2017 Board Meeting. See: http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/GVRD/RD_2017-Nov-24_MIN.pdf

This reference has been updated. No further comment.

3 GD

Section 1.5 - It is noted that Metro Vancouver's objectives have been included in Table 1.5. Please also include all Provincial and Federal objectives and standards.

Updated table 1.5 and added BCAAQO, and CCME criteria. However, these criteria are listed for comparison purposes.

Is there a typo in Table 1.5 that indicates there is a Federal Standard of 25 ug/m3 for PM10? Also note that they are Federal Standards and not Objectives, as indicated in the table. Note that footnotes (a) and (b) conflict with each other given that one is provided in the column and the other in a row in the same column. Footnotes (f) and (g) should state "CCME has proposed..." the NO2 CAAQS, and not that "CAAQS has proposed...". Please include the metric to calculate the Provincial 1-hour NO2 Objective as a footnote. Please update the federal SO2 standards to the SO2 CAAQS.

This section has been updated. Please note that footnotes (f) and (g) still need to be updated. The footnotes should refer to NO2 "standards", rather than "objectives". Additionally, the NO2 Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards have been adopted, so they shouldn't be referred to as "proposed".

Footnotes (f) and (g) will be updated to include the revised text. No further comment.

4 KHTable 1.5 - The CAAQS for NO2 have new objectives which come into force in 2020 and 2025. Please include a comparison to these levels as part of a planning exercise. Will mitigation measures be required in the future?

Included 2020 and 2025 NO2 objectives for 1-hour and annual averaging periods. Mitigation measures will be described in the technical assessment report.

no further comments

5 GD

Section 1.5 - Please identify which specific VOC, metals and PAHs are of concern and which will be included in this assessment. For those pollutants please include the objectives and/or standards they will be compared to.

Assessment of effects for individual VOC, metals and PAHs assessment will be undertaken within the human and ecological health risk assessment being conducted as part of the Environmental Assessment. Modelled ambient concentrations of individual species of VOC, metals and PAHs will be provided to the human health discipline as one of the inputs to the human and ecological health risk assessment. The air quality criteria that will be used for screening the ambient concentrations in the human and ecological health effects assessment to identify contaminants of potential concern for further evaluation can be found in Appendix 2 of the model plan.

no further comments

6 KH Section 1.6 (5) - Please update to discuss annual concentrations, not annual emissions

Update made. no further comments

7 KH Section 1.7 - Please ensure that the ARM curve is included in the report. The ARM curve will be included in the assessment report. no further comments

8 GD

Section 1.9 - It is noted that the largest LNG carrier will be modelled. Are there any other carriers that could result in higher predicted concentrations compared with the one carrier type considered in this assessment? If so, please consider including them in this assessment.

Loading emissions for each of the three vessel sizes will be quantified to confirm that the largest LNG carrier results in greatest 1-hour and 24-hour emission rates.

Note that predicted concentrations are not only a function of emission rate, but also source characterization (i.e., stack height, exit velocity, exit temperature). The highest predicted concentrations are not always associated with the emission source with the highest emission rate. It is requested that scenarios be included for all potential carrier vessels or that a sensitivity analysis is included that demonstrates that the "worst case" predictions have been presented for all of the potential carrier vessels that may call to the facility.

Sensitivity analysis will be undertaken for the two different LNG vessel types and the associated configurations (stack height, internal diameter, exit gas velocity, exit gas temperature and effective release height) that result in the maximum emission rates will be used.

No further comment.

9 GD

Section 1.9 - Please explain how a vessel is typically loaded, including a description of how long it takes to load and which hours of the day this loading can occur. Please provide a description of how the 24-hour rolling averages will be modelled. Will each hour be modelled with maximum 1-hour emissions or will total average daily emissions be used (i.e., will emissions be prorated)? Which activities that could occur in a 24-hour rolling average period will result in the worst case concentrations? Please provide a description of how this will be assessed.

Clarification has been provided in Section 1.9. In our view, it is not appropriate nor conservative to predict worst case 24-hour concentrations based on 24-hour average emission rates. We recommend that worst case 24-hour predictions be based on all of the combinations of potential maximum hourly emissions that can occur within any given day. For example, the worst case 24-hour concentration may be the result of a berthing vessel in the morning, loading of x hours and departure in the evening. Or perhaps berthing in the evening, loading throughout the night and departure the following day may cause the maximum 24-hour concentration to occur. The timing of each emission activity is important, as releasing emissions at 6 am, for example, does not result in the same dispersion as a release at 12 pm. Please present a more robust methodology to predict the worst case 24-hour rolling average and 8-hour rolling average concentrations.

To represent 24-hour conditions hourly variable emission rates over a 24-hour period will be modelled. Emissions would comprise of firstly Berthing of LNG carrier, including tugs and security boat (extent of 1 hour) and secondly loading of LNG carrier (extent of 23 hours).

To determine which variable emission rate combination (24 different combinations) will result in the most conservative model predicted concentrations a sensitivity test will be undertaken (i.e. varying the hour of the day that the LNG carrier berths). The variable emission profile that results in the greatest offsite concentration prediction will be used in the assessment.

The approach to conduct a sensitivity analysis to identify the worst case 24-hour concentrations seems reasonable. However, it should be noted that the scenario that results in the highest concentration may not pose the greatest impact to the population, and results should be presented for any of the scenarios that result in predicted exceedances of any 24-hour objective.

The approach to the sensitivity analysis, and to determining which results will be presented in the assessment report is provided in the following steps:

1) For the air quality assessment, for the substances that have a 24-hour air quality criteria, we will execute the model for all variable emission combinations (24 different scenarios).

2) For the 24 scenarios outlined in 1) above the model results will be analyzed to determine which results to present in the assessment report:

ai) Identify the maximum concentration and corresponding number of exceedances (if any) associated with the maximum concentration at each receptor (grid and discrete) across all 24 scenarios

aii) Identify the maximum concentration across all receptors (grid and discrete)

bi) Identify the maximum number of exceedances (if any) and corresponding concentration associated with that maximum number of exceedances at each receptor (grid and discrete) across all 24 scenarios

bii) for concentrations established in bi) identify the maximum concentration across all receptors (grid and discrete)

Based on the analysis obtained in ai) and aii) we will present the maximum offsite concentration, and will use the maximum concentration at each receptor (grid and discrete) established in ai) to generate the contours which will be presented in the assessment.

Based on the analysis obtained in bi) and bii) we will firstly verify if this dataset occurs from the same scenario as the dataset generated in ai and aii. If it is the same then no further results will be presented. If the dataset is different we will present the maximum offsite concentration from bii) and use the concentration dataset generated in bi) to create a contour plot using all receptors (grid and discrete).

The methods and results presented will be fully explained within the assessment report.

No further comment.

9 SMS

Section 1.9, Table 1.9 - Please contact Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) for updated methodologies and emission factors for marine emission sources (LNG vessels and tugs) and fugitive emissions. ECCC has recently completed a 2015 National Marine Emission Inventory. ECCC contact is Monica Hilborn, [email protected]

Contacted Monica Hilborn at ECCC, and in the process of receiving the new emission factors and methods.

Will review the emission estimates from marine operations once the new emission factors and methods are employed.

MEIT factors have been provided in Appendix 3 of the updated model plan. Please reconfirm the PM speciation factors for PM10 and PM2.5 with ECCC for both the main and auxiliary engines. Previously ECCC used speciation factors of 96% for PM10 and 88% for PM2.5. Note also that the tanker auxiliary engine EF for PM should be larger than the EF for PM10 and PM2.5; currently the PM EF is smaller than for PM2.5 and PM10.

1) The data provided by ECCC to Golder was in the form of separate emission factors for PM, PM10 and PM2.5, and therefore speciation factors were not provided. It appears that ECCC have updated the MEIT tool and no longer provide speciation factors, rather they provide the separate emission factors. We have requested confirmation of the particulate emission factors from ECCC since they differ from the speciation factors of 96% for PM10 and 88% for PM2.5. The response from ECCC will be provided to Metro Vancouver when received, along with any proposed updates (if required) to the modelling approach.

2) We agree the EF for PM should be greater than the EF for PM10 and PM2.5. It is noted that PM is not being assessed, and currently only the PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors are used. We have requested reconfirmation from ECCC regarding the auxiliary engine PM2.5, PM10 and PM emission factors. The response from ECCC will be provided to Metro Vancouver when received, along with any proposed updates (if required) to the modelling approach.

No further comment.

11 GD

Section 1.9 - Is there a need to vent vapours from an empty carrier prior to loading? If so, how does this occur? Is there a vapour recovery or destruction system? Will these emissions be included in the modelling?

LNG loading will use vapour return pipe and is a closed system. No air will be evacuated from the LNG vessels and no vapour destruction units will be applicable to the Project. Vapor will be routed back to the Fortis Tilbury facility.

It could be argued that no system is perfect and that some, albeit small, amount of vapours may escape through leaks. It is requested that these potential small losses be estimated and presented in the assessment.

Fugitive losses will be included in the assessment. Please refer to Table 1.9 in the Model plan, last row.

Please clarify if it is expected that the model plan statement "When there is no vessel berthing, LNG Loading or vessel departing from the jetty, the Project is not anticipated to emit any direct emissions to the air" also applies to fugitive emissions (i.e., if there are no berthing, loading or departing activities, are there no other sources of fugitive emissions at the marine jetty?). Further, please include an explanation as to how fugitive losses will be modelled in the assessment (e.g., will fugitive emissions be modelled for berthing, loading and departing activities, or any other activities?).

1) Fugitive losses associated with project loading and pipeline infrastructure are assumed to be continuous in the model and therefore will occur during berthing and departing activities.

2) The LNG system is a cryogenic (-160C) and uses the same technology and tolerances are same as used in spacecraft, no leaks are acceptable. Although the liquid is extremely cold it operates unpressurized. Cryogenic systems cannot afford to have even the smallest leaks, seeps and weeps (unlike convention pipelines) because the system will likely shutdown and freeze itself solid due to water vapor entering the leak site and the system. Wespac expect very minimal fugitive emissions. The system will also be installed with a very sensitive leak detection system that would shut down the system in the event of a leak.

For the modelling, fugitive losses will be modelled as a series of area sources along the entire delivery pipeline at the Project, and over the marine loading area. Fugitive losses will be quantified based on a fugitive loss emission factor rate taken from ' Fugitive Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Activities (IPCC 2001)'. We are proposing to use an LNG fugitive loss emission factor of 0.005% of total throughput; which is the factor for a well maintained LNG Plant.

No further comment.

12 KH

Section 1.9 - Please provide more information on how the fugitive sources will be parameterized in the dispersion model. Will it be one, large source encompassing the entire facility or will it be a series of area sources for specific pieces of equipment.

Area sources over the pipeline at a dimension ratio (width: length) of 1:5 to account for fugitive losses along the pipeline to the LNG vessel/barge.

no further comments

13 GD

Section 1.11 - Tables of maximum predicted concentrations at sensitive receptors - as above and as stated in the model plan template, tables of maximum predicted concentrations should be at any school, daycare, etc. and not just the closest or nearest receptor. It is therefore recommended that more discrete receptors be modelled than just those illustrated in Figure 1.

The maximum predicted concentrations are expected to occur within the LAA. Additional receptors for hospitals, schools, child care, and long-term care facilities within the LAA have been included. Figure 1 has been updated with the additional discrete receptors. Additionally urban areas outside of the LAA (but within the RAA) will have 250 m gridded receptors and the predicted concentrations over this area will be used to verify maximum receptor concentrations are within the LAA.

Thank you for including additional receptors. However, the updated Figure 1 does not include all hospitals, schools, child care, and long-term care facilities within the LAA. As in the follow-up to Comment 1, we request that all schools, hospitals, daycares and senior facilities contained within the study area be included as discrete receptors. Further, we request that results of the maximum predicted concentrations be provided for each of the sensitive receptor types.

Refer to response to comment ID1. No further comment.

14 GDSection 2.5 - It is understood that wind speed and direction measurements taken by Environment and Climate Change Canada at YVR are not hourly averages and are therefore not appropriate to use in dispersion modelling.

Wind speed and wind direction measurements from the ECCC YVR station will not be used in the assessment.

no further comments

15 GD

Section 2.5 - Based on what is provided, it is not clear what the intention is with filling missing surface station data. Please clarify if WRF data will be used in the SURF.DAT file. Note that the British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Guideline provides guidance on the treatment of missing data in Section 5.5.

For wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, and pressure, infilling data is not required for 2015 model year. For cloud cover, data from Vancouver Intl Airport station will be used. For ceiling height, data from WRF will be used.

no further comments

16 GD Section 2.5 - It is stated that the year 2014 will be used for T38. Is this correct? no further comments

17 KH Table 2.5a: The coordinates for the first ECCC YVR station appear to be incorrect and should be updated.

Updated to the correct coordinates. no further comments

Comment ID Reviewer MV CommentConsultant/Applicant Response MV Follow-up Comment Consultant/Applicant Response MV Follow-up Comment Consultant/Applicant Response MV Follow-up Comment

18 KH

Section 3.4 (Source Emission Rate Variability): It should be noted that while the emissions, by tonnage, may be smaller during dredging, presumably the source characteristics will be different, which will change the dispersion of pollutants. Please confirm if modelling will be done for the dredging and how those sources will be parameterized.

Our initial emission calculation (to be updated with final EF and load factor when provided by ECCC) indicates that the maximum hourly marine emissions (for normal operations) are approximately 7 times higher than the dredger emissions. Even with different source parameterization, it is expected that marine emissions (normal operations) would have the greater potential for off-site air quality effects. Therefore only the marine emissions will be modelled.

Will the emission from marine emissions be approximately 7 times higher once the final EF and load factors are used? Please confirm. Additionally, is the dredging taking place at berth or also in portions of the Fraser River? How does the emission release height of the dredging equipment compare to the other release heights proposed?

Dredging is now proposed to occur for 24-hours over a two week period every year. Based on the updated dredging schedule and updated MEIT emission factors please disregard the first response to this comment since it is outdated.

The dredging is anticipated to occur at the jetty and in the marine control zone, the zone where vessels berth and depart the Facility.

Short term (1-hour and 24-hour) will be modelled and model predicted concentration comparisons will be made against the ambient air quality criteria and maximum 1-hour and 24-hour emission scenarios.

Please confirm that the dredging will be run over the entire modelling period in order to capture the worst case 1-hour and 24-hour predicted average concentrations.

We confirm that the dredger will be run over the entire modelling period. Maximum 1-hour dredger emissions will be used for each hour over the modelling period. No further comment.

19 KHSection 2.7: Please include the two struck out QA/QC plots under the NWP section. While the elevations in the area may indicate uniform terrain, the Fraser River has the ability to influence local meteorology.

The requested update was made. no further comments

20 KH

Section 2.7: Please include the two struck out QA/QC sections under the CALMET QA/QC. In particular, the second struck out bullet is requested to evaluate the performance of the hybrid CALMET method and the presence of "donuts" in the wind fields.

The requested update was made. no further comments

21 GD

It is stated on Page 6 (section 1.5) that the determination of significance will be based on Metro Vancouver ambient air quality objectives. We would like to emphasize that the determination of significance should more appropriately be based on more than just air quality objectives or standards, since air quality objectives and standards are not pollute up to limits. The determination of significance should also consider geographical extent, % increase in concentrations, frequency of various thresholds, etc. Also, Metro Vancouver's objectives are not the most stringent for CO and NO2. Metro Vancouver has yet to adopt new NO2 objectives based on the federal NO2 CAAQS. Metro Vancouver typically adopts objectives that are as stringent if not more stringent than Province or Canada, and has typically adopted a metric of the 100th percentile. Results from this assessment should be compared to the NO2 CAAQS for 2020 and 2025, since the Project will have a life beyond these years. It is also requested that the maximum predicted concentration (i.e., 100th percentile) be compared against numerical values of the CAAQS for 2020 and 2025.

Section 1 of the model plan has been updated. Section 1.11. It is stated that results will be compared to relevant Metro Vancouver air quality objectives. Results should be compared to all objectives and standards outlined in Table 1.5. Please confirm whether this will be done.

This section will be updated. No further comment.



Page 39 of 40

APPENDIX 2 MEIT Emission Factors

May 2018 Appendix 2:MEIT Emission Factors

1314220049-089-TM-Rev6-18000

O:\Final\2013\1422\13-1422-0049\1314220049-089-TM-Rev6-18000\Appendix 2\Appendix 2 - MEIT Emission Factors.xlsx Golder Associates Ltd. Page: 1 of 1

Engine Emission Factors(a)

Engine Size(b)

Average Load Factor

NOX ME EF

CO ME EF

HC ME EF

SOX ME EF

PM2.5 ME EF(g)

PM10 ME EF(h) PM ME EF Engine Size(b)

Average Load Factor

NOX AE EF

CO AE EF

HC AE EF

SOX AE EF

PM2.5 AE EF

PM10 AE EF

PM AE EF

kW unitless g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh kW unitless g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh

LNG Carrier TankerMerchant Liquefied Gas 15,000 0.88 17.00 1.40 0.60 0.42 0.262 0.285 0.297 2500 0.200(f) 12.69 1.10 0.40 0.42 0.262 0.285 0.297

LNG Barge TankerMerchant Liquefied Gas 3180 0.88 17.00 1.40 0.60 0.42 0.262 0.285 0.297 163 0.200(f) 12.69 1.10 0.40 0.42 0.262 0.285 0.297

Tug Boat Tug Tug Harbour 3728 1(d) 12.63 1.62 0.74 0.006 0.261 0.284 0.295 0(e) n/a 11.22 1.10 0.40 0.01 0.221 0.241 0.251

Security Boat Coast GuardCoast Guard Lifeboat 140 0.72 13.80 1.10 0.40 0.006 0.221 0.241 0.251 0(e) n/a 13.80 1.10 0.40 0.01 0.221 0.241 0.251

Dredger Special Purpose Dredge 5427 0.26 15.82 1.83 0.89 0.006 0.278 0.302 0.314 656 0.340(f) 13.80 1.10 0.40 0.01 0.221 0.241 0.251Notes: (a) Emission factors (EF) for main engine (ME), and auxiliary engine (AE) provided by ECCC on 3 April 2018 (pers. comm. Rifkin 2018).

(b) Vessel type and engine information provided by WesPac.(c) Vessel class and types specified in ECCC MEIT Tool.(d) Tugs assumed to be working at full capacity (load factor=1) during LNG vessel berthing and departing.(e) No auxiliary engine on tug and security boat.(f) Auxiliary engine load factor not provided within MEIT for the vessel type (merchant liquefied gas), load factors taken from similar ship class (tanker merchant ore/bulk/oil).(g) PM2.5 emisssion factor is 0.92*PM10 emission factor, confirmed by ECCC via email on May 9, 2018. PM2.5 emission factor provided by ECCC.(h) PM10 emisssion factor is 0.96*PM emission factor, confirmed by ECCC via email on May 9, 2018. PM10 emission factor provided by ECCC.

Main Engine Auxiliary Engine

Vessel Type(b) ECCC Ship Class(c) ECCC Ship Type(c)



Page 40 of 40

APPENDIX 3 ECCC Instructions: Determining Ceiling from METARS

Determining Ceiling from METARS from Automatic Climate Stations

1) Ceiling is defined as the height of the base of the lowest cloud layer from the surface where the sky cover summation amount exceeds half the sky or the vertical visibility in a surface-based layer completely obscures (covers) the whole sky. Reference is MANOBS, 1.7.2.

2) Based on #1 and the table below, the first occurrence of BKNxxx (>=5/8) or OVCxxx (=8/8) in the METAR provides you with the ceiling:

Below are the ceilings in "blue" color. If you had BKN008, the ceiling would be 800 feet and if you had OVC040, the ceiling would be 4000 feet. 2010/12/01 10:32:00 SPECI CYLW 011030Z AUTO 14003KT 7SM SCT013 SCT044 SCT066 OVC089 M01/M02 A3003 RMK SLP191= 2010/12/01 10:37:01 SPECI CYLW 011035Z AUTO 15003KT 8SM BKN013 BKN044 OVC091 M00/M01 A3003 RMK SLP190= 2010/12/01 11:02:01 METAR CYLW 011100Z AUTO 00000KT 9SM BKN013 OVC041 M01/M02 A3003 RMK SLP192= 2010/12/01 11:07:00 SPECI CYLW 011105Z AUTO 00000KT 8SM -SN BKN013 OVC041 M01/M02 A3004 RMK SLP193= 2010/12/01 11:17:01 SPECI CYLW 011115Z AUTO 00000KT 7SM BKN015 OVC039 M01/M02 A3004 RMK SLP193= 2010/12/01 11:37:00 SPECI CYLW 011135Z AUTO 00000KT 7SM -SN FEW015 BKN026 OVC037 M01/M02 A3003 RMK SLP192= 2010/12/01 11:47:00 SPECI CYLW 011145Z AUTO 00000KT 7SM -SN BKN024 OVC037 M01/M02 A3003 RMK SLP192=

Determining Ceiling from METARS from Manned Climate Stations

1) Ceiling is defined as the height of the base of the lowest cloud layer from the surface where the sky cover summation amount exceeds half the sky or the vertical visibility or surface-based layer completely obscures (covers) the whole sky. Reference is MANOBS, 1.7.2 and 16.3.13.1

2) The group that follows after “RMK” in the METARS provides the cloud layer type and obscuring phenomenon and coinciding amounts in oktas (single digits).

3) When the accumulated layer amounts in this group exceed 4/8, the coinciding sky condition (three-letter symbol abbreviation below) provides you with the ceiling.

As an example, below are the cloud layer types in “yellow” and cloud layer amounts in “green”: 2012/01/02 20:06:02 METAR CYDA 022000Z CCA 20005KT 20SM SCT050 BKN090 BKN200 M21.1/M23.4 A2925 RMK SC3AC1CS2 PRESRR SLP945= The accumulated cloud layer amounts for SC3AC1CS2 are as follows:

• Stratocumulus 3/8 3/8 • Altocumulus 1/8 4/8 accumulated amount does not exceed more than half the sky • Cumulostratus 2/8 6/8 accumulated amount exceeds more than half the sky which tells you at what level the

ceiling is at

Based on this, the 3rd occurrence of sky condition (BKN200) would provide you with the ceiling height of 20000 feet (add 2 zeros to 200). For a listing of types of clouds and obscuring phenomenon, please refer to 16.3.1 3.1 in MANOBS. 1996 was the year when cloud layer amounts were expressed in oktas instead of tenths.

appendix 4.4.1-4 metro vancouver dispersion modelling plan€¦ · reference no....

Documents