air quality assessment - jan05 · air quality assessment a standard assessment approach was used to...

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - i - January 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) is proposing to expand its existing Roberts Bank Port

facility located in Delta, British Columbia by adding a third berth to the existing Deltaport

Container Terminal. This section of the environmental assessment for the Deltaport Third Berth

Project (the Project) examines existing air quality and human health in the Project area, and

predicts future air quality and human health impacts associated with emissions from the

proposed Project and from other sources in the general region.

The local study area (LSA) was defined as a 30 km by 30 km area that includes the communities

of Tsawwassen, Tsawwassen First Nation, Ladner, Boundary Bay/Maple Beach, Beach Grove,

Steveston (City of Richmond), and Point Roberts (US). The regional study area (RSA) was

defined as the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) including the Greater Vancouver Regional District

(GVRD), Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and Whatcom County in Washington State,

US.

It is anticipated that construction of the Deltaport Third Berth will commence in spring 2006,

that the Third Berth will be operational in 2008 and will reach full capacity by 2012. The

expected life of the project is greater than 100 years. As future shipping data were provided for

2011, this year was selected for the Cumulative Effects Assessment, which is based on the

assumption that the Third Berth is at full capacity.

The following scenarios were used to assess the effects of the Project on ambient air quality and

human health. Underlying assumptions for these scenarios are provided in Table S-1.

• Existing Baseline: defined by emissions from existing sources in the LSA for the year 2003.

• Project Construction: defined by emissions from construction operations at their peak in

2006.

• Project Operation: defined by emissions from the Project operating at full capacity in 2011.

• Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA): defined by emissions from the Project operating at

full capacity in addition to emissions from existing, approved and proposed sources in the

LSA projected for the year 2011 (Projected 2011 Baseline). (Note that in the LSA there is no

known approved source of air emissions. Known proposed sources in the LSA include

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - ii - January 2005

Table S-1: Emission Inventory Assumptions of Impact Assessment Scenarios

SCENARIO (YEAR)

FACILITY SOURCES BASIS FOR EMISSION INVENTORY AND ASSUMPTIONS

Dockyard Equipment

• List of combustion equipment including rated horsepower, age of equipment and fuel use estimates provided by Terminal Systems Incorporated (TSI)

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003 • Emission rates estimated using the US EPA NONROAD2004 model

Container Trucks Operating at Terminal

• Average daily traffic levels and gate times provided by TransSYS International Consultants Limited (TSi Consultants)

• Container truck emission factors derived from US EPA MOBILE6.2C model for year 2003 • Daily traffic distribution estimated from 2003 traffic count data on Deltaport Way provided by TSi

Consultants Container Vessels (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Number, size of vessels, duration of vessel call and fuel use based on the 2003 Port of Call list provided by Chamber of Shipping

• Average percent weight of sulphur in fuel oil estimated from Chamber of Shipping Fuel Use Inventory; marine diesel fuel sulphur content based on US EPA mandated limits

• Operational parameters of tugboats assisting container vessels into berth provided by Batchelor Marine Consulting

• Emission factors estimated using methodology outlined in the 2000 Marine Emission Inventory report prepared by Levelton (2002)

Deltaport

Trains • Train traffic volumes, operation duty cycles, fuel use and idling times based on assumptions reviewed by BC Rail

• Locomotive age distribution assumed fleet age between 1966 to 2001 • Emission factors based on US EPA legislated engine emission standards • Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003 • All trains were assumed to idle for a period of 24 hours at the Terminal

Dockyard Equipment

• List of combustion equipment including rated horsepower, age of equipment and fuel use estimates provided by Westshore

• Other assumptions are the same as for Deltaport Bulk Carrier Vessels (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Size of vessels based on the 2003 Port of Call list provided by Chamber of Shipping; ship numbers were conservatively increased to reflect peak capacity year as 2003 vessel calls were lower than average

• Other assumptions the same as for Deltaport Container vessels

Existing Baseline (2003)

Westshore

Trains • Same assumptions as for Deltaport

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - iii - January 2005

SCENARIO (YEAR)


Fugitive Coal Dust Sources

• Wind erosion of coal dust from coal stockpiles and transfer activities are estimated based on the maximum coal storage capacity and peak coal volume throughput for the terminal

• Threshold friction velocity and surface roughness height of the stockpiled coal were estimated based on typical parameters outlined in AP-42 US EPA methodology

• A control efficiency of 70% was used to account for the automated coal dust suppression system Westshore has in place

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal

Ferry Ships (Cruise, Hotelling)

• Emissions estimated for peak season of 32 sailings a day based on BC Ferries schedule • Emission factors were estimated using methodology outlined in the 2000 Marine Emission Inventory

report prepared by Levelton (2002) • Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003

Project Construction (2006)

Project Construction Equipment

• List of construction equipment, rated horsepower and duration of operation of equipment was provided by AMEC

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003 • Emission rates and fuel use were estimated using the US EPA NONROAD2004 model

Dockyard Equipment

• Additional equipment requirements and fuel consumption based on Draft Project Description and projected increase in TEU traffic


• Project container truck traffic based on average daily traffic provided by TSi Consultants

Container Vessels Emissions (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Project 2011 vessel size distribution based on the May 17, 2004 Moffat Nichols report • The number of vessel calls was determined from the projected increase in average TEU capacity and the

projected number of vessels for year 2011 presented in the Batchelor Navigational Impact Assessment Study.

• Marine diesel fuel sulphur content based on US EPA mandated limits for 2007 Trains • Project train traffic was based on rail forecast data prepared by Mainline Management (MLM)

Project Operation (2011)

Project

Container Trucks Operating in LSA

• Project container truck traffic was based on forecasts provided by TSi Consultants

Project All Emission Sources

• Same assumptions as Project Operation

Dockyard Equipment

• Equipment replacement rates for Handlers assumed to be every 10 years and for RTG’s every 20 years • Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on mandated 2007 level of 500 ppm

Container Trucks operating at Terminal

• Container truck emission factors derived from US EPA MOBILE6.2C model for year 2011

CEA (2011) Deltaport

Container Vessels • Year 2011 vessel size distribution based on the May 17, 2004 Moffat Nichols report

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - iv - January 2005

SCENARIO (YEAR)


(Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• The number of vessel calls was determined from the projected increase in average container capacity and the projected number of vessels for year 2011 presented in the Batchelor Navigational Impact Study

• Marine diesel fuel sulphur content based on US EPA mandated limits for 2007

Trains • Locomotive replacement rate based on 25 % of fleet being replaced between 2003 and 2011 (approximate average locomotive engine life of 32 years)

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on mandated 2007 level of 500 ppm Dockyard Equipment

• Equipment replacement rates for earthmoving equipment and portable stationary diesel equipment assumed to be every 15 years

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on mandated 2007 level of 500 ppm Bulk Carrier Vessels (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Number of vessel calls based on historic peak capacity indicated in the Batchelor Navigational Impact Assessment Study

Trains • Rail traffic increased by two trains per day arriving and departing over existing baseline 2003 based on information from BC rail

Westshore


• Same as Existing Baseline



• Ferry traffic based on maximum peak season of 37 sailings per day

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - v - January 2005

Deltaport Terminal 2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road, for which there were three possible

alignments at the time this study was conducted. Since insufficient information was available

for these proposed projects they could not be included in the Projected 2011 Baseline.)

Air Quality Assessment

A standard assessment approach was used to define air quality changes associated with the

specified assessment scenarios. This approach is summarized in Table S-2. The steps in this

approach are:

• Identify and quantify the emission sources for each assessment scenario;

• Review ambient air quality observations to define background air quality;

• Use dispersion models to predict ambient concentrations due to emissions associated with

each assessment scenario;

• Compare the predictions with ambient air quality objectives and standards; and

• Compare scenario results to determine the incremental air quality changes due to the

Project Operation and express them as a percent change.

The CALMET meteorological model was used to predict temporally and spatially dependent

wind, temperature and turbulence fields. The CALMET model simulation was based on year

2003 data from 6 surface stations and soundings from two upper air stations. The surface stations

included stations T13, T17, T18 and T31 from the GVRD monitoring network, the MSC station

at Vancouver International Airport and local wind speed and direction measured at Westshore

Terminals. The two upper air stations included were Port Hardy on Vancouver Island and

Quillayute in Washington State.

A detailed emissions inventory was prepared for each model scenario. The following sources

located within the LSA were included in the emission inventories for Existing Baseline and

Projected 2011 Baseline: Deltaport Terminal, Westshore Terminal, Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal,

shipping lanes, and ferry routes. Emissions were estimated for sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen

oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and total volatile organic

compounds (VOC).

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - vi - January 2005

Table S-2: Summary of Air Quality Assessment Approach

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

Source Characterization

Characterization of emission sources focuses primarily on identifying combustion sources and estimating their emissions of SO2, NO2, CO, VOC, PM2.5, PM10, Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and Diesel PM2.5 since emissions of these substances are forecast to increase due to the Project Operation. Combustion source characterization requires information on the source attributes. These include properties such as: area where emissions occur, source height, pollutant emission rates and temporal variation. Source characterization data were produced for the four assessment scenarios as described in Appendix A.

Terrestrial Characterization

Terrain elevations for the nominal 30 km by 30 km LSA were obtained from two digital elevation databases. Data for the Canadian side were obtained from the Canadian Digital Elevation Database (CDED) 1:50000 scale map sheets. At the latitude of the LSA these data have a resolution of approximately 3 arc seconds or about 20 m. Data for the US side were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) 1:250000 map sheet archives. These elevation data have a resolution of approximately 12 arc seconds or about 100 m. Each of these resolutions should be sufficient for use in air quality modelling. Land use files for BC were obtained from 1:250,000 scale Baseline Thematic Mapping (BTM) format files from the BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Washington State land use information was obtained from 1:250,000 USGS format map sheets.

Representative Meteorology

The CALMET meteorological model was used to predict temporally and spatially dependent wind, temperature and turbulence fields. The CALMET model simulation was based on data from 6 surface stations and soundings from two upper air stations. The surface stations included stations T13, T17, T18 and T31 from the GVRD monitoring network, the MSC station at Vancouver International Airport and local wind speed and direction measured at Westshore Terminals. The two upper air stations included were Port Hardy on Vancouver Island and Quillayute in Washington State. (Appendix C).

Model Project The CALPUFF model was used to predict ambient air quality for the assessment scenarios. The code and documentation for this model are available from the US EPA website (2001). Guidelines for the selection and application of the model are available from US EPA (1995a, 1995b, 2003) as well as the applicable model manual (Scire et al., 2000). The CALPUFF model and the associated predictions have been accepted by the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Model Project The CALPUFF model was applied to the 30 km by 30 km LSA. Noteworthy items include: • A total of 2,898 receptors with an increased grid density surrounding the Project area

were selected. Grid densities vary from 100 m to 1 km, depending on distance from the Project area;

• An additional 16 community, wildlife and recreation locations were selected; • Predicted concentrations are presented as contours superimposed over the LSA base

map; and • Concentrations of criteria contaminants, VOCs and metals predicted at community,

wildlife and recreation receptors are presented in tabular formats and are provided for 1-h, 24-h and annual averaging periods.

Further details regarding the application of CALPUFF are provided in Appendix D.

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - vii - January 2005

Total emissions for the various model scenarios are compared in Table S-3. Emissions estimated

for the Projected 2011 Baseline are less than those estimated for the Existing Baseline due to

replacement of old vehicles and equipment with vehicles and equipment that have improved

engines, and legislated decreases in sulphur content of on-road, off-road and marine diesel. The

increase in emissions due to the Project Operation relative to emissions included in the Existing

Baseline emissions inventory for the LSA varied from 7.4% for TSP to 41% for CO. Whereas

relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline emissions inventory, the increase due to the Project

Operation varied from 7.7% for TSP to 44% for CO. Many sources of background emissions in

the LSA, such as roads and space heating are not included in the emission inventory and

therefore the relative increase of emissions due to the Project is exaggerated. Relative to total

emissions in the RSA calculated for the year 2000 and projected for the year 2010, the increase

due to the Project Operation was less than 1% for all contaminants.

Table S-3: Comparison of Total Emissions Estimated for Model Scenarios (t/yr)

SCENARIO YEAR NOX CO SO2 VOCs PM10 PM2.5 TSP Existing Baseline 2003 2,249 321 596 90 139 123 178 Project Construction 2006 339 96 6 36 16 16 16 Project Operation 2011 188 133 57 15 13 13 13 Projected 2011 Baseline 2011 2,176 303 507 86 133 117 172 CEA 2011 2,364 435 563 101 146 130 185 2000 RSA Total 1 2000 99,897 481,933 18,769 111,196 15,363 8,964 25,627 2010 RSA Total 1 2010 81,784 452,321 20,278 99,819 15,636 8,934 26,336 % Change due to Project Operation relative to Existing Baseline

2003 8.4 41 9.5 17 9.4 10 7.4

% Change due to Project Operation relative to Projected 2011 Baseline

2011 8.6 44 11 18 9.9 11 7.7

% Change due to Project Operation relative to 2000 RSA Total

2003 0.19 0.03 0.30 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.05

% Change due to Project Operation relative to 2010 RSA Total

2011 0.23 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.08 0.14 0.05

1 Based on Tables A-1 through A-11 of GVRD Forecast and Backcast of the 2000 Emissions Inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed 1985-2025

Ground-level concentrations of SO2, CO, NOx, particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5

microns (PM2.5), particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), total suspended

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - viii - January 2005

particulate (TSP) and total VOC were predicted using the CALPUFF/CALMET modelling

system for the Existing Baseline, Project Construction, Project Operation, and CEA scenarios.

The formation of secondary particulate was assessed using the MESOPUFF II chemistry scheme

in CALPUFF and the resulting secondary PM concentrations were added to predicted primary

PM for all three PM size fractions. Predicted NOx concentrations were converted to nitrogen

dioxide (NO2) concentrations using the ambient ratio method. Total VOC and PM

concentrations were speciated to determine concentrations of specific VOC, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH) and diesel PM.

To assess the cumulative effects of air emissions from a project it is necessary to include the

contribution of emissions from other sources in the study area. For this study, cumulative effects

were determined by modelling the combined effect of the Project and all major sources of

emissions within the LSA (Deltaport, Westshore Terminal, and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal)

then adding the 98th percentile ambient observed value to represent sources of emissions inside

the LSA that were not included in the modelling (e.g., space heating, roadways, agricultural

sources) and other sources located outside of the LSA. This approach is conservative and likely

results in double-counting of background sources, particularly for PM, NO2 and CO.

Maximum predicted ground-level SO2, NO2, CO and VOC concentrations, including

background, for all scenarios are compared to ambient criteria in Table S-4. Maximum PM

concentrations predicted for all scenarios are compared to ambient criteria in Table S-5.

Existing Baseline

The assessment of existing baseline air quality conditions is based on both the review of ambient

monitoring data and the application of dispersion modelling.

From 1999 to 2003 the air quality in the RSA was characterized as 'Good' 97% of the time or

more every year. During the same period, exceedances of ambient air quality criteria were

observed in the LSA only for PM2.5 and PM10 and these exceedances were attributed by the

GVRD to Halloween activities. Observed concentrations of all other criteria pollutants in the

LSA were less than air quality objectives.

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - ix - January 2005

Table S-4: Maximum NO2, SO2, CO and VOC Ground-level Concentrations Predicted on Land (Including 98th Percentile

Ambient Background Values)

MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) SO2 NO2 CO VOC1

SCENARIO OR AMBIENT GUIDELINE

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

Existing Baseline 208 22 5 131 85 40 2,769 2,334 22 4 0 Project Construction 208 22 5 141 88 40 2,861 2,373 60 9 1

% Change Project Construction relative to Existing Baseline 0% 0% 1% 8% 3% 1% 3% 2% 174% 99% 101%

Project Operation 234 24 6 133 87 40 2,989 2,378 33 7 1 % Change Project Operation relative to Existing Baseline 13% 10% 12% 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 51% 58% 141%

Projected 2011 Baseline 198 19 4 128 84 40 2,750 2,326 17 4 0 CEA 224 21 5 131 86 40 2,989 2,376 32 7 1

% Change CEA relative to Projected 2011 Baseline 13% 10% 14% 2% 2% 2% 9% 2% 88% 82% 165%

BC Level A Objective3 450 160 25 - - 60 14,300 5,500 - - - BC Level B Objective3 900 260 50 400 200 100 28,000 11,000 - - - GVRD Proposed Objective 450 125 30 200 100 60 20,000 10,000 - - - US EPA Standard - 365 80 - - 100 40,000 10,000 - - - Washington State Standard 1,040 260 52 40,000 10,000 - - - 1 Ambient VOC data were not available for the LSA and therefore background values were not included for VOCs. 2 Project Construction and Project Operation scenarios include emissions from the Existing Baseline scenario. 3 The objectives shown for NO2 are federal not provincial.

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - x - January 2005

Table S-5: Maximum PM2.5, PM10 and TSP Ground-level Concentrations Predicted on Land (Including 98th Percentile

Ambient BackgroundValues)

PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) PM2.5 PM10 TSP SCENARIO OR AMBIENT GUIDELINE

98th Percentile 24-h

Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual

Existing Baseline 20 24 6 35 14 55 24 Project Construction2 21 27 7 38 15 58 24

% Change Project Construction relative to Existing Baseline 6% 12% 4% 8% 2% 5% 1%

Project Operation2 21 25 7 37 15 56 24 % Change Project Operation relative to

Existing Baseline 5% 6% 5% 4% 2% 3% 1%

Projected 2011 Baseline 19 22 6 34 14 53 23 CEA 20 24 7 35 14 55 24

% Change CEA relative to Projected 2011 Baseline

5% 6% 5% 4% 2% 3% 4%

Canada-wide Standard 30 - - - - - - BC Level A Objective - - - 50 - 150 60 BC Level B Objective - - - - - 200 70 GVRD Trigger Level - - - 50 30 - - GVRD Proposed Objective 25 25 12 50 20 - - US EPA Standard - 65 15 150 50 - - Washington State Standard - 65 15 150 50 150 60 2 Project Construction and Project Operation scenarios include emissions from the Existing Baseline scenario.

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xi - January 2005

Tables S-4 and S-5 show that all maximum ground-level concentrations, including background

values, predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario are considerably less than applicable

Canada-wide Standards and the most stringent BC Objectives.

Project Construction

All maximum concentrations predicted for Project Construction plus Existing Baseline,

including 98th percentile ambient values, were less than applicable Canada-wide Standards and

the most stringent BC Objectives for all averaging periods. Because the increase in SO2

emissions due to Project Construction is only 1%, Project Construction has virtually no impact

on ambient SO2 concentrations in the LSA. The increase in maximum predicted concentrations

of other contaminants is typically 8% or less. The relative increase in maximum predicted VOC

concentrations is 100% or more for two reasons. First, the increase in VOC emissions due to

Project Construction is 40%, which is greater than the increase for other contaminants. Second,

no ambient VOC data were available for the LSA and therefore a background value was not

added to the predicted concentrations; as a result the relative increase in ground-level

concentrations is much greater for VOCs than for all other contaminants. As there are no

ambient criteria for total VOCs, the significance of the predicted increase is assessed in the

Human Health Risk Assessment. Greatest influences of Project Construction are mainly limited

to the area immediately surrounding the Roberts Bank Port.

Project Operation

All maximum concentrations predicted for Project Operation plus Existing Baseline, including

background values, are less than applicable Canada-wide Standards and the most stringent BC

Objectives. Increases in maximum predicted concentrations due to Project Operation relative to

the Existing Baseline vary from a maximum of 13% for one-hour SO2 to around 2% for annual

NO2, CO and PM10. The increases in maximum predicted VOC concentrations are much higher

for the reasons given above and the significance of these increases is addressed in the Human

Health Risk Assessment. The majority of the increases in predicted concentrations of the criteria

contaminants are confined to the area immediately surrounding the Roberts Bank Port. Small

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xii - January 2005

increases of CO and VOCs are predicted along major roadways resulting from increased truck

traffic due to Project Operation.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

All maximum concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario, including background values, are

less than applicable Canada-wide Standards and the most stringent BC Objectives for all

averaging periods. The maximum predicted increases in ground-level concentrations of criteria

contaminants relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline ranges from 2% to 14%. Most increases are

predicted to occur in the near vicinity of the Roberts Bank Port.

Table S-6 provides a summary of impact ratings for changes in emissions and ambient

concentrations due to the Project. The impacts for air quality changes have been discussed

relative to BC ambient air quality objectives and Canada -wide Standards. Other reference levels,

proposed objectives and American standards have been included in tables, where relevant, for

comparison purposes. All maximum concentrations predicted to occur on Point Roberts were

considerably less than applicable US EPA or Washington State standards.

The impacts of emission and concentration changes due to the Project Operation were assessed

based on the direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility of

predicted changes. The final impact ratings were:

• Low for emission changes,

• Moderate for SO2,

• Low for NO2,

• Low for CO,

• Low for PM,

• Low for VOCs,

• Low for the regional formation of ozone and secondary PM, and

• Low for greenhouse gas emissions.

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xiii - January 20054

Table S-6: Summary of Impact Ratings of Changes due to the Project

ISSUE DIRECTION GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT MAGNITUDE DURATION FREQUENCY REVERSIBILITY CONFIDENCE FINAL

RATING Project emissions to the atmosphere Negative Local Negligible to

High Mid-term Continuous Reversible High Low

Impact of Project emissions on ambient SO2 concentrations

Negative Local High Short-term Infrequent Reversible High Moderate

Impact of Project NOx emissions on ambient NO2 concentrations

Negative Local Low Short-term Infrequent Reversible High Low

Impact of Project emissions on ambient CO concentrations

Negative Local Low to Moderate Short-term Infrequent Reversible High Low

Impact of Project emissions on ambient PM concentrations


Impact of Project emissions on ambient VOC concentrations

Negative Local High Short-term Infrequent Reversible High Low

Impact of Project emissions on regional O3 and secondary PM formation

Negative Regional Negligible Short-term Seasonal Reversible Moderate Low

Project contribution to greenhouse gas emissions

Negative Global Negligible Long-term Continuous Reversible High Low

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xiv - January 2005

Environmental Management Plan

Potential mitigation options that would reduce emissions from the Project Operation and other

marine sources were examined. Many of these options, such as creating a North American SOx

Emission Control Area (SECA) or installing emission control equipment on ships, trains or

trucks, are not within the control of the VPA. However, the VPA can work to influence those

who do have control whether they are regulators, terminal operators or ship owners.

The VPA have developed a strategy to manage air emissions that consists of four levels of

action. Level one consists of compiling scientific data to determine current air quality in the

region and establishing the contribution of operations associated with the Port of Vancouver to

the regional total. Level two consists of continuously improving the operational efficiency of the

Port of Vancouver terminals. Level three consists of the VPA maintaining up-to-date knowledge

in the area of technical innovations that may reduce air quality emissions associated with port

operations. Level four consists of working with other ports, regulators, and other organizations

to influence change.

Human Health Risk Assessment

A human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a wildlife health risk assessment (WHRA) were

completed to identify potential human and wildlife health impacts associated with estimated air

quality impacts resulting from the Project alone and the Project combined with other existing

operations in the region. Examination of the health risks followed a conventional risk assessment

approach. The steps followed included: i) Problem Formulation; ii) Toxicity/Hazard

Assessment; iii) Exposure Assessment; and, iv) Risk Characterization. A similar approach was

used for the WHRA. A high degree of conservatism was utilized to ensure that heath risks

would not be underestimated. The work relied on the results of air dispersion modelling

performed by RWDI in which ground-level air concentrations of the chemical constituents found

in the various emissions released were predicted. The predicted concentrations were expressed as

a function of different averaging times (i.e., 10-minute, one-hour, eight-hour, 24-hour, and

annual averages) to permit estimation of acute and chronic health risks.

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xv - January 2005

The potential human health risks, both short-term and long-term, associated with the Project that

might be presented to either the individuals living in the area or people who might frequent the

area, with special consideration given to individuals who might be especially vulnerable to any

chemicals emitted as part of the expansion, were evaluated. Wildlife health impacts were

assessed by determining if population level effects in ecological receptors within the study area

will occur as a result of the Project.

The HHRA methodology was augmented by Health Canada’s Health Determinants approach.

This multi-factorial approach considers other factors that can influence health such as where we

live, the state of our environment, genetics, our income and education level, and our relationships

with friends and family. As well, the HHRA was extended to include examination of potential

daily mortality and morbidity related to exposures to PM10 and PM2.5. In their report to the B.C.

Lung Association, Bates et al. (2003) recommended that, in addition to comparing predicted

ground level PM concentrations to health based exposure limits, an incremental risk analysis be

employed. This method attempt to provide an indication of the increased number of

hospitalizations and deaths per year that can be attributed to an incremental increase of PM

concentrations above ambient concentrations as a result of the Project.

Risk estimates were calculated by comparing the estimated exposures to the various COPC

(Chemicals of Potential Concern) to exposure limits or safe levels of exposure determined for

each. Risks were expressed as either Concentration Ratio (CR) or Exposure Ratio (ER) values

depending on the nature and duration of exposure. All CR and ER values were referenced to 1.0.

Values less than 1.0 signified an absence of health risks, since conservatively estimated

exposures were lower than exposure limits. Conversely, values greater than 1.0 signified the

possibility of health risks, the significance of which generally increased as the value became

greater. In all instances, the interpretation of the significance of the risk estimates considered the

high degree of conservatism incorporated into the exposure assessment, as well as safety factors

incorporated into the exposure limits.

Conservatism was incorporated into the exposure assessment to accommodate the uncertainty

associated with the health risk assessment. This was achieved through the use of assumptions,

which reflected “worst-case” conditions that would tend to exaggerate any health risks. The

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xvi - January 2005

sources of uncertainty and assumptions underlying the risk estimates are presented in the main

report.

Human health risk estimates, represented by CR and ER values, were all less than 1.0, signifying

an absence of potential acute or chronic health risks in the local study area for all development

scenarios. Comparison between the Existing Baseline and Project Operation risk estimates (i.e.,

CRs and ERs) indicated that the Project is not predicted to have a measurable impact on public

health. Not only were the CR and ER values all less than 1.0 when the Project was considered on

a stand alone basis (i.e., Project scenario), but also when the potential health risks were assessed

on a cumulative basis (i.e., the CEA scenario). Similarly, estimates of the potential health risks

associated with existing background sources of COPC showed negligible health risks. Applying

Health Canada’s Health Determinants approach the First Nations should be considered a

population at risk; however, it is still unclear as to the exact nature of the relationship between

Health Determinants and their impacts on health.

The results from the WHRA revealed that the ER values were all less than 1.0, signifying an

absence of any potential chronic health risks to wildlife in the local study area for all

development scenarios.

PM risk estimates were low when using the Bates et al. (2003) method and considering that no

guideline exceedances were predicted on either an acute or chronic basis, overall health risks as

they relate to PM were characterized as being low.

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xvii - January 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 2

2.0 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES.............................................................. 3

2.1 TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES ......................................................................................... 3

2.2 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AND AIR QUALITY MODELLING DOMAIN..................... 3

3.0 ISSUES SCOPING AND ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS .............................................. 5

3.1 AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES RELATING TO THE DELTAPORT THIRD

BERTH PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 5

3.2 AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS .................. 7

4.0 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 13

4.1 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ................................................................... 13

4.1.1 Sulphur Dioxide ........................................................................................ 14

4.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide ...................................................................................... 15

4.1.3 Carbon Monoxide ..................................................................................... 16

4.1.4 Particulate Matter...................................................................................... 17

4.1.5 Ozone ........................................................................................................ 20

4.2 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 21

4.2.1 Overall Approach...................................................................................... 21

4.2.2 Method for Determining Baseline Air Quality ......................................... 23

4.2.3 Representative Background Values .......................................................... 23

4.2.4 Determination of Impact Significance ...................................................... 25

4.3 METEOROLOGY...................................................................................................... 29

4.3.1 Observed Surface Winds........................................................................... 29

4.3.2 Upper Air .................................................................................................. 31

4.3.3 Stability ..................................................................................................... 32

4.3.4 Mixing Height........................................................................................... 33

4.4 EXISTING BASELINE............................................................................................... 33

4.4.1 Historical Ambient Air Quality ................................................................ 34

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xviii - January 2005

4.4.1.1 Ambient Air Quality in the RSA .................................................... 34

4.4.1.2 Ambient Air Quality in the LSA .................................................... 35

4.4.2 Emissions Inventory.................................................................................. 37

4.4.3 Predicted Air Quality ................................................................................ 38

4.4.3.1 Sulphur Dioxide ............................................................................ 39

4.4.3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide........................................................................... 42

4.4.3.3 Carbon Monoxide ......................................................................... 43

4.4.3.4 Particulate Matter......................................................................... 43

4.4.3.5 Volatile Organic Compounds ....................................................... 45

4.4.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 45

4.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION....................................................................................... 46



4.5.2.1 Sulphur Dioxide ............................................................................ 47


4.5.2.3 Carbon Monoxide ......................................................................... 50



4.5.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 53

4.6 PROJECT OPERATION ............................................................................................. 53



4.6.2.1 Sulphur Dioxide ............................................................................ 58


4.6.2.3 Carbon Monoxide ......................................................................... 59



4.6.3 Residual Effects Assessment .................................................................... 62

4.6.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 62

4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT..................................................................... 63


Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xix - January 2005


4.7.2.1 Sulphur Dioxide ............................................................................ 67


4.7.2.3 Carbon Monoxide ......................................................................... 72



4.7.3 Ozone and Secondary Particulate ............................................................. 77

4.7.3.1 Ozone ............................................................................................ 78

4.7.3.2 Secondary Particulate Matter....................................................... 80

4.7.3.3 The Formation of Ozone and Secondary Particulate in the Lower

Fraser Valley ................................................................................ 81

4.7.3.4 Impact of Project Operation Emissions on Regional Smog

Pollutants ...................................................................................... 82

4.7.4 Greenhouse Gases..................................................................................... 83

4.7.4.1 Introduction................................................................................... 83

4.7.4.2 Impact of Project Operation GHG Emissions .............................. 86

4.7.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 87

4.7.5.1 Changes in Emissions ................................................................... 89

4.7.5.2 Ambient SO2, NO2, CO, PM and VOC Concentrations ................ 89

4.7.5.3 Regional Formation of Ozone and Secondary Particulate........... 90

4.7.5.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................... 90

4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................. 90

4.8.1 Mitigation options..................................................................................... 90

4.8.1.1 Container Ships............................................................................. 92

4.8.1.2 Dockyard Equipment .................................................................... 96

4.8.1.3 Trains ............................................................................................ 99

4.8.1.4 Container Trucks ........................................................................ 101

4.8.1.5 Other Measures........................................................................... 103

4.8.2 The VPA Air Emission Management Strategy....................................... 103

4.8.2.1 Level One: Data Baseline ........................................................... 103

4.8.2.2 Level Two: Operational Efficiency ............................................. 104

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xx - January 2005

4.8.2.3 Level Three: Innovative Technological Improvements............... 104

4.8.2.4 Level Four: International Regulatory Change .......................... 105

4.8.3 Recommended Mitigation Measures during Project Construction......... 105

4.9 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ...................................................................... 107

4.9.1 Emissions Inventory................................................................................ 107

4.9.2 Dispersion Modelling.............................................................................. 109

5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT................................................................. 110

5.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION..................................................................................... 112

5.1.1 Chemical Characterization...................................................................... 113

5.1.2 Receptor Selection and Characterization ................................................ 115

5.1.2.1 Identification of Receptor Locations........................................... 115

5.1.2.2 Identification of Receptor Types ................................................. 118

5.1.2.3 Baseline Health Assessment........................................................ 121

5.1.3 Selection of Exposure Pathways............................................................. 125

5.1.4 Summary of Problem Formulation Specific to the Project..................... 129

5.1.5 Toxicity/Hazard Assessment .................................................................. 130

5.1.5.1 Exposure Limits Specific to the HHRA ....................................... 132

5.1.6 Exposure Assessment.............................................................................. 141

5.1.6.1 Predicted Air Concentrations ..................................................... 143

5.1.6.2 Consideration of Background Air Quality.................................. 143

5.1.7 Risk Characterization.............................................................................. 145

5.2 RESULTS OF THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT......................................... 146

5.2.1 Inhalation Exposure Assessment ............................................................ 146

5.2.1.1 Short-term (Acute) Concentration Ratios ................................... 147

5.2.1.2 Long-term (Chronic) Concentration Ratios................................ 158

5.2.2 Chronic Multimedia Health Risk Assessment ........................................ 158

5.2.3 Consideration of PM............................................................................... 168

5.3 SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE HHRA AND HOW THESE WERE ADDRESSD....... 172

5.4 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF THE HHRA................................................................. 174

6.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 175

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxi - January 2005

List of Tables

Table S-1: Emission Inventory Assumptions of Impact Assessment Scenarios............................ ii

Table S-2: Summary of Air Quality Assessment Approach......................................................... vi

Table S-3: Comparison of Total Emissions Estimated for Model Scenarios (t/yr) ..................... vii

Table S-4: Maximum NO2, SO2, CO and VOC Ground-level Concentrations Predicted on Land

(Including 98th Percentile Ambient Background Values) ........................................ ix

Table S-5: Maximum PM2.5, PM10 and TSP Ground-level Concentrations Predicted on Land

(Including 98th Percentile Ambient BackgroundValues) .......................................... x

Table S-6: Summary of Impact Ratings of Changes due to the Project ..................................... xiii

Table 3-1: Air and Health Issue Scoping Results .......................................................................... 8

Table 3-2: Emission Inventory Assumptions of Impact Assessment Scenarios........................... 10

Table 4-1: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for SO2 (µg/m3)........... 15

Table 4-2: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for NO2 (µg/m3) .......... 16

Table 4-3: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for CO (mg/m3) ........... 17

Table 4-4: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for PM2.5 (µg/m3) ........ 19

Table 4-5: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for PM10 (µg/m3)......... 19

Table 4-6: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for TSP (µg/m3) .......... 20

Table 4-7: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for Ozone (µg/m3)....... 21

Table 4-8: Summary of Air Quality Assessment Approach ........................................................ 22

Table 4-9: Representative Background Values Added to Predicted Concentrations .................. 25

Table 4-10: Impact Assessment Descriptors as Applied to Ambient Air Quality Changes ........ 28

Table 4-11: Surface and Upper Air Stations used for CALMET ................................................ 30

Table 4-12: Smoothed CALMET Derived Stability Classes....................................................... 33

Table 4-13: Summary of Emissions (t/yr) Included in the Existing Baseline Scenario .............. 38

Table 4-14: Maximum SO2, NO2, CO and VOC Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for

the Existing Baseline Scenario................................................................................ 40

Table 4-15: Maximum PM2.5, PM10 and TSP Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the

Existing Baseline Scenario...................................................................................... 41

Table 4-16: Summary of Emissions (t/yr) Included in the Project Construction Scenario ......... 46


the Project Construction Scenario ........................................................................... 48

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxii - January 2005


Project Construction Scenario................................................................................. 49

Table 4-19: Summary of Emissions (t/yr) Included in the Project Operation Scenario .............. 54


the Project Operation Scenario................................................................................ 56


Project Operation Scenario...................................................................................... 57

Table 4-22: Summary of Emissions Included in the CEA Scenario (t/yr) .................................. 65

Table 4-23: Impact Ratings for Emission Changes due to Project Operation ............................. 66


the CEA Scenario .................................................................................................... 68


CEA Scenario.......................................................................................................... 69

Table 4-26: Impact Ratings for SO2 Concentration Changes due to the Project .......................... 71

Table 4-27: Impact Ratings for NO2 Concentration Changes due to the Project ......................... 72

Table 4-28: Impact Ratings for CO Concentration Changes due to the Project........................... 74

Table 4-29: Impact Ratings for PM Concentration Changes due to the Project........................... 76

Table 4-30: Impact Ratings for Total VOC Concentration Changes due to the Project............... 78

Table 4-31: Contribution of Project Operation Emissions to Total Emissions in the Regional

Study Area............................................................................................................... 84

Table 4-32: Impact Ratings for Changes in Regional Ozone and Secondary PM Formation due

to the Project............................................................................................................ 85

Table 4-33: Contribution of Project Operation GHG Emissions to Total Emissions in the

Regional Study Area ............................................................................................... 87

Table 4-34: Impact Ratings for Changes in GHG Emissions due to the Project......................... 88

Table 4-35: Summary of Impact Ratings of Changes due to the Project..................................... 91

Table 5-1: COPC for the HHRA................................................................................................ 114

Table 5-2: Discrete Receptors near Roberts Bank Selected for the HHRA .............................. 117

Table 5-3: Summary of the Problem Formulation..................................................................... 129

Table 5-4: Air Quality Guidelines Adopted for the Assessment of Potential Inhalation Health

Risks Associated with the Criteria Compounds in the Project’s Air Emissions(1) 134

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxiii - January 2005

Table 5-5: Exposure Limits Adopted for the Assessment of Potential Health Risks Associated

with the Non-criteria Compounds Found in the Project Air Emissions(1)............. 138

Table 5-6: Assumed Background Ambient Air Concentrations from Urban Areas.................. 144

Table 5-7 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Tsawwassen First Nation Receptor (1) 148

Table 5-8 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Agricultural Receptors (1,2)................. 150

Table 5-9 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Canadian Residential Receptors (1,2) .. 152

Table 5-10 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the U.S. Residential Receptors (1,2) .......... 154

Table 5-11 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Recreational Receptor (1).................... 156

Table 5-12 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Tsawwassen First Nation Receptor (1)

............................................................................................................................... 159

Table 5-13 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Agricultural Receptors (1,2) ............. 160

Table 5-14 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Canadian Residential Receptors (1,2)162

Table 5-15 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the U.S. Residential Receptors (1,2)....... 164

Table 5-16 Exposure Ratios (ERs) for the Tsawwassen First Nation Receptor (1).................. 166

Table 5-17 Exposure Ratios (ERs) for the Agricultural Receptors (1,2) ................................... 167

Table 5-18: Predicted incremental changes in PM2.5 and PM10 in Ladner and Tsawwassen as a

result of the Project ............................................................................................... 168

Table 5-19: Mortality CRFs for PM10 and PM2.5 recommended for use in BC by Bates et al.

(2003) .................................................................................................................... 169

Table 5-20: Morbidity CRFs for PM10 and PM2.5 adopted from the Air Quality Valuation Model

and recommended by Bates et al. (2003) for use in BC in the absence of regional

estimates ................................................................................................................ 170

Table 5-21: Changes in mortality and morbidity events attributable to predicted Project-related

increases in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations in Ladner and Tsawwassen ............. 171

List of Figures Included at the End of the Report

Figure 2-1: Location of Deltaport Third Berth Expansion

Figure 2-2: Site Map of Roberts Bank Port and Deltaport Third Berth Expansion

Figure 2-3: Deltaport Third Berth Expansion Local Study Area (LSA)

Figure 2-4: Topographical Map of Local Study Area

Figure 4-1: Observed Wind Speed and Direction at YVR Station

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxiv - January 2005

Figure 4-2: Observed Wind Speed and Direction at GVRD Station T17




Figure 4-6: Observed Wind Speed and Direction at Westshore Terminals

Figure 4-7: CALMET Wind Speed and Direction at Hwy 17

Figure 4-8: Observed 500mb Upper Air at Port Hardy

Figure 4-9: Observed 500mb Upper Air Quillayute

Figure 4-10: CALMET Wind Speed and Direction Upper Layer at Hwy 17

Figure 4-11: Daytime CALMET Model Mixing Height

Figure 4-12: Locations of Monitoring Stations in the LFV Air Quality Monitoring Network

Figure 4-13: Location of Ambient Monitoring Stations in LSA

Figure 4-14: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour SO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-15: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour SO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-16: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted Annual SO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-17: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour NO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-18: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour NO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-19: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted Annual NO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-20: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour CO Concentrations

Figure 4-21: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 8-hour CO Concentrations

Figure 4-22: Existing Baseline: 98th Percentile 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations

Figure 4-23: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour PM10 Concentrations

Figure 4-24: Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour VOC Concentrations

Figure 4-25: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour SO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-26: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour NO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-27: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour NO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-28: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted Annual NO2

Concentrations

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxv - January 2005

Figure 4-29: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour CO

Concentrations

Figure 4-30: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 8-hour CO

Concentrations

Figure 4-31: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: 98th Percentile 24-hour PM2.5

Concentrations

Figure 4-32: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour PM10

Concentrations

Figure 4-33: Project Construction + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour VOC

Concentrations

Figure 4-34: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour SO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-35: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour SO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-36: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted Annual SO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-37: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour NO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-38: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour NO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-39: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted Annual NO2

Concentrations

Figure 4-40: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour CO

Concentrations

Figure 4-41: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 8-hour CO

Concentrations

Figure 4-42: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: 98th Percentile 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations

Figure 4-43: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 24-hour PM10

Concentrations

Figure 4-44: Project Operation + Existing Baseline: Maximum Predicted 1-hour VOC

Concentrations

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxvi - January 2005

Figure 4-45: CEA: Maximum Predicted 1-hour SO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-46: CEA: Maximum Predicted 24-hour SO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-47: CEA: Maximum Predicted Annual SO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-48: CEA: Maximum Predicted 1-hour NO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-49: CEA: Maximum Predicted 24-hour NO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-50: CEA: Maximum Predicted Annual NO2 Concentrations

Figure 4-51: CEA: Maximum Predicted 1-hour CO Concentrations

Figure 4-52: CEA: Maximum Predicted 8-hour CO Concentrations

Figure 4-53: CEA: 98th Percentile 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations

Figure 4-54: CEA: Maximum Predicted 24-hour PM10 Concentrations

Figure 4-55: CEA: Maximum Predicted 1-hour VOC Concentrations

Figure 5-2: Location of Discrete Receptors

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxvii - January 2005

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Emissions Inventory

Appendix B: Ambient Air Quality Observations

Appendix C: CALMET Meteorological Model

Appendix D: CALPUFF Dispersion Model

Appendix E: CALINE CALPUFF Line Source Comparison

Appendix F: Predicted Concentrations at Specific Receptors

Appendix G: Wildlife Health Risk Assessment

Appendix H: Wildlife Model Parameters

Appendix I: Toxicological Profiles

Appendix J: Health Studies

Appendix K: Model Description

Appendix L: Predicted Air Concentrations

Appendix M: Concentration Ratios and Exposure Ratios

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxviii - January 2005

List of Acronyms

AAQO Ambient Air Quality Objective

AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association

ASL Above Sea Level

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

AQI Air Quality Index

AQO Air Quality Objective

AQS Air Quality Standards

AQVM Air Quality Valuation Model

AAQC Ambient Air Quality Criteria

B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene

BCAAQO BC Ambient Air Quality Objectives

BC MWLAP BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

BTM Baseline Thematic Mapping

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CDED Canadian Digital Elevation Database

CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment

CH4 Methane

CHA Cardiac Hospital Admissions

CO2E Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

CO Carbon Monoxide

COPC Chemicals of Potential Concern

CP Canadian Pacific

CR Concentration Ratio

CRFs Concentration-Response Factors

CWS Canada-wide Standards

DOCs Diesel Oxidation Catalysts

DPF Diesel Particulate Matter Filters

DTED Digital Terrain Elevation Data

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxix - January 2005

DWI Direct Water Injection

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation

ER Exposure Ratio

ERAM In-house Multi-Media Exposure Model

ERPG-1 Emergency Response Planning Guidelines

FVRD Fraser Valley Regional District

GHG Greenhouse Gases

GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District

HEI Health Effects Institute

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

HNO3 Nitric Acid

ICBC Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

IMO International Marine Organization

IPM Individual PAH Model

IR Indian Reservation

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

LFV Lower Fraser Valley

LHA Local Health Authority

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LOAEL Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level

LSA Local study area

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MDO Marine Diesel Oil

MFN Musqueam First Nation

MOVES Multi-Scale Motor Vehicle and Engine Emission System

MRLs Minimal Risk Levels

NAAQO National Ambient Air Quality Objectives

NMMAPS National Mortality, Morbidity, and Air Pollution Study

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NOAEL No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxx - January 2005

O3 Ozone

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PG Pasquill-Gifford (Atmospheric Stability Classification)

PM Particulate Matter

Ppb Parts Per Billion

Ppm Parts Per Million

PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

RELs Reference Exposure Levels

RfC Reference Concentration

RfD Reference Dose

RHA Respiratory Hospital Admissions

RMG Rail-Mounted Gantry

RSA Regional study area

RsD Risk-Specific Dose

RTGs Rubber-Tired Gantries

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SECA SOx Emission Control Area

SO2 Sulphur Dioxide

TCs Tolerable Concentrations

TC05s Tumorigenic Concentrations 05

TDIs Tolerable Daily Intakes

TEFs Toxic Equivalency Factors

TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit

TFN Tsawwassen First Nation

TSI Terminal Systems Inc.

TSi Consultants TransSYS International Consultants

TSP Total Suspended Particulate

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - xxxi - January 2005

TD05s Tumorigenic Doses 05

ULSD Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel

US EPA United States Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

VPA Vancouver Port Authority

WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology

WHO World Health Organization

WMM Whole Mixture Model

WHRA Wildlife Health Risk Assessment

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program RWDI Deltaport Third Berth Project File: w04-127 Air Quality and Human Health Assessment - 1 - January 2005

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) is proposing to expand its existing Roberts Bank Port

facility located in Delta, British Columbia. The proposed expansion includes two separate

container terminal projects: the Deltaport Third Berth Project and the Terminal 2 Project. The

Deltaport Third Berth Project will add a third berth to the existing Deltaport Container Terminal,

while the Terminal 2 Project will create a new three-berth container terminal. VPA is currently

studying the environmental impacts of the Deltaport Third Berth Project (the Project). The

impact of emissions from the Terminal 2 Project could not be included quantitatively in this

assessment due to the lack of available emissions information; however its effects are

qualitatively discussed in the cumulative effects assessment section. The environmental impacts

of the Terminal 2 Project will be assessed in a subsequent study.

This section of the environmental assessment for the Deltaport Third Berth Project examines

existing air quality and human health in the Project area, and predicts air quality and human

health impacts associated with emissions from the proposed Project with existing sources in the

general region. For ease of reporting, the wildlife health assessment for the Project is presented

separately in Appendix G.

1.1 OVERVIEW

The Deltaport Third Berth Project will expand the capacity at Deltaport by 400,000 twenty-foot

equivalent units (TEUs) per annum. The Project includes the construction of approximately

20 hectares of fill for newly constructed land for container operations and storage, and

construction of a wharf to accommodate an additional berth. Other components of the Project

include a tug moorage area, deepening of the existing ship channel, an additional truck exit gate,

additional rail support track, and some limited road improvements.

The Project will result in increases of marine (container vessels and tugs), rail and road traffic as

well as increases in terminal loading and unloading equipment (ship-to-shore gantry cranes,

rubber-tire gantries, rail-mounted gantries and tractor trailers). These sources will release

gaseous and particulate emissions to the atmosphere. The chemical composition of the


atmosphere will be changed by these releases. Exposure to these changes could have adverse

effects on human and wildlife health. The following assessment provides an understanding of

existing air quality in the vicinity of the Project and of the magnitude and the spatial variation of

air quality changes due to the Project. The assessment considers overlapping effects of the

Project with other existing operations in the region.

Additionally, a human health risk assessment (HHRA) was completed to identify potential

human health impacts associated with estimated air quality impacts resulting from the Project in

combination with existing operations in the region. The potential health risks, both short-term

and long-term, associated with the Project that might be presented to either the individuals living

in the area or people who might frequent the area, with special consideration given to individuals

who might be especially vulnerable to any chemicals emitted as part of the expansion were

evaluated. The HHRA adopted the approach proposed by Dr. David Bates (Bates, 2002)

published by the West Coast Environmental Law Association. This approach relies on

epidemiological data to evaluate the impacts of the common air contaminants, as outlined

recently in the BC Lung Association report (Bates et al., 2003), and on the current regulatory

approach to assessing risk for air toxics, where epidemiological data are not available. The

Determinants of Health approach recommended by Health Canada also is utilized where

appropriate (Health Canada, 2003).

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this air quality and human health assessment are to:

• Characterize the baseline air quality in the vicinity of the Project;

• Identify chemicals of potential concern in air emissions from the Project;

• Identify and characterize existing atmospheric emission sources in the study area;

• Identify human receptors of concern, and associated exposure pathways;

• Predict ambient air quality changes due to the Project and other operations in the area;

• Estimate potential exposures by human receptors to the chemicals of concern;

• Identify exposure limits for chemicals of concern (i.e., the maximum exposures receptors

could be exposed to without experiencing adverse health effects);


• Evaluate potential health risks associated with each development scenario;

• Provide quantitative risk estimates for receptors of interest associated with the Project for

each development scenario; and

• Assess the significance of the predicted air quality changes and human health effects.

2.0 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES

2.1 TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES

The addition of Deltaport Third Berth will increase the capacity at Deltaport to 1.3 million TEUs

per annum. It is anticipated that construction of the Deltaport Third Berth will commence in

spring 2006, that the Third Berth will be operational in 2008 and will reach full capacity by

2012. The expected life of the Project is greater than 100 years. As future shipping data were

provided for 2011, this year was selected for the Cumulative Effects Assessment, which is based

on the assumption that the Third Berth is at full capacity. The Existing Baseline emissions

inventory was developed based on data for the year 2003.

2.2 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AND AIR QUALITY MODELLING DOMAIN

The Deltaport Third Berth Project is located at the existing Roberts Bank Port facility in Delta,

approximately 35 km south of Vancouver, as shown in Figure 2-1. The Roberts Bank Causeway

and terminal are located on the south end of Roberts Bank, south of the main area of the Fraser

River outflow.

Figure 2-2 is a site map of the Roberts Bank Port facility. Existing VPA facilities at Roberts

Bank include Deltaport, which is a 65 ha container terminal operated by Terminal Systems Inc.

(TSI), and Westshore Terminals, which is a 50 ha bulk handling coal port facility (see Figure 2-

2). These terminals are connected to the mainland by a 4.1 km long causeway, which supports

road and rail infrastructure. The proposed location of the Deltaport Third Berth is north of the

existing Deltaport terminal.

Two study areas were defined for this assessment:


• A 30 km by 30 km Local Study Area (LSA) was defined for the purpose of evaluating

predicted overlapping effects associated with the Project and existing sources such as

Deltaport, Westhore Terminals, and the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. The LSA is

illustrated in Figure 2-3. Its centre is shifted to the northeast of Roberts Bank Port to

encompass a larger area of land than water. The LSA includes the communities of

Tsawwassen, Tsawwassen First Nation, Ladner, Boundary Bay/Maple Beach, Beach

Grove, Steveston (City of Richmond), and Point Roberts (US).

• A Regional Study Area (RSA) was also defined in the event that predicted impacts in the

LSA for ozone and particulate matter (PM) precursors are significant, in which case

regional airshed modelling would be conducted to assess the secondary formation of PM

and ozone. The RSA consists of the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) airshed, which is

bounded by the Coast and Cascade mountain ranges and the Straight of Georgia. The

LFV includes the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), the Fraser Valley

Regional District (FVRD) and Whatcom County in the US.

Regional geography can influence meteorology, which will consequently influence the transport,

dilution and dispersion of emissions from the Project and other sources. The geography of the

LSA was reviewed to aid in the understanding of local meteorology associated with the study

area.

Figure 2-4 shows the topography within the LSA. The most prominent topographical feature is

the Fraser River that flows from the northeastern corner of the study area to the ocean a few

kilometres north of Roberts Bank. The plain of the Fraser River delta extends over most of the

LSA and as a result the terrain elevation is generally less than 10 m above sea level (ASL).

There are two topographical features with raised terrain located within the LSA. The Point

Roberts peninsula has elevated terrain rising to an elevation of 60 m (ASL). A major feature of

this terrain is the English and Boundary Bluffs that rise up from the coastline and border the City

of Tsawwassen. The Project and the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal are located directly west

across the water from English Bluff. The second area of significant elevation lies on the

northeastern border of the LSA where the City of Surrey is located. This area has the highest


elevation within the study area at 112 m ASL. These topographical features will not dominate the

wind fields within the area, but may influence surface winds within a few kilometres.

Terrain effects will be more significant at the land-sea interface where differences in elevation as

well as surface roughness and temperature can influence boundary layer mechanics. Wind

channelling may also occur along the Fraser River.

3.0 ISSUES SCOPING AND ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS

3.1 AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES RELATING TO THE DELTAPORT THIRD

BERTH PROJECT

Potential air quality issues need to be evaluated in the context of the airshed, other sources of

emissions in the airshed, other users of the airshed, and the regulatory framework. In particular,

the BC regulatory framework identifies the need to meet ambient air quality objectives for a

number of chemical species that are emitted or created. In addition, Point Roberts is located in

the airshed but it is part of Washington State in the US and there is a need to ensure that

transboundary emissions from the Project do not result in exceedances of the ambient air quality

standards of that jurisdiction. There is also continuing provincial, national and international

interest in minimizing the production of greenhouse gas emissions.

The following is a list of air quality issues relevant to the Deltaport Third Berth Project.

1. Project Emissions to the Atmosphere – Marine, rail and truck traffic will increase due to

the Project. In addition, the Third Berth will be equipped with new dockyard equipment.

Thus, as a result of the Project, emissions of gaseous chemicals and particulate matter to

the atmosphere will increase.

2. Impact of Project Emissions on Ambient Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Concentrations –

Ambient SO2 exposures at sufficiently high concentrations can have adverse impacts on

human health and vegetation. SO2 emissions within the LSA are projected to increase

due to the addition of the Project.


3. Impact of Project Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions on Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Concentrations – Ambient NO2 exposures at sufficiently high concentrations can have

adverse impacts on human health and vegetation. As a result of the Project, NOx

emissions within the LSA are projected to increase.

4. Impact of Project Emissions on Ambient Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations –

Ambient CO exposures at sufficiently high concentrations can have adverse impacts on

human health. CO emissions are projected to increase as a result of the Project.

5. Impact of Project Emissions on Ambient Particulate Matter (PM) Concentrations –

Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 µm (referred to as PM2.5) is

of specific interest relative to human health impacts. As a result of the Project, PM2.5

emissions are projected to increase.

6. Impact of Project Emissions on Secondary Ozone and PM Formation – Ambient NOx

emissions can combine with anthropogenic and biogenic VOC emissions to form ground-

level ozone (O3) downwind of the study area. In sufficiently high concentrations, ambient

O3 exposures can have adverse impacts on human health and vegetation. Similarly,

anthropogenic emissions of SO2, NOx and VOC can lead to the formation of secondary

particulate, which can have adverse impacts on human health and visibility. As a result

of the Project, SO2, NOx and VOC emissions are projected to increase.

7. Project Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The combustion of hydrocarbon

fuels (gas, diesel, propane, fuel oil, etc.) will result in the release of greenhouse gases

(primarily carbon dioxide, CO2). Incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels can also

result in the release of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, at significantly lower

amounts relative to CO2 emissions.

8. Impact of Project Emissions on Community, Wildlife and Recreation Receptors –

Combustion sources produce SO2, NOx, CO, PM, metals, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. As PAH and

VOC include a wide range of compounds, representative species were selected to assess


potential human and wildlife health impacts. The number of combustion sources is

projected to increase as a result of the Project, thereby increasing emissions of the

aforementioned compounds.

The source and nature of these issues, and the justification for including or excluding an issue are

summarized in Table 3-1.

3.2 AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS

The following scenarios were used to assess the effects of the proposed Project on ambient air

quality and human health. Underlying assumptions for these scenarios are provided in Table 3-2.

• Existing Baseline: defined by emissions from existing sources in the LSA for the year 2003.

This year was selected for the existing baseline rather than 2000, as suggested in the

Work Plan, because activity level data for most sources were provided for the year 2003.

• Project Construction: defined by emissions from construction operations at their peak in

2006. This year was selected because it is the year when construction activity is expected

to be highest.

• Project Operation: defined by emissions from the Project operating at full capacity in 2011.

Although the Project is not expected to reach full capacity until 2012, this year was

selected because future shipping data were provided for the year 2011. For this study it

was assumed that the Project will be operating at full capacity by 2011.

• Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA): defined by emissions from the Project operating at

full capacity in addition to emissions from existing, approved and proposed sources in the

LSA projected for the year 2011 (Projected 2011 Baseline). (Note that in the LSA there

is no known approved source of air emissions. Known proposed sources in the LSA

include Deltaport Terminal 2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road, for which there were

three possible alignments at the time this study was conducted. Since insufficient

information was available for these proposed projects they could not be included in the

Projected 2011 Baseline.)


Table 3-1: Air and Health Issue Scoping Results

ISSUE RELEVANCE TO THE PROJECT KEY IMPACT QUESTION INDICATOR AIR QUALITY PARAMETERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING

IMPACTS

Project emissions to the atmosphere

The Project will result in emissions of gaseous chemicals and particulate matter to the atmosphere. The identification of these emissions forms the basis of the air quality assessment.

What are the Project emissions to the atmosphere?

Air emissions SO2, NOx, CO, VOC and PM

emissions. Change relative to study area emissions


Exposures to sufficiently high ambient SO2 concentrations can have adverse impacts on human health and vegetation. SO2 emissions are projected to increase.

What are the effects of Project emissions on ambient SO2 concentrations?

SO2 concentration Maximum 1-h, 24-h and annual average SO2 concentrations. Geographic distribution of predicted values.

1-h, 24-h and annual BC ambient air quality objectives (BCAAQO)


Exposures to sufficiently high ambient NO2 concentrations can have adverse impacts on human health. Emissions of NOx are projected to increase.

What is the impact of Project NOx emissions on ambient NO2 concentrations?

NO2 concentration Maximum 1-h, 24-h and annual average NO2 concentrations. Geographic distribution of predicted values.

1-h, 24-h and annual National ambient air quality objectives (NAAQO)

Impact of Project on ambient CO concentrations

Exposures to sufficiently high ambient CO concentrations can have adverse impacts on human health. As a result of the Project, emissions of CO are projected to increase.

What is the impact of Project emissions on ambient CO concentrations?

CO concentration Maximum 1-h and 8-h CO concentrations. Geographic distribution of predicted values

1-h and 8-h BCAAQO

Impact of Project on ambient PM concentrations

Exposures to sufficiently high ambient PM2.5 concentrations can have adverse impacts on human health. The Project will result in emissions of primary PM and the precursors to secondary PM formation.

What is the impact of Project emissions on ambient PM concentrations?

PM2.5, PM10 and TSP concentrations

Maximum 24-h and annual average PM2.5, PM10 and TSP concentrations.

Geographic distribution of predicted values.

24-h Canada-wide standard (CWS) for PM2.5 and GVRD Objectives for PM10, BCAAQO for TSP

Impact of Project emissions on secondary O3 and PM formation

Ambient NOx emissions can combine with anthropogenic and biogenic VOC emissions to form ground-level O3 downwind of the region. In sufficiently high concentrations, ambient O3 exposures can have adverse impacts on human health and vegetation. Similarly, SO2, NOx and VOC emissions can combine to form secondary PM, which can have adverse impacts on human health and visibility. As a result of the project, precursor SO2, NOx and VOC emissions are projected to increase.

What is the impact of Project emissions on ambient O3 and secondary PM concentrations?

O3 and PM2.5 concentrations

Magnitude of precursor emissions

Change relative to regional study area emissions


ISSUE RELEVANCE TO THE PROJECT KEY IMPACT QUESTION INDICATOR AIR QUALITY PARAMETERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING

IMPACTS


The combustion of hydrocarbon fuels will result in the release of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2). Incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels can also result in the release of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, at significantly lower amounts relative to CO2 emissions.

What is the Project contribution to greenhouse gas emissions?

Greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E)

Change relative to provincial and federal GHG totals

Impact of Project Emissions on Community, Wildlife and Recreation Receptors

Combustion sources produce SO2, NOx, CO, PM2.5, metals, PAH and VOC emissions. Ambient exposures to sufficiently high concentrations of these chemicals can have adverse impacts on human health or wildlife. The number of combustion sources in the region is projected to increase.

What is the impact of Project combustion emissions on community, wildlife and recreation receptors?

SO2, NO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10, metals, PAH and VOC concentrations

Maximum 1-h, 8-h, 24-h and annual average concentrations for the criteria compounds at community, wildlife and recreation locations.

Maximum 1-h, 24-h, and annual average concentrations for a number of VOCs (e.g., benzene), PAHs and metals are evaluated. For the full list, see Section 3.4).

BC MWLAP

Health Canada

CEPA

CCME

OMOE

US EPA

CARB

ASTDR

WHO

ACGIH

AIHA


Table 3-2: Emission Inventory Assumptions of Impact Assessment Scenarios

SCENARIO (YEAR)


Dockyard Equipment

• List of combustion equipment including rated horsepower, age of equipment and fuel use estimates provided by Terminal Systems Incorporated (TSI)

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003 • Emission rates estimated using the US EPA NONROAD2004 model


• Average daily traffic levels and gate times provided by TransSYS International Consultants Limited (TSi Consultants)

• Container truck emission factors derived from US EPA MOBILE6.2C model for year 2003 • Daily traffic distribution estimated from 2003 traffic count data on Deltaport Way provided by TSi

Consultants Container Vessels (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Number, size of vessels, duration of vessel call and fuel use based on the 2003 Port of Call list provided by Chamber of Shipping

• Average percent weight of sulphur in fuel oil estimated from Chamber of Shipping Fuel Use Inventory; marine diesel fuel sulphur content based on US EPA mandated limits

• Operational parameters of tugboats assisting container vessels into berth provided by Batchelor Marine Consulting

• Emission factors estimated using methodology outlined in the 2000 Marine Emission Inventory report prepared by Levelton (2002)

Deltaport

Trains • Train traffic volumes, operation duty cycles, fuel use and idling times based on assumptions reviewed by BC Rail

• Locomotive age distribution assumed fleet age between 1966 to 2001 • Emission factors based on US EPA legislated engine emission standards • Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003 • All trains were assumed to idle for a period of 24 hours at the Terminal

Dockyard Equipment

• List of combustion equipment including rated horsepower, age of equipment and fuel use estimates provided by Westshore

• Other assumptions are the same as for Deltaport Bulk Carrier Vessels (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Size of vessels based on the 2003 Port of Call list provided by Chamber of Shipping; ship numbers were conservatively increased to reflect peak capacity year as 2003 vessel calls were lower than average

• Other assumptions the same as for Deltaport Container vessels

Trains • Same assumptions as for Deltaport

Existing Baseline (2003)

Westshore


• Wind erosion of coal dust from coal stockpiles and transfer activities are estimated based on the maximum coal storage capacity and peak coal volume throughput for the terminal


SCENARIO (YEAR)


• Threshold friction velocity and surface roughness height of the stockpiled coal were estimated based on typical parameters outlined in AP-42 US EPA methodology

• A control efficiency of 70% was used to account for the automated coal dust suppression system Westshore has in place



• Emissions estimated for peak season of 32 sailings a day based on BC Ferries schedule • Emission factors were estimated using methodology outlined in the 2000 Marine Emission Inventory

report prepared by Levelton (2002) • Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003

Project Construction Equipment

• List of construction equipment, rated horsepower and duration of operation of equipment was provided by AMEC

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on national average fuel sulphur content in 2003 • Emission rates and fuel use were estimated using the US EPA NONROAD2004 model

Deltaport All Sources • Same assumptions as Existing Baseline Westshore All Sources • Same assumptions as Existing Baseline

Project Construction (2006)


All Sources • Same assumptions as Existing Baseline

Dockyard Equipment

• Additional equipment requirements and fuel consumption based on Draft Project Description and projected increase in TEU traffic


• Project container truck traffic based on average daily traffic provided by TSi Consultants

Container Vessels Emissions (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Project 2011 vessel size distribution based on the May 17, 2004 Moffat Nichols report • The number of vessel calls was determined from the projected increase in average TEU capacity and the

projected number of vessels for year 2011 presented in the Batchelor Navigational Impact Assessment Study.

• Marine diesel fuel sulphur content based on US EPA mandated limits for 2007 Trains • Project train traffic was based on rail forecast data prepared by Mainline Management (MLM)

Project Operation (2011)

Project

Container Trucks Operating in LSA

• Project container truck traffic was based on forecasts provided by TSi Consultants

Project All Emission Sources

• Same assumptions as Project Operation

Dockyard Equipment

• Equipment replacement rates for Handlers assumed to be every 10 years and for RTG’s every 20 years • Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on mandated 2007 level of 500 ppm

CEA (2011) Deltaport

Container Trucks operating at

• Container truck emission factors derived from US EPA MOBILE6.2C model for year 2011


SCENARIO (YEAR)


Terminal Container Vessels (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Year 2011 vessel size distribution based on the May 17, 2004 Moffat Nichols report • The number of vessel calls was determined from the projected increase in average container capacity

and the projected number of vessels for year 2011 presented in the Batchelor Navigational Impact Study • Marine diesel fuel sulphur content based on US EPA mandated limits for 2007

Trains • Locomotive replacement rate based on 25 % of fleet being replaced between 2003 and 2011 (approximate average locomotive engine life of 32 years)

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on mandated 2007 level of 500 ppm Dockyard Equipment

• Equipment replacement rates for earthmoving equipment and portable stationary diesel equipment assumed to be every 15 years

• Nonroad diesel sulphur levels based on mandated 2007 level of 500 ppm Bulk Carrier Vessels (Underway, Maneuvering, Dockside)

• Number of vessel calls based on historic peak capacity indicated in the Batchelor Navigational Impact Assessment Study

Trains • Rail traffic increased by two trains per day arriving and departing over existing baseline 2003 based on information from BC rail

Westshore


• Same as Existing Baseline



• Ferry traffic based on maximum peak season of 37 sailings per day


Locations of existing sources that are included in the modelling (i.e., Westshore Terminals,

Deltaport Terminal, Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, and shipping lanes) are shown in Figure 2-3.

4.0 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Air quality is characterized by the chemical composition of the air, which depends on the

quantity of industrial and natural emissions, local meteorology, and land use properties. Table

3-1 defines the indicators used to characterize air quality, such as SO2 concentration or

greenhouse gas emissions.

The chemical composition of the atmosphere is described in terms of the concentrations of

various contaminants. These concentrations can be expressed in terms of parts per million on a

volume basis (ppm), parts per billion on a volume basis (ppb) or micrograms per cubic meter of

air (µg/m3).

The impact of air emissions from a single source on ambient air quality generally decreases with

increasing distance from the source. Furthermore, the ambient concentration of contaminants for

any time period will depend on the prevailing meteorology during that period. Therefore, the

ambient concentration prediction patterns due to air emission sources vary considerably with

location and time.

Table 3-1 lists the air quality parameters that were used for this assessment. Maximum predicted

values, which are specific to a single location and a narrow range of meteorological conditions,

were selected as a primary air quality indicator for comparison purposes. These indicators were

used to assess the significance of the predicted concentrations. The maximum predicted values

plus background values are compared to the selected ambient criteria. In addition, the changes

due to the Project are presented as a percent change relative to the reference assessment

scenarios.

4.1 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Air emissions from the Project will result in ground-level concentrations of various chemicals.

Maximum concentration levels of these criteria and toxic pollutants should be such that the


changes in their concentrations in ambient air do not result in an exceedance of established air

quality objectives (where available), or have an adverse effect on the environment.

Ground-level concentrations of criteria pollutants (i.e., sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon

monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone) are regulated by provincial and national objectives.

With the exception of ozone and some particulate matter, all of these air emissions are primary

pollutants, meaning that they are emitted directly from the source. There are no air quality

criteria for total volatile organic compounds (VOC). The following subsections provide some

background information on the criteria air contaminants and present relevant air quality criteria.

4.1.1 Sulphur Dioxide

Sulphur dioxide is a colourless gas with a pungent odour. It is produced primarily by the

combustion of fossil fuels containing sulphur. Major sources of SO2 emissions in the study area

include marine vessels, motor vehicles and off-road engines.

Sulphur dioxide reacts in the atmosphere to form sulphuric acid, a major contributor to acid rain,

and particulate sulphates, which can reduce visibility.

The most common effects resulting from short-term overexposure to SO2 involve the breathing

passages and include throat or lung irritation or bronchospasm in asthmatics (WHO, 1999).

Reported long-term health effects include reduction of lung function, chronic respiratory

symptoms in asthmatics and increased hospital admissions to acute care hospitals (Health

Canada, 1998). SO2 is also known to be a potent bronchoconstrictor and has been shown to

induce bronchoconstriction, hyper reactivity and airway inflammation in both human and animal

studies. For further information pertaining to health effects that may result from exposure to

sulphur dioxide, refer to Appendix I.

Table 4-1 compares air quality objectives, standards and guidelines related to SO2 for BC,

Canada, US, Washington State and the GVRD. The Canadian criteria tend to be more stringent

then the US criteria. The BC Objectives were selected for evaluating predicted air quality

impacts.


Table 4-1: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for SO2 (µg/m3)

JURISDICTION LEVEL 10 MIN 1-HOUR 3-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL

Canada Maximum Desirable

Maximum Acceptable Maximum Tolerable

450 900

150 300 800

30 60

BC MWLAP Level A Level B Level C

450 900

900-1,300

375 665

160 260 360

25 50 80

US EPA Standard 1,300 365 80

Washington State Standard 1,040 260 52

GVRD Proposed Objective 450 125 30

4.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish-brown gas with a pungent, irritating odour. It is produced when

fossil fuels are burned at high temperatures. Nitrogen dioxide can also combine with other air

contaminants to form fine particulates, which can reduce visibility. It can be further oxidized to

form nitric acid, a component of acid rain. Nitrogen dioxide also plays a major role in the

secondary formation of ozone.

In the Lower Fraser Valley, transportation sources (internal combustion engines) account for a

majority of nitrogen oxide emissions, while stationary and area sources such as steam boilers and

building heating systems account for the rest.

In humans, the most common effects resulting from overexposure to NO2 include the observation

of increased airway resistance and altered lung function after short-term exposure under

controlled conditions. Epidemiology studies have reported increased incidence of respiratory

illness. Lung tissue damage and decreased immune functioning were observed in laboratory

animals (Health Canada, 1998). NO2 also may produce irritation of the eyes (HSDB, 2004). For


further information pertaining to health effects that may result from exposure to nitrogen dioxide,

refer to Appendix I.

Air quality objectives, standards and guidelines related to NO2 for Canada, US, Washington

State and the GVRD are compared in Table 4-2. The GVRD proposed objectives are the most

stringent; however they are not yet in force. Therefore, the Canadian and existing GVRD

objectives, which are equivalent, were selected for evaluation of air quality impacts.

Table 4-2: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for NO2 (µg/m3)

JURISDICTION LEVEL 1-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL



- 400

1,000

- 200 300

60 100

-

US EPA Standard - - 100

Washington State Standard - - 100

GVRD Maximum Desirable


- 400

1,000

- 200 300

60 100

-

GVRD Proposed Objective 200 100 60

4.1.3 Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide is a colourless, odourless and tasteless gas produced by incomplete

combustion of fossil fuels. It is the most widely distributed and commonly occurring air

pollutant and comes primarily from motor vehicle emissions from cars, trucks, and buses.

Building heating and commercial and industrial operations are also contributors.

Short-term health effects related to carbon monoxide exposure can include headache, dizziness,

light-headedness and fainting, as well as adverse effects on the cardiovascular system (New

Jersey DHSS, 1998; Health and Welfare Canada, 1990). Long-term health effects of exposure to

low concentrations have not been well studied in humans. High concentrations, usually indoors,


can result in headache, drowsiness, cardiac arrhythmias, and in sufficient levels coma and death

(Health Canada, 1998). Chronic exposure studies of laboratory animals have revealed

physiological and behavioural changes such as impairment in time discrimination and consistent

trace metal loss (Health Canada, 1998). For further information pertaining to health effects that

may result from exposure to carbon monoxide, refer to Appendix I.

Air quality objectives, standards and guidelines for CO in BC, Canada, US, Washington State are

compared in Table 4-3. The current Canadian, BC and GVRD objectives are all equivalent and

they provide a range of values. The US 1-hour standards are less stringent than the Canadian

objectives. The US and proposed GVRD 8-hour criteria are less stringent than the Canadian

Maximum Desirable Objective and more stringent than the Canadian Maximum Acceptable

Objective. The BC Objectives were selected for evaluating the impact of predicted CO

concentrations.

Table 4-3: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for CO (mg/m3)

JURISDICTION LEVEL 1-HOUR 8-HOUR



15 35 -

6 15 20

BC MWLAP/ GVRD

Level A Level B Level C

15 35 -

6 15 20

US EPA Standard 40 10

Washington State Standard 40 10

GVRD Proposed Objective 20 10

4.1.4 Particulate Matter

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is defined as an atmospheric particle with a diameter of

2.5 micrometers or less. PM2.5 concentrations result directly from combustion emissions (i.e.,


primary emissions) and indirectly from the formation of sulphates and nitrates in the atmosphere

from SO2 and NOx emissions (i.e., secondary emissions). Fine particulate plays a primary role in

developing regional haze.

Inhalable particulate (PM10) is defined as any atmospheric particle with a diameter of

10 micrometers or less. PM10 is emitted from industrial, mobile and area sources, including road

dust, which results from travelling vehicles. Natural sources include wind-blown sand, soil,

forest fires, ocean spray and volcanic activity.

Total suspended particulate (TSP) consists of all size ranges of particulate matter suspended in

the atmosphere.

The main health effects of concern with PM exposure are affected pulmonary function, increased

respiratory symptoms and aggravation of existing heart and lung disease as measured by

increased physician visits, hospitalization and mortality (HEI, 2003; Burnett et al., 1997; Delfino

et al., 1997; Schwartz, 1994; Thurston et al., 1994). An increased risk of lung cancer mortality

has been identified more recently (Pope et al., 2002). Particulates in the lung also may impede

the natural ability of the respiratory system to clear itself of foreign matter and may affect other

body defence mechanisms. For further information pertaining to health effects that may result

from exposure to particulate matter, refer to Appendix I.

Air quality standards and objectives of different Canadian and US agencies for PM2.5 are

compared in Table 4-4. The CWS for PM2.5 is 30 µg/m3 as a 24-h average; achievement being

based on the average of monitors within an identified population center, the 98th percentile for a

year, averaged over 3 consecutive years. The most stringent criteria are the proposed GVRD

objectives; however they are not yet in force. Therefore, to evaluate the significance of the

impact of predicted PM2.5 concentrations, the CWS was selected for the 24-hour averaging

period and the US EPA standard was selected for the annual averaging period.


Table 4-4: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for PM2.5 (µg/m3)

JURISDICTION LEVEL 24-HOUR ANNUAL

Canada-Wide Standard Target 30 -



California Air Resources Board Draft Standard - 12


Various standards and objectives for PM10 and TSP are presented in Table 4-5 and Table 4-6,

respectively. The GVRD objectives were selected for evaluating predicted PM10 concentrations

because there are objectives for both the daily and annual averaging periods, which are more

stringent than the US EPA or Washington State standards. The BC objectives were selected for

evaluating predicted TSP concentrations.

Table 4-5: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for PM10 (µg/m3)


GVRD Objectives Acceptable 50 30

BC MWLAP Objective 50 -



California Air Resources Board Standard 50 20



Table 4-6: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for TSP (µg/m3)


Canada

Maximum Desirable Maximum Acceptable Maximum Tolerable

- 120 400

60 70 -

BC MWLAP Level A Level B Level C

150 200 260

60 70 75


4.1.5 Ozone

Ozone is a reactive form of oxygen that is a strong oxidizer and can irritate the eyes, nose and

throat and decrease athletic performance. Ozone is usually not directly discharged to the air.

Rather it is produced by photochemical reactions of anthropogenic NOx, anthropogenic VOC,

and biogenic VOC emissions.

Air quality objectives and standards for ozone are listed in Table 4-7. The Canada-wide

Standard (CWS) for O3 is 65 ppb (130 µg/m3) as an eight-hour average; achievement being

based on the 4th highest value for a year, averaged over 3 consecutive years. In determining

compliance, natural sources or long-range contributions can be discounted. Ambient ozone

concentrations were not predicted for this study; rather the potential formation of ozone was

semi-quantitatively assessed based on total emissions of ozone precursors. As such, the potential

impact of secondary ozone formation was evaluated relative to total ozone precursor emissions

in the RSA.


Table 4-7: Relevant Air Quality Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for Ozone (µg/m3)

JURISDICTION LEVEL 1-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL


Maximum Acceptable 100 160

- -

30 50

30

Canada-Wide Standard Target - 130 - -

US EPA Standard 240 160 - -

Washington State Standard 240 - - -

GVRD Proposed Objective 160 130 - -

4.2 METHODOLOGY

4.2.1 Overall Approach

A standard assessment approach was used to define air quality changes associated with the

specified assessment scenarios. The steps in this approach are summarized as follows:

• Review ambient air quality observations to define background air quality;

• Identify and quantify the emission sources for each assessment scenario;

• Use dispersion models to predict ambient concentrations due to emissions associated with

each assessment scenario;

• Compare the predictions with ambient air quality criteria; and

• Compare scenario results to determine the incremental air quality changes due to the

Project and express them as a percent change.

This approach is summarized in Table 4-8.


Table 4-8: Summary of Air Quality Assessment Approach

COMPONENT OF APPROACH DESCRIPTION

Source Characterization

Characterization of emission sources focuses primarily on identifying combustion sources and estimating their emissions of SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, PM2.5, PM10, Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and Diesel PM2.5 since emissions of these compounds are forecast to increase due to the Project. Combustion source characterization requires information on the source attributes. These include properties such as: area where emissions occur, source height, pollutant emission rates and temporal variation. Source characterization data were produced for the four assessment scenarios as described in Appendix A.

Terrestrial Characterization

Terrain elevations for the nominal 30 km by 30 km LSA were obtained from two digital elevation databases. Data for the Canadian side were obtained from the Canadian Digital Elevation Database 1:50,000 scale map sheets. At the latitude of the LSA these data have a resolution of approximately 3 arc seconds or about 20 m. Data for the US side were obtained from the US Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Terrain Elevation Data 1:250,000 map sheet archives. These elevation data have a resolution of approximately 12 arc seconds or about 100 m. Each of these resolutions should be sufficient for use in air quality modelling. Land use files for BC were obtained from 1:250,000 scale Baseline Thematic Mapping format files from the BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Washington State land use information was obtained from 1:250,000 USGS format map sheets.

Representative Meteorology

The CALMET meteorological model was used to predict temporally and spatially dependent wind, temperature and turbulence fields. The CALMET model simulation was based on data from 6 surface stations and soundings from two upper air stations. The surface stations included stations T13, T17, T18 and T31 from the GVRD monitoring network, the MSC station at Vancouver International Airport and local wind speed and direction measured at Westshore Terminals. The two upper air stations included were Port Hardy on Vancouver Island and Quillayute in Washington State. (Appendix C)

Model Ambient Concentrations

The CALPUFF model was used to calculate ambient air quality changes for the assessment scenarios. The code, documentation and guidelines for the selection and application of the model are available from US EPA website (2004) as well as the applicable model manual (Scire et al., 2000). The CALPUFF model and the associated predictions have been accepted by the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.


COMPONENT OF APPROACH DESCRIPTION

Model Ambient Concentrations

The CALPUFF model was applied to the 30 km by 30 km LSA. Noteworthy items include: • A total of 2,898 receptors with an increased grid density surrounding the

Project area were selected. Grid densities vary from 100 m to 1 km, depending on distance from the Project area;

• An additional 16 community, wildlife and recreation locations were selected; • Predicted concentrations are presented as contours superimposed over the

LSA base map; and • Concentrations of criteria contaminants, VOCs and metals predicted at

community, wildlife and recreation receptors are presented in tabular formats and are provided for 1-h, 24-h and annual averaging periods in Appendix F.

Further details regarding the application of CALPUFF are provided in Appendix D.

Presentation Limitations

Model predictions are shown as a series of contours superimposed over base maps to provide an indication of spatial variability. Contours that are presented in the figures have smoothed 100 m resolution. As an artifact of the gridding algorithm there may be differences between peak values given in tables and those inferred from contour plots. Priority is given to values provided in tables.

4.2.2 Method for Determining Baseline Air Quality

The assessment of baseline air quality conditions is based on the review of ambient monitoring

data and the application of dispersion modelling as complementary tools. The monitoring

accounts for the sources that were operating during the period when monitoring was conducted

(i.e., 1999 to 2003). The Existing Baseline scenario accounts for existing (2003) emissions from

background sources whereas the Projected 2011 Baseline scenario accounts for future (2011)

emissions from these sources. A review of the ambient monitoring data is provided in Appendix

B. The review is also summarized in Section 4.4.1.

4.2.3 Representative Background Values

To assess the cumulative effects of air emissions from a project it is necessary to include the

contribution of emissions from other sources in the study area. This can be done either by

adding a representative observed ambient concentration or by modelling all possible background

sources.


There is considerable debate regarding what constitutes a representative background value that

should be added to predicted concentrations. The most conservative approach is to add the

maximum observed concentration to predicted concentrations. This assumes that the worst case

predicted concentrations would occur at the same time and be associated with the same

meteorological conditions, including wind direction, as the worst case observed concentrations.

This approach is most appropriate when no background sources have been included in the

modelling. When background sources have been included in the modelling, this approach

effectively double-counts those sources. Furthermore, this approach is problematic when the

maximum observed concentration exceeds or approaches ambient criteria. In such cases, a

percentile value, such as the 98th or 95th percentile observed concentration, is often used rather

than the maximum concentration.

Another approach that has been adopted in Alberta is to include in the modelling all major

background sources located within the study area and to add the annual average observed

concentration to represent other background sources such as roads or surface heating.

For this study, we included in the modelling all major sources of emissions within the LSA

(Deltaport, Westshore Terminal, and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal) and then we added the 98th

percentile observed ambient concentrations to represent minor sources of emissions inside the

LSA that were not included in the modelling (e.g., space heating, roadways, agricultural sources)

and other sources located outside of the LSA. This is a very conservative approach and is

consistent with the approach taken in recent air quality impact assessments for major projects in

BC including the Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP) and the Golden Ears Bridge

(Fraser River Crossing) Project. For annual averaging periods it was not possible to calculate a

98th percentile value and therefore the five-year annual average was used.

This approach is likely too conservative for PM because the main sources of PM emissions in the

LSA are located at Roberts Bank Port and the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal and will result in high

concentrations on land only when the wind is blowing from the northwest to southwest but

elevated observed PM concentrations are associated with winds from the east. Therefore, it is

not physically possible for the worst-case predicted PM concentrations to occur at the same time


as the worst-case observed PM concentrations. This argument is also applicable to SO2

emissions although the observed concentrations are so low as to not be an issue.

Results of the ambient air quality analysis provided in Appendix B indicate that observations

made at the three continuous monitoring stations: T2, T17 and T31 are fairly similar. It was

decided that the Richmond South station (T17), which is located within the LSA, is the most

representative of ambient air quality within the LSA. Therefore T17 data were used to develop

representative background values for all contaminants apart from PM2.5, which is not monitored

at T17. Data from T31 were used for PM2.5. Representative 98th percentile and 5-year annual

average background values that were added to predicted concentrations are listed in Table 4-9.

No data were available for total VOCs in the LSA and therefore a background VOC value was

not added to predicted concentrations.

Table 4-9: Representative Background Values Added to Predicted Concentrations

CONTAMINANT 1-HR 8-HR 24-HR ANNUAL

98TH PERCENTILE 98TH PERCENTILE 98TH PERCENTILE 5-YEAR AVERAGE

SO2 a 10.5 n/a 6.8 2.4 NOX a,d 431 n/a 330 76.4

CO a 2,634 2,276 n/a 610 PM2.5 b n/a n/a 15.6 5.4 PM10 a n/a n/a 26.9 13.3 TSP c n/a n/a 46.0 22.9

a Data is for five years of ambient monitoring between 1999 and 2003 at GVRD station T17. b Data is for five years of ambient monitoring between 1999 and 2003 at GVRD station T31. c Non continuous data from 1999 to 2002 at GVRD station T17 were used, for a total of 234 24-hr average samples. d For NO2, the background NOx concentration was added to the predicted NOx concentration and the resulting total NOx concentration was converted to NO2.

4.2.4 Determination of Impact Significance

Impact is often described in terms of the descriptors provided in Table 4-10. The descriptors in

this table have been adapted to assess changes relative to ambient air quality. As indicated in

Table 3-1, the ambient air quality parameters are described in terms of pollutant emissions

(expressed in t/d) and ambient concentrations (expressed in µg/m3). These parameters are highly

variable and can change significantly in time and space depending on the level of activity of the


emission source and on the meteorology. The maximum predicted changes are often compared

to ambient air quality criteria (e.g., as in Table 4-1 to Table 4-7), where applicable. Comments

relative to the general descriptors provided in Table 4-10 are as follows:

• Direction: Direction addresses the expected change without regard for the magnitude of

the change. The direction is interpreted as being adverse (i.e., negative) if there are any

increases of the air quality parameters listed in Table 3-1.

• Areal Extent: Generally, air quality changes decrease with increasing distance from the

emission source. If the expected measurable changes are limited to the project footprint

the areal extent is considered to be immediate. If the expected measurable changes are

limited to the LSA the areal extent is interpreted as being local. If the expected

measurable changes extend beyond the LSA but are still confined to the RSA they are

interpreted as being regional. If the expected changes could extend beyond the RSA, such

as the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, they are interpreted as being global in extent.

• Magnitude: Dispersion models, being comprised of mathematical relationships, can

provide a level of precision that will exceed what can be measured. There is no

monitoring system in place that can measure a change of 1% in any parameter that is

meaningful, i.e. that can be discerned from noise. Typically, ambient measurements are

viewed as being the same if they are within 10 to 15% of each other. Therefore, the

characterization of an air quality impact as moderate if the prediction indicates a change

of 1% in an air quality parameter is not appropriate. On the other hand, use of a 10 to

15% cut off between low and moderate impacts is viewed as being counter to the

philosophy of Keeping Clean Areas Clean. Therefore, a midpoint was chosen for this

assessment, wherein a change of 5% or less is rated as low. A change of 1% or less is

rated as negligible. A change greater than 5% and less than or equal to 10% but not

resulting in the exceedance of an existing Objective or Canada-wide Standard over land

was rated as moderate. A high magnitude rating is used when an air quality parameter

exceeds an existing Objective or Canada-wide Standard over land or when the predicted

change is greater than 10%.


• Duration and Frequency: Air quality changes can be described in terms of duration and

frequency. While emissions to the atmosphere will occur for the full duration of the

Project, changes in air quality will have significant temporal variability due to the natural

variability in meteorology (wind speed, wind direction, temperature etc.) and also

variability in equipment load, which is often less than 100%. Also, the secondary

formation of some compounds can be seasonal in nature due to variability in meteorology

and biogenic emissions.

• Reversibility: Air quality changes tend to be reversible through natural processes once a

project terminates. Human intervention, such as planting trees to act as carbon sinks, can

accelerate the process.

• Confidence: The level of confidence with predicting air quality changes depends on the

representativeness of the source characterization (e.g., emission rates), the meteorological

characterization (e.g., transport and dispersion), chemical transformation (e.g., reaction

rates), and on the model capability. The confidence rating is based on the assumption

that, while dispersion models have limitations towards the prediction of an individual

event, they provide reasonable predictions for air quality assessment purposes given

representative input data.

• Final Impact Rating: A final rating integrates the individual descriptor ratings and is

based on subjective and professional judgment. The judgment accounts for the relative

change and the absolute value along with spatial and temporal variability. The judgment

is made with respect to the ambient air quality criteria. The final rating provided in this

section refers to the change in concentration only and does not account for the receptor

response. The receptor response aspect is discussed in the human health section.


Table 4-10: Impact Assessment Descriptors as Applied to Ambient Air Quality Changes

DIRECTION AREAL EXTENT MAGNITUDE DURATION FREQUENCY REVERSIBILITY CONFIDENCE FINAL RATING

Positive: The emission, ambient concentration, or deposition change is expected to decrease.

Immediate: Effects are limited to the Project footprint.

Negligible: The expected emission, ambient concentration, or deposition change is expected to be less than 1%.

Short-term: Predicted impact persists no longer than five years.

Infrequent: Predicted impact occurs only a few hours a year. Variable exposure due to meteorology or upset conditions.

Irreversible: Predicted impact is not reversible through natural process or human intervention and does not diminish with time.

Low: There are limitations with the model approach or with the input data that compromise the ability to predict meaningful results and/or trends.

Low: professional judgment.

Neutral: The emission, ambient concentration, or deposition is expected to remain the same.

Local: The expected measurable changes are confined to the local study area (LSA).

Low: The expected emission, ambient concentration, or deposition change is expected to be less than 5%.

Mid-term: Predicted impact persists to the end of the operational life of the Project.

Seasonal: Measured or estimated impact occurs during a clearly defined season(s).

Reversible: Predicted impact is reversible through natural process or human intervention and diminishes with time.

Moderate: The modelling approach is standardized and the model has been evaluated. The input data are extrapolated.

Moderate: professional judgment.

Negative: The emission, ambient concentration, or deposition change is expected to increase.

Regional: The expected measurable changes extend beyond the LSA but are within the regional study area (RSA).

Moderate: The expected emission, ambient concentration or deposition change is expected to be more than 5% but less than or equal to 10%.

Long-term: Predicted impact is measurable for more than two years beyond the end of the operational life of the Project.

Continuous: Predicted impact occurs continuously and is associated with annual average periods.

High: The modelling approach is standardized and the model has been evaluated. The input data are viewed as representative.

High: professional judgment.

Global: The expected impacts have a global consequence.

High: The expected emission, ambient concentration or deposition change is greater than 10% or is expected to exceed relevant criteria over land.


4.3 METEOROLOGY

The CALMET model was used to provide three-dimensionally varying wind, temperature, and

turbulence fields for use by the CALPUFF model. The CALMET model results are based on:

• Surface station measurements from 4 GRVD stations, the MSC station at Vancouver

International Airport and from Westshore Terminals (see Table 4-11).

• Upper air profiles from Port Hardy in BC and Quillayute in Washington State.

• Digital terrain elevation and land use information for southwest BC and northwest

Washington State.

Although CALMET can be initialized with prognostic meteorological fields from models such as

MC2 and MM5, no such fields were available that coincided with the availability of data from

the surface stations listed above. Because no prognostic model fields were used, the model was

initialised each hour using a distance weighted average of all data included. Surface and upper

air stations used in the modelling are listed in Table 5-1.

CALMET fields were prepared for the year 2003 because this is the most recent year for which

data were available. Only one year of data was processed, rather than the three to five years

indicated in the Work Plan, due to substantial computational requirements to model multiple line

and area sources that were not foreseen when the Work Plan was prepared (e.g., modelling one

scenario using one year of meteorological data required 7 to 10 days of computational time).

Detailed information regarding the CALMET model is provided in Appendix C. A summary of

the meteorological observations used to drive the CALMET model is provided in the next

sections.

4.3.1 Observed Surface Winds

Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-6 show observed surface wind roses for each surface station

included in the modelling. Stations on the lowland plains of Richmond, namely YVR, T17 and

T31, show similar patterns (Figure 4-1 to Figure 4-3). Dominant wind direction is easterly, with

a smaller component from the west, and very little wind from either the north or south. This


pattern is well described for surface layer wind in the Greater Vancouver region (Oke and Hay,

1994) and is likely the result of the offshore component of the sea breeze cycle combined with

drainage flows along the Fraser Delta toward the ocean away from higher terrain to the east.

Winds from the east tend to have lower speeds and higher speeds are associated with the less

frequent westerly component.

Table 4-11: Surface and Upper Air Stations used for CALMET

Location Station Type UTM X

(km) UTM Y

(km) Elevation (m ASL)

Parameters Incorporated into CALMET

MSC YVR Surface 487.857 5449.703 4 Wind speed and direction, temperature, surface pressure, relative humidity, cloud cover, ceiling height, precipitation

GVRD T17 Surface 492.120 5443.210 15 Wind speed and direction, temperature, precipitation




Westshore Terminals

Surface 488.125 5429.375 2 Wind speed and direction

Port Hardy, BC

Upper Air 615.158* 5615.508* 17 Wind Speed and Direction, Temperature, Pressure, Height

Quillayute, Wash.

Upper Air 384.520 5311.921 56 Wind Speed and Direction, Temperature, Pressure, Height

* This station is in UTM zone 9. All others are UTM zone 10.

Although T13 is at over 100 m elevation in the east of the LSA toward Surrey, it also shows this

pattern, and is seemingly little influenced by local terrain (see Figure 4-4).

Station T18, located at 145 m elevation in South Burnaby atop the Fraser River bank, also shows

a strong easterly component (see Figure 4-5). However, this station also shows a distinct north-

south wind component, likely due to local terrain influence.


The station at Westshore terminals does not show the distinct easterly component (see Figure 4-

6). This station is likely far enough away from the main coastline to not be influenced by either

sea breeze or valley drainage. The wind sensor at this location is also much higher above the

surface (~60 m as opposed to 10 m for the other stations) and as such is likely less influenced by

surface-based terrain effects and more by overall synoptic patterns. The wind rose at this station

is much more north and south, likely as lower levels winds align with the reduced roughness of

the water surface in the Strait of Georgia.

Notable about all stations is the very large component of low (<3 m/s) winds. This

preponderance of low wind speeds could have a considerable effect on dispersion model

calculations in that it may allow for a relatively frequent occurrence of stable lower-level

atmospheric stability.

Figure 4-7 shows the CALMET derived wind rose for a point in the centre of the domain located

close to Highway 17 near Tsawwassen. This point is located away from any surface stations and

thus shows the effect of the CALMET weighted inverse distance averaging. As with the

measured and modelled winds from the onshore stations, there is still a distinct easterly

component. However, there is also a strong northwest to southeast orientation, indicative of the

influence of the Westshore Terminal station. The plot reflects the model attempting to transition

between the offshore wind pattern of Westshore Terminal station and the easterly dominated

pattern of the onshore stations.

4.3.2 Upper Air

Upper air profiles from Port Hardy on Vancouver Island and Quillayute in Washington State

were included in the CALMET simulation. Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9 show the 750 mb

(approximately 2,500 m ASL) wind roses for Port Hardy and Quillayute stations, respectively.

Unlike surface winds in the LSA, both stations show the predominance of upper level west and

southwest winds common for the Pacific northwest region. Quillayute (Figure 4-9) is more open

to the Pacific and the wind rose clearly shows the dominance of strong southwesterlies

associated with the long wave synoptic trough that is present in the Pacific northwest for much of

the year. The pattern at Port Hardy (Figure 4-8) is similar; however this station is located on the


eastern side of Vancouver Island and the slightly more southerly flow is probably reflective of

some channelling between the mountain ranges on the island and the mainland.

Figure 4-10 shows the CALMET derived wind rose from the center of the domain for the top

level of the model grid. This wind rose represents the inverse distance weighted average of two

upper air stations. As such, the derived upper level CALMET wind speed appears to be a

combination of the two stations, with the dominant wind direction coming from the south-

southwest, roughly splitting the difference between the Port Hardy and Quillayute patterns.

4.3.3 Stability

CALMET calculated Pasquill-Gifford (PG) stability classes were extracted and smoothed for

each surface station within the model grid and for the domain centre at Highway 17 near

Tsawwassen. The results are shown in Table 4-12. For each station the dominant PG stability is

class 4 or neutral. This is expected for an area that often experiences overcast skies, particularly

in winter, and where winds are often influenced both by synoptic-scale weather systems and by

local effects such as sea breezes.

There are lower frequencies for moderately unstable classes 2 and 3 corresponding to the relative

mild summer days with moderate solar insolation and wind speeds typical of coastal areas at this

latitude. Stability class 1 occurs least frequently. At almost 50 degrees latitude, insolation is

seldom strong enough, and the coastal location means wind speeds during such periods are

seldom low enough, to result in class 1 stability.

Each of the stations shows a large frequency of class 6. This is a direct result of the large

percentages of low (<3 m/s) wind speed seen in the wind roses shown above. Though class 6 is

most commonly associated with clear skies (<4/10 cloud cover), it can also occur for overcast

conditions if wind speed is less than 1.8 m/s.


Table 4-12: Smoothed CALMET Derived Stability Classes

Relative Frequency of Occurrence by PG Stability Class Location

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 GVRD T17 0.8% 11.5% 18.2% 38.3% 11.1% 20.2% GVRD T31 0.1% 6.6% 17.2% 45.9% 13.3% 16.7% GVRD T13 0.9% 13.3% 16.5% 37.9% 12.4% 18.9% Westshore 1.7% 10.3% 13.9% 48.6% 13.2% 12.3%

Highway 17 0.8% 11.6% 16.5% 40.6% 12.3% 18.2%

4.3.4 Mixing Height

Figure 4-11 shows the CALMET model derived mixing heights for a typical afternoon in

summer. Generally, mixing height is low (~100-200 m) over open water and increases over land

as a result of greater sensible heat flux and increased surface roughness. Mixing heights exceed

1,000 m to the east of the LSA. The mixing height increases with distance from water more

quickly in areas where surface roughness is greater. Note that the contours showing mixing

height are more closely packed over the urban area of Richmond than for the agricultural areas

directly ashore from the Project. Mixing heights will be much lower under stable conditions, i.e.

on clear nights with low (<3 m/s) wind speeds, typically on the order of 50 to 100 m. Daytime

mixing heights may also be suppressed for stability class 1. Strong solar insolation, low wind

speeds and synoptic subsidence allow for a strong boundary layer top inversion and a well

developed sea-breeze that can restrict mixing heights for several kilometres inland.

4.4 EXISTING BASELINE

The assessment of existing baseline air quality conditions is based on both the review of ambient

monitoring data and the application of dispersion modelling. The monitoring accounts for the

sources that were operating during the period when monitoring was conducted (i.e., 1999 to

2003). The Existing Baseline model scenario accounts for existing (2003) emissions from

background sources.


4.4.1 Historical Ambient Air Quality

A detailed analysis of observed ambient air quality is provided in Appendix B. The following is

a summary of that analysis.

4.4.1.1 Ambient Air Quality in the RSA

The GVRD operates a comprehensive air quality monitoring network for the GVRD and FVRD,

which represents the Canadian portion of the LFV. The locations of the monitoring stations in

this network are shown in Figure 4-12. They have developed an Air Quality Index (AQI) based

on data from a subset of air quality monitoring stations representing different areas of the LFV.

The AQI provides a qualitative description of the concentrations of the measured pollutants. Air

quality is characterized as one of Good, Fair or Poor. When 'Poor' air quality is forecast for the

following day, an air quality advisory is issued. From 1999 to 2003 the air quality was

characterized as 'Good' 97% of the time or more every year.

The following is a summary of the 2003 monitoring results in the LFV (GVRD, 2004):

• SO2 concentrations were less than the one-hour, 24-hour and annual average BC Level A

objectives. The highest readings continued to be recorded in the northwestern portion of

the airshed, particularly close to the major point sources along Burrard Inlet.

• All NO2 measurements in 2003 continued to be well below the most stringent objective.

Highest levels continue to be recorded in areas of heavy vehicular traffic. In the LFV

region, average and peak levels have decreased about 15% since 1992, although the

decline appears to have levelled off in recent years.

• In 2003, mean CO levels remained low throughout the region. Showing a similar pattern

similar to nitrogen dioxide, highest measurements for this pollutant occur close to major

roads during peak traffic hours. In the LFV region, both average and peak levels have

decreased more than 30% in the last 11 years.

• During 2003, the Acceptable Objective for O3 was exceeded at Chilliwack for one hour

and at Hope for eight hours. The Canada-Wide Standard for ground-level O3 was not

exceeded at any of the monitoring sites. The Hope station however was equal to the


Canada-Wide Standard for the 2001-2003 averaging period. In the LFV region, average

ground-level O3 levels have increased slightly in the last 11 years, while peak levels have

decreased slightly.

• The 24-hour PM10 Acceptable Objective was exceeded for 23 hours at the Richmond

South site and 16 hours at the Pitt Meadows site on October 31/November 1, 2003. These

were the only exceedances of the objective observed during the year and were attributed

to Halloween activities near these locations.

• PM2.5 levels were generally about one-half of PM10 readings during 2003 with elevated

levels noted at certain sites on Halloween, similar to PM10. The Canada-Wide Standard

for PM2.5 was not exceeded at any of the monitoring sites.

• No exceedances of the 24-hour and annual objectives for TSP were observed.

• VOC concentrations have been monitored within the GVRD since 1988. Average VOC

concentrations in 2003 remained low and were similar to those measured in 2002.

4.4.1.2 Ambient Air Quality in the LSA

GVRD monitoring stations T2 (Kitsilano), T17 (Richmond South), T31 (Vancouver Airport), 24

(English Bluff) and 25 (Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal) were selected as being the most

representative of the LSA due to their proximity to the LSA or to the coast. The first three

stations (T2, T17 and T31) monitor SO2, NOx, NO2, CO and PM10 continuously. Station T31

monitors PM2.5 continuously. All stations conduct non-continuous monitoring of TSP. The

Richmond South station (T17) is the only station with continuous monitoring located within the

LSA. Stations 24 and 25, which only collect TSP observations, are also located in the LSA. The

locations of stations T17, 24 and 25 within the LSA are shown in Figure 4-13.

Continuous monitoring data collected at stations T2, T17 and T31 during the five-year period

from January 1999 to December 2003 were analyzed in Appendix B (except at T31, where

monitoring for SO2 started in 2001). Non-continuous TSP data collected at the Tsawwassen

Ferry Terminal (1982 to 1996), English Bluff (1982 to 2003) and T17 (1999 to 2002) were also

analysed. The following conclusions were drawn from the analysis:


• Maximum observed hourly, daily and annual average SO2 concentrations were less than

all applicable ambient air quality criteria. At all three stations with continuous

monitoring (T2, T17 and T31) elevated SO2 concentrations were most often associated

with winds from the east.

• Maximum NO2 concentrations observed at the three stations are less than the applicable

ambient objectives and guidelines. Elevated NO2 concentrations at all three stations were

most frequently associated with winds from the east.

• Maximum observed one- and eight-hour average CO concentrations were less than the

most stringent ambient air quality criteria. Elevated CO concentrations are also most

frequently associated with winds from the east at all three monitoring stations.

• Maximum daily average PM10 concentrations observed at T17 and T31 exceeded the BC

Objective, equal to 50 µg/m3. In the five-year period, three exceedances were observed at

T17 and only one exceedance at T31. These exceedances have been attributed by the

GVRD to Halloween activities adjacent to the monitoring station locations during periods

of calm winds and clear skies. Although the maximum daily average PM10

concentrations at T17 and T31 exceeded the BC Objective, the 98th percentile values are

well below the objective. Annual average PM10 concentrations observed at all three

stations were less than ambient criteria. Elevated PM10 concentrations observed at T2

and T17 were associated with winds from the east to southeast. At T31, the highest PM10

concentrations were observed when the wind was directly from the east. At all three

stations, there was a notable lack of elevated PM10 concentrations when the winds were

blowing from the direction of the ocean.

• The maximum daily average PM2.5 concentration observed at T31 was 35.4 µg/m3, which

is greater than the GVRD Proposed Objective, equal to 25 µg/m3. As was the case for

PM10, this exceedance has been attributed by the GVRD to Halloween activities adjacent

to the monitoring station. No exceedances of the Canada-wide Standard for PM2.5 were

observed. Elevated PM2.5 concentrations were most frequently associated with winds

from the east and were rarely associated with winds from off the ocean.


• All maximum 24-hour TSP concentrations observed at English Bluff and Richmond

South were less than the federal 24-hour Acceptable Objective, equal to 120 µg/m3, and

the mean TSP concentrations were less than the federal Annual Desirable Objective,

equal to 60 µg/m3. At the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal the federal 24-hour Acceptable

Objective was exceeded four times during the fifteen year period of observations but the

annual Desirable Objective was not exceeded.

• The maximum eight-hour average ozone concentrations observed at the three stations

were less the Canada-wide Standard and GVRD Proposed Objective, both equal to

130 µg/m3. The highest ozone observations at T2 were associated with winds from the

west. At T17, the highest ozone concentrations were associated with winds from the

northwest and southeast. The distribution of ozone concentrations with wind direction at

T31 is similar to that at T17, but with a rotation to the west-northwest and east-southeast.

4.4.2 Emissions Inventory

The primary sources of emissions in the LSA are the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, Westshore

Terminals, Deltaport Terminal, railways and major roadways such as Highways 17 and 99.

Emissions from the stationary sources were included in the modelling whereas emissions from

railways, roadways and other sources, such as space heating, burning and agriculture, were

included by adding a representative background value to model results. Appendix A provides a

detailed listing of emission sources that were included in the modelling and an explanation of

how emissions were estimated. A summary of the detailed emissions information for the

Existing Baseline is provided in this section.

Sources of emissions at the Deltaport Terminal include: dockyard equipment; container trucks;

container vessels underway, manoeuvring, and hotelling; tugboats; trains; and employee and

service vehicles. Sources at Westshore Terminals include: dockyard equipment; propane

heating; bulk carrier ships underway, manoeuvring, and hotelling; tugboats; trains; and fugitive

coal dust. The main sources of emissions from the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal are ferry ships

(cruising and hotelling). Emissions of air contaminants are summarized in Table 4-13 for the

Existing Baseline Scenario.


Table 4-13: Summary of Emissions (t/yr) Included in the Existing Baseline Scenario

SCENARIO EMISSION SOURCE NOX CO SO2 VOCs PM10 PM2.5 TSP

Deltaport Terminal 689 110 328 28 54 54 54

Westshore Terminal 361 66 218 16 55 39 94

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal 1,199 145 50 46 30 30 30 Existing Baseline

Total 2,249 321 596 90 139 123 178

RSA (LFV) 2000 Total1 All sources 99,897 481,933 18,769 111,196 15,363 8,964 25,627

Contribution of LSA Existing Baseline to RSA Total (%) 2.3 0.07 3.2 0.08 0.91 1.37 0.69 1 Based on Tables A-1 through A-11 of GVRD Forecast and Backcast of the 2000 Emissions Inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed 1985-2025

The largest source of NOx, CO and VOC emissions is the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal at 1,199,

145 and 46 t/yr, respectively, which represent 53%, 45% and 51% of total NOx, CO and VOC

emissions for the Existing Baseline scenario. The largest source of SO2 emissions is the

Deltaport Terminal, emitting 328 t/yr or 55% of total SO2 emissions. The next biggest source of

SO2 emissions is Westshore Terminals, which emits 218 t/yr or 36% of total SO2 emissions

modelled for the Existing Baseline Scenario. Deltaport is the largest source of PM2.5 (54 t/yr)

but Westshore Terminals is the largest source of PM10 (55 t/yr) and TSP (94 t/yr).

Emissions included in the Existing Baseline inventory for the LSA are compared to total

emissions in the RSA compiled by the GVRD for the year 2000. Emissions included in the

Existing Baseline inventory represent between 0.07% and 3.2% of total emissions in the RSA

depending on the contaminant.

4.4.3 Predicted Air Quality

Hourly, daily and annual average concentrations of SO2, NO2 and VOC were predicted for the

Existing Baseline scenario as well as one- and eight-hour average CO concentrations and daily

and annual PM2.5, PM10 and TSP concentrations. These averaging periods were selected for the

various pollutants because they coincide with the periods for which there are ambient air quality

criteria.


Maximum concentrations of SO2, NO2, CO and VOC predicted to occur on land, with and

without background ambient concentrations added, are compared to ambient criteria in Table

4-14. The maximum predicted concentrations are all less than ambient criteria. Maximum PM

concentrations predicted to occur on land are compared to ambient criteria in Table 4-15. Model

results for the Existing Baseline are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

Maximum concentrations predicted to occur at specific receptors used for the human health risk

assessment are presented in Appendix F.

4.4.3.1 Sulphur Dioxide

Isopleths (i.e., contours of constant concentration) of maximum hourly SO2 concentrations

predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario are illustrated in Figure 4-14 (note that

concentrations shown in the figures do not include the 98th percentile ambient background

value). The highest concentration predicted on land is 197 µg/m3, which is well below the BC

Level A objective of 450 µg/m3. When the 98th percentile observed SO2 concentration is added

to represent background sources not included in the modelling, the maximum concentration plus

background is 208 µg/m3, which is also less than the Level A objective. The maximum hourly

SO2 concentration is predicted to occur approximately 6 km to the northeast of the project,

midway between Deltaport Road to the south and the community of Ladner to the north. Similar

concentrations are also predicted to occur over water to the northeast and southwest of Roberts

Bank Port.

Figure 4-15 presents isopleths of maximum daily SO2 concentrations predicted for the Existing

Baseline scenario. The maximum daily SO2 concentration predicted on land is 15 µg/m3, which

is about one tenth of the BC Level A objective, equal to 160 µg/m3. The maximum predicted

concentration plus the background value is 22 µg/m3, which is also much less than the BC Level

A objective. The maximum concentration is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway.

Higher concentrations are predicted to occur over water to the southeast of Roberts Bank Port.


Table 4-14: Maximum SO2, NO2, CO and VOC Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the Existing Baseline

Scenario

MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) SO2 NO2 CO VOC



Existing Baseline 197 15 3 83 57 10 135 58 22 4 0 Existing Baseline + Background1 208 22 5 131 85 40 2,769 2,334 22 4 0

BC Level A Objective2 450 160 25 - - 60 14,300 5,500 - - - BC Level B Objective2 900 260 50 400 200 100 28,000 11,000 - - - GVRD Proposed Objective 450 125 30 200 100 60 20,000 10,000 - - - US EPA Standard - 365 80 - - 100 40,000 10,000 - - - Washington State Standard 1,040 260 52 40,000 10,000 - - -

1 98th percentile observed ambient concentrations were added to represent background sources not included in the model. Ambient VOC data were not available for the LSA and therefore no background value was added to predicted VOC concentrations. 2 The objectives shown for NO2 are federal not provincial.


Table 4-15: Maximum PM2.5, PM10 and TSP Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the Existing Baseline Scenario

PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) PM2.5 PM10 TSP SCENARIO OR AMBIENT

GUIDELINE 98th Percentile 24-h

Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual

Existing Baseline 5 8 1 8 1 9 1 Existing Baseline + Background1 20 24 6 35 14 55 24 Canada-wide Standard 30 - - - - - - BC Level A objective - - - 50 - 150 60 BC Level B Objective - - - - - 200 70 GVRD Trigger Level - - - 50 30 - - GVRD Proposed Objective 25 25 12 50 20 - - US EPA Standard - 65 15 150 50 - - Washington State Standard - 65 15 150 50 150 60

1 98th percentile observed ambient concentrations were added to represent background sources not included in model


Annual average SO2 concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario are depicted in

Figure 4-16. The maximum predicted annual SO2 concentration is 3 µg/m3. When the 98th

percentile observed concentration is added to represent background sources not included in the

modelling, the maximum is 5 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Level A objective, equal to

25 µg/m3. The maximum annual average SO2 concentration is predicted to occur on the Roberts

Bank Causeway. Predicted annual SO2 concentrations on the mainland are all less than 1 µg/m3.

4.4.3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide

Isopleths of maximum hourly average NO2 concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline

scenario are illustrated in Figure 4-17. The maximum hourly NO2 concentration predicted on

land is 111 µg/m3. When the 98th percentile observed NOx concentration is added to the

maximum predicted concentration to represent background sources not included in the

modelling, the maximum predicted plus background concentration is 131 µg/m3, well below the

BC Level A objective of 400 µg/m3. The maximum is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank

Causeway. Higher concentrations are predicted over water in the vicinity of Roberts Bank Port

and the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. Maximum predicted concentrations on the mainland are all

less than 100 µg/m3.

Maximum daily average NO2 concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario are

illustrated in Figure 4-18. The highest concentration predicted on land is 52 µg/m3 and occurs on

the Roberts Bank Causeway. The maximum predicted concentration plus the background value

is 85 µg/m3. This concentration is less than the Canadian Acceptable Objective (200 µg/m3).

Higher concentrations are predicted over water in the near vicinity of Roberts Bank Port and the

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. Maximum predicted daily average NO2 concentrations on the

mainland are all less than 40 µg/m3.

Figure 4-19 illustrates annual average NO2 concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline

scenario. The maximum annual concentration, equal to 10 µg/m3, is predicted to occur at the

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. The maximum annual concentration including a background NOx

value is 40 µg/m3. This concentration is less than the Canadian Desirable Objective, equal to 60


µg/m3. The maximum predicted annual average NO2 concentrations on the mainland are less

than 5 µg/m3.

4.4.3.3 Carbon Monoxide

Isopleths of maximum one-hour average CO concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline

scenario are illustrated in Figure 4-20. The maximum one-hour average CO concentration

predicted on land is 135 µg/m3. The maximum predicted concentration plus the background

value is 2,769 µg/m3, well below the BC Level A Objective, equal to 14,300 µg/m3. The

maximum concentration is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway.

Maximum eight-hour average CO concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario are

shown in Figure 4-21. The maximum concentration predicted over land is 58 µg/m3. When a

background value is added the maximum concentration is 2,334 µg/m3, which is less than the BC

Level A Objective, equal to 5,500 µg/m3. The maximum eight-hour average CO concentration is

predicted to occur at the same location as the maximum hourly average concentration, on the

Roberts Bank Causeway.

For both one-hour and eight-hour CO, the predicted concentrations are an order of magnitude

less than the corresponding 98th percentile background values.

4.4.3.4 Particulate Matter

Isopleths of 98th percentile daily PM2.5 predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario are illustrated

in Figure 4-22. The highest 98th percentile PM2.5 concentration predicted to occur on land is

5 µg/m3. The highest 98th percentile concentration including the background value is 20 µg/m3,

which is less than the Canada-wide Standard, equal to 30 µg/m3. This concentration is predicted

to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. On the mainland, predicted 98th percentile daily PM2.5

concentrations are less than 3 µg/m3. Higher concentrations are predicted to occur over water.

The maximum daily PM2.5 concentration predicted over land for the Existing Baseline scenario is

8 µg/m3. This concentration is also predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When a

background value is added the maximum concentration is 24 µg/m3, which is less than the


Washington State standard of 65 µg/m3. All maximum daily average PM2.5 concentrations

predicted to occur on the mainland are less than 10 µg/m3.

The maximum annual average PM2.5 concentration predicted over land for the Existing Baseline

scenario is 1 µg/m3, and also occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When the background

value is added the maximum annual average PM2.5 concentration is 6 µg/m3, which is less than

the Washington State standard, equal to 15 µg/m3.

Isopleths of maximum predicted daily PM10 concentrations are illustrated in Figure 4-23. The

maximum concentration predicted over land, 8 µg/m3, is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank

Causeway. Higher concentrations are predicted to occur over water in the vicinity of Roberts

Bank Port and the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. When the background value is added the

maximum PM10 concentration is 35 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Objective, equal to

50 µg/m3. As discussed in Section 4.2.3, adding a background value equal to the 98th percentile

to predicted PM concentrations may be overly conservative because elevated ambient PM

concentrations tend to be associated with winds from the east whereas maximum predicted

concentrations on land tend to be associated with winds from the west.

As was the case for daily PM10, the maximum annual PM10 concentration over land for the

Existing Baseline scenario, equal to 1 µg/m3, is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank

Causeway. The sum of the 98th percentile observed ambient PM10 concentration and the

predicted concentration is 14 µg/m3.

The maximum daily and annual average TSP concentrations predicted to occur on land for the

Existing Baseline scenario are 9 and 1 µg/m3, respectively. When the appropriate background

values are added to these predicted concentrations the resultant maximum daily and annual

average TSP concentrations are 55 and 24 µg/m3, respectively. These concentrations are less than

the BC Level A objectives for daily and annual average TSP, equal to 150 and 60 µg/m3,

respectively. The maximum predicted daily average TSP concentrations are only 1 µg/m3

greater than the maximum predicted PM10 concentrations because the TSP and PM10 emissions

for the Existing Baseline scenario are very similar. The TSP isopleth maps are also very similar

to the PM10 isopleth maps and therefore are not presented.


4.4.3.5 Volatile Organic Compounds

Total VOC concentrations were predicted for hourly, daily and annual averaging periods. The

total concentrations were then speciated, as described in Appendix D, to determine maximum

hourly and annual average concentrations for individual VOC at specific receptors for the human

health risk assessment. Maximum VOC concentrations predicted to occur at sensitive receptors

are provided in Appendix F. Ambient observations of total VOC were not available for the LSA

and therefore background values were not added to predicted concentrations.

Figure 4-24 illustrates isopleths of maximum hourly total VOC concentrations. The overall

maximum concentration is 22 µg/m3 and was predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway.

Higher concentrations are predicted over water in the immediate vicinity of the Robert Bank

Port.

4.4.4 Conclusion

From 1999 to 2003 the air quality in the RSA was characterized as 'Good' 97% of the time or

more every year. During the same period, exceedances of ambient air quality criteria were

observed in the LSA only for PM2.5 and PM10 and these exceedances were attributed by the

GVRD to Halloween activities. Observed concentrations of all other criteria pollutants in the

LSA were less than air quality objectives.

All maximum ground-level concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario are less

than relevant Canada-wide Standards and the most stringent BC Objectives. With the exception

of SO2, higher predicted concentrations are limited to the area immediately surrounding the

Roberts Bank Port, with much lower concentrations predicted over the mainland. Due to the fact

that a large fraction of SO2 is emitted as elevated point sources associated with dockside ship

emissions, maximum impacts from SO2 are seen some distance away from their sources at either

the Roberts Bank Port or Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, though predicted concentrations on land

are still well below the applicable air quality standards and objectives.


4.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

The construction of the Deltaport Third Berth is scheduled to begin in October of 2005 and to be

completed by the end of 2008. The highest construction activity and emissions will occur in

2006 and therefore this year was selected for modelling. Construction years 2005, 2007 and

2008 will have lower emissions. Emissions from Deltaport, Westshore Terminal, and

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal are assumed to be the same as those for the Existing Baseline.


Emissions for the Project Construction scenario are summarized in Table 4-16. The percentage

increase in emissions due to Project Construction relative to Existing Baseline emissions varies

from 0.9 to 40%. However, these percentages are based on maximum emissions during the

construction period and therefore represent the maximum increase in emissions due to Project

Construction. Furthermore, the Existing Baseline emissions inventory does not include sources

such as roads, space heating, and greenhouses and therefore the relative increase is exaggerated.

For all contaminants, the incremental increase in emissions due to Project Construction is less

than 1% of total emissions from all sources in the RSA.

Table 4-16: Summary of Emissions (t/yr) Included in the Project Construction Scenario

SCENARIO FACILITY/EMISSION SOURCE NOX CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP Existing Baseline All sources 2,249 321 596 90 139 123 178 Project Construction Construction sources alone 339 96 6 36 16 16 16 Project Construction +

Existing Baseline All sources 2,588 416 602 126 155 138 194

% Change Project Construction vs. Existing Baseline 15 30 0.9 40 12 13 9 2000 RSA Total1 99,897 481,933 18,769 111,196 15,363 8,964 25,627 % Change Project Construction vs. 2000 RSA Total 0.34 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.18 0.06




Project Construction scenario as well as one- and eight-hour average CO concentrations and

daily and annual PM2.5, PM10 and TSP concentrations. These averaging periods were selected


for the various pollutants because they coincide with the periods for which there are ambient air

quality criteria.

Maximum concentrations of SO2, NO2, CO and VOC predicted to occur on land, with and

without background ambient concentrations added, are compared to ambient criteria in Table

4-17. Maximum PM concentrations predicted to occur on land are compared to ambient criteria

in Table 4-18. All maximum predicted concentrations are less than applicable Canada-wide

Standards and the most stringent BC Objectives. Model results for Project Construction are

discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Maximum concentrations predicted to occur

at specific receptors used for the human health risk assessment are presented in Appendix F.


Maximum predicted SO2 concentrations for the Project Construction plus Existing Baseline

scenario are 197, 15 and 3 µg/m3 for hourly, daily and annual averaging periods, respectively.

When a background value is added, the maximum hourly, daily and annual SO2 concentrations

are 208, 22 and 5 µg/m3, respectively. These concentrations are considerably less than the

corresponding BC Level A objectives for SO2. These concentrations are equal to maximum

predicted concentrations for the Existing Baseline scenario (cf. Table 4-14 and Table 4-17)

because the increase in SO2 emissions due to Project Construction relative to the Existing

Baseline is less than 1%. Thus, SO2 emissions from Project Construction have a minimal impact

on ambient SO2 concentrations.

Similarly, isopleths for the Project Construction + Existing Baseline scenario are very similar to

those for the Existing Baseline scenario and the maximum hourly, daily and annual average

concentrations are predicted to occur at the same locations for the two scenarios. However, a

comparison of Figure 4-25 with Figure 4-14 indicates that the maximum concentrations

predicted to occur in the near vicinity of the Roberts Bank are higher for Project Construction

than for the Existing Baseline. Isopleth maps for the daily and annual averaging periods are very

similar to those presented for the Existing Baseline scenario (Figures 4-15 and 4-16) and

therefore are not shown.


Table 4-17: Maximum SO2, NO2, CO and VOC Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the Project Construction

Scenario




Project Construction + Existing Baseline 197 15 3 111 63 13 227 96 60 9 1

Project Construction + Existing Baseline + Background1 208 22 5 141 88 40 2,861 2,372 60 9 1

% Change relative to Existing Baseline + Background 0% 0% 1% 8% 3% 1% 3% 2% 174% 99% 101%

BC Level A objective2 450 160 25 - - 60 14,300 5,500 - - - BC Level B Objective2 900 260 50 400 200 100 28,000 11,000 - - - GVRD Proposed Objective 450 125 30 200 100 60 20,000 10,000 - - - US EPA Standard - 365 80 - - 100 40,000 10,000 - - - Washington State Standard 1,040 260 52 40,000 10,000 - - -

1 98th percentile observed ambient concentrations were added to represent background sources not included in the model. Ambient VOC data were not available for the LSA and therefore background values were not added to predicted VOC concentrations. 2 The objectives shown for NO2 are Canadian not provincial.


Table 4-18: Maximum PM2.5, PM10 and TSP Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the Project Construction

Scenario



Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual

Project Construction + Existing Baseline 6 11 1 11 1 12 1 Project Construction + Existing Baseline + Background1 21 27 7 38 15 58 24

% Change relative to Existing Baseline + Background 6% 12% 4% 8% 2% 5% 1%

Canada-wide Standard 30 - - - - - - BC Level A Objective - - - 50 - 150 60 BC Level B Objective - - - - - 200 70 GVRD Trigger Level - - - 50 30 - - GVRD Proposed Objective 25 25 12 50 20 - - US EPA Standard - 65 15 150 50 - - Washington State Standard - 65 15 150 50 150 60

1 98th percentile observed ambient concentrations were added to represent background sources not included in the model.



The maximum hourly NO2 concentration predicted to occur on land for Project Construction +

Existing Baseline sources is 128 µg/m3. When the 98th percentile observed ambient concentration

is added to the predicted concentration to represent emissions from background sources not

included in the modelling, the maximum predicted hourly NO2 concentration is 141 µg/m3. This

concentration is 8% greater than the maximum predicted for the Existing Baseline but is well

below the BC Level B guideline of 400 µg/m3. Figure 4-26 shows that the maximum

concentration is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway and that maximum

concentrations predicted to occur on the mainland tend to be less than 100 µg/m3.

The maximum daily average NO2 concentration predicted to occur on land for Project

Construction + Existing Baseline is 59 µg/m3. When the background value is added this

concentration increases to 88 µg/m3, which is less than the Canadian Acceptable Objective of

200 µg/m3. This maximum concentration is 3% greater than that predicted for the Existing

Baseline scenario. Isopleths of maximum predicted daily average NO2 concentrations are

illustrated in Figure 4-27, which shows that the maximum concentration is predicted to occur on

the Roberts Bank Causeway and that predicted concentrations on the mainland tend to be less

than 40 µg/m3.

Maximum annual NO2 concentration predicted for the Project Construction + Existing Baseline

scenario is 15 µg/m3 and occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When the background value is

included the maximum annual NO2 concentration is 40 µg/m3, which is less than the Canadian

Desirable Objective of 60 µg/m3. Figure 4-28 indicates that maximum annual NO2

concentrations predicted to occur on the mainland are less than 5 µg/m3.


Isopleths of maximum one-hour average CO concentrations predicted for Project Construction

plus the Existing Baseline scenario are illustrated in Figure 4-29. The maximum hourly CO

concentration, equal to 227 µg/m3, is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When

the background value is added the maximum concentration is 2,861 µg/m3, which is much less

than the BC Level A Objective of 14,300 µg/m3. This maximum concentration is 3% greater than


that predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario. Higher concentrations are predicted to occur

over water in the area surrounding the Roberts Bank Port.

The maximum eight-hour average CO concentration predicted on land is 96 µg/m3 and also

occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway (see Figure 4-30). When the background value is added

the maximum concentration is 2,373 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Level A Objective of

5,500 µg/m3. This maximum concentration is 2% greater than that predicted for the Existing

Baseline scenario. Higher concentrations are predicted to occur over water in the area

surrounding the Roberts Bank Port; however maximum concentrations predicted on the mainland

are less than 25 µg/m3.

As for the Existing Baseline scenario, predicted one-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations for

the Project Construction plus Existing Baseline scenario are much less than the 98th percentile

observations.


Maximum and 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations predicted to occur on land for the Project

Construction scenario are presented in Table 4-18. The highest 98th percentile value is 21 µg/m3,

predicted for the Project Construction + Existing Baseline scenario including an ambient

background value. This concentration is 6% greater than the value predicted for the Existing

Baseline scenario but is less than the CWS for PM2.5, equal to 30 µg/m3. The maximum annual

average PM2.5 concentration predicted for the Project Construction scenario is 7 µg/m3, which is

less than the Washington State standard of 15 µg/m3. The general pattern of PM2.5 isopleths for

Project Construction + Existing Baseline is similar to the pattern for the Existing Baseline for all

averaging periods although predicted concentrations are greater for Project Construction (cf.

Figures 4-31 and 4-22).

The maximum daily PM10 concentration predicted for Project Construction plus Existing

Baseline sources is 11 µg/m3. When the background value is added, the maximum daily PM10

concentration is 38 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Objective of 50 µg/m3. This concentration

is 8% greater than the maximum plus background predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario.


Figure 4-32 shows that the maximum PM10 concentration occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway

and that predicted concentrations on the mainland are less than 10 µg/m3.

The maximum annual average PM10 concentration, including the 98th percentile background

value, is 15 µg/m3, which is 2% greater than the maximum annual value predicted for the

Existing Baseline scenario. The maximum daily and annual average TSP concentrations

including background, equal to 58 and 24 µg/m3, are less than the BC Level A Objectives for

TSP. The general patterns of isopleths of annual average PM10 and daily and annual average

TSP concentrations predicted for Project Construction + Existing Baseline are similar to those

for the Existing Baseline scenario.

As was the case for NO2 and CO, influences of Project Construction sources on predicted PM

concentrations are most obvious in the immediate vicinity of the Roberts Bank Port. Increases

over the mainland are present but relatively small.


Maximum total VOC concentrations predicted to occur on land for the Project Construction

scenario are listed in Table 4-17. The maximum hourly, daily and annual average total VOC

concentrations predicted for Project Construction + Existing Baseline sources are 60, 9 and 1

µg/m3, respectively. These concentrations are 174, 99 and 101 percent greater than the

maximum VOC concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario. The relative

increase in maximum predicted VOC concentrations is much greater than for the criteria air

contaminants for two reasons. First, the increase in VOC emissions due to Project Construction

is 40%, which is greater than the increase for other contaminants. Second, no ambient VOC data

were available for the LSA and therefore a background value was not added to the predicted

concentrations; as a result the relative increase in ground-level concentrations is much greater for

VOC than for all other contaminants. As there are no ambient criteria for total VOC, the

significance of the predicted increase is assessed in the Human Health Risk Assessment.

A comparison of Figures 4-33 and 4-24 reveals that the increase in predicted concentrations is

greatest close to the Roberts Bank Port. The reason for this is that Project Construction VOC

emission sources are largely ground based and hence their impact tends to be localized.


4.5.3 Conclusion

Emissions due to construction of the Project will peak during the year 2006 and therefore this

year was selected for assessment of this scenario. The percentage increase in emissions due to

Project Construction relative to total emissions for the Existing Baseline varies from 0.9% to

40%. Relative to total emissions in the LFV the percentage increase in emissions due to Project

Construction is less than 1%. These percentages are based on maximum emissions during the

construction period and therefore represent the maximum expected increase in emissions due to

Project Construction.

All maximum concentrations predicted for the Project Construction plus Existing Baseline

scenario are less than applicable Canada-wide Standards and BC Objectives. Maximum

increases due to Project Construction sources are confined to the immediate vicinity of the

Roberts Bank Port. Increases on the mainland occur but they are relatively small.

4.6 PROJECT OPERATION

The Project will increase the container capacity of the Deltaport Terminal from approximately

900,000 TEUs to 1.3 million TEUs. The increased capacity will require additional dockyard

equipment, and will result in an increase in the number of container trucks, trains and container

vessels calling at the Deltaport Terminal. These are all sources of combustion emissions.


The additional dockyard equipment that will be required for Project Operation consists of thirty-

three 225 horsepower tractors, four 330 horsepower tractors and 20 rubber-tired gantries (RTGs).

The Project will also require additional ship-to-shore gantry cranes; however these will be

electric and therefore are not a source of local emissions. The average daily truck traffic arriving

at Deltaport is expected to increase by 279 trucks per day as a result of the Project. Emissions

from these trucks were accounted for both on-site and on roadways within the local study area.

The increase in the number of container vessel calls at Deltaport is expected to be 66 calls per

year. In addition, the size distribution of the vessels is anticipated to change with more large


vessels calling at the port. The number of trains arriving or departing the Deltaport Terminal is

expected to increase by an average of three trains a day due to the Project.

Emissions of criteria contaminants for the Project Operation scenario are summarized and

compared to total emissions for the Existing Baseline in Table 4-19. The additional container

ships are the largest sources of NOx (72 t/yr), SO2 (56 t/yr) and particulate (7.6 t/yr). The largest

source of CO is the increase in employee and service vehicle traffic on roadways within the

LSA. This is also the largest source of VOCs due to the Project Operation. Emissions of NOx,

VOC and particulate are lower for Project Operation than for Project Construction because more

diesel-fueled equipment is used during construction than during normal operations. Due to

Project Operation, emissions in the LSA from port and ferry operations are projected to increase

from 7 to 41% relative to Existing Baseline emissions. However, this increase in emissions is

exaggerated because the Existing Baseline emission inventory accounts for only port and ferry

sources of emissions. Other sources of emissions such as roads, space heating and agriculture

are not included in the Existing Baseline but they are included in the GVRD emission inventory

for the LFV. The incremental increase in emissions in the RSA due to Project Operations is less

than 1% for all contaminants.

Table 4-19: Summary of Emissions (t/yr) Included in the Project Operation Scenario

SCENARIO EMISSION SOURCE NOX CO SO2 VOCs PM10 PM2.5 TSP Container Ships 72.2 7.63 56.2 2.29 7.64 7.64 7.64 Container Trucks 25.6 4.63 0.05 1.22 0.71 0.55 0.71 Trains 24.8 2.84 0.36 1.04 0.66 0.66 0.66 Tugboat Operations 1.70 0.23 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 Employee/Service Vehicles 2.21 76.5 0.03 5.82 0.12 0.06 0.12 Dockyard Equipment 61.4 40.6 0.11 4.60 3.99 3.87 3.99

Project Operation

Total 188 133 57 15 13 13 13 Existing Baseline 2,249 321 596 90 139 123 178 % Change Project Operation vs. Existing Baseline 8.4 41 9.5 17 9.4 10 7.4 2000 RSA Total1 99,897 481,933 18,769 111,196 15,363 8,964 25,627 % Change Project Operation vs. 2000 RSA Total 0.19 0.03 0.30 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.05





Project Operation scenario as well as one- and eight-hour average CO concentrations and daily

and annual average PM2.5, PM10 and TSP concentrations.

The incremental impact of Project Operation emissions on ambient air quality was determined by

including in the modelling emissions from background sources (i.e., the Existing Baseline) and

adding to the model predictions 98th percentile observed concentrations. This method of

assessing the cumulative impact of Project Operations assumes that emissions from background

sources will be the same when the Project is operational as they are today. This is an unrealistic

scenario because it will take some time for the Project to be approved and constructed. The

Project is anticipated to be at full capacity in 2012, by this time background traffic will have

increased, and legislation regarding engine efficiency and fuel quality will have been

implemented. Thus, it is more realistic to compare Project Operation emissions to future

baseline emissions. This comparison is made in the Cumulative Effects Assessment section.

Maximum concentrations of SO2, NO2, CO and VOC predicted to occur on land for the Project

Operation plus Existing Baseline model scenario, with and without background ambient

concentrations added, are compared to ambient criteria in Table 4-20. Maximum PM

concentrations predicted to occur on land are compared to ambient criteria in Table 4-21. Model

results for Project Operation are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Maximum

concentrations predicted to occur at specific receptors used for the human health risk assessment

are presented in Appendix F.


Table 4-20: Maximum SO2, NO2, CO and VOC Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the Project Operation

Scenario




Project Operation + Existing Baseline 224 17 3 115 56 15 355 102 33 7 1

Project Operation + Existing Baseline + Background1 234 24 6 133 87 40 2,989 2,378 33 7 1

% Change relative to Existing Baseline + Background 13% 10% 12% 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 51% 58% 141%


1 98th percentile observed ambient concentrations were added to represent background sources not included in the model. Ambient VOC data were not available for the LSA and therefore background values were not added to predicted VOC concentrations. 2 The objectives shown for NO2 are Canadian not provincial.


Table 4-21: Maximum PM2.5, PM10 and TSP Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the Project Operation Scenario



Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual

Project Operation + Existing Baseline 6 10 1 10 1 12 1 Project Operation + Existing Baseline + Background1 21 25 7 37 15 58 24

% Change relative to Existing Baseline + Background 5% 6% 5% 4% 2% 3% 1%





The maximum hourly SO2 concentration predicted for Project Operation plus Existing Baseline

is 224 µg/m3 and occurs at the same location as for the Existing Baseline, approximately 6 km

northeast of the Roberts Bank Port (see Figure 4-34). When the ambient background value is

added the maximum concentration is 234 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Level A Objective

(450 µg/m3). This concentration is 26 µg/m3 or 13% greater than the maximum predicted for the

Existing Baseline scenario.

The maximum daily SO2 concentration predicted for Project Operation plus Existing Baseline is

17 µg/m3 and is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway (see Figure 4-35). When the

background value is added the maximum daily SO2 concentration is 24 µg/m3, which is less than

the BC Level A Objective (160 µg/m3). This value is 2 µg/m3 or 10% greater than the maximum

predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario.

Annual average SO2 concentrations predicted for the Project Operation plus Existing Baseline

are illustrated in Figure 4-36. The maximum concentration is 3 µg/m3 and is predicted to occur

on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When the ambient background value is added the maximum is

6 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Level A Objective (25 µg/m3). This maximum concentration

is 12% greater than the maximum predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario. Figure 4-36

shows that the maximum annual average SO2 concentrations predicted to occur on the mainland

are less than 1 µg/m3.


Isopleths of maximum hourly NO2 concentrations predicted for the Project Operation + Existing

Baseline scenario are presented in Figure 4-37. The maximum concentration, equal to 115

µg/m3, is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. Higher concentrations are predicted

to occur over water in the near vicinity of Roberts Bank Port. The maximum including the

background value is 133 µg/m3, which is less than the Canadian Acceptable Objective (400

µg/m3). The increase due to the Project Operation relative to the Existing Baseline is only 2

µg/m3 or 2%.


A comparison of Figures 4-37 and 4-17 reveals that on the mainland, there are differences

between predicted concentrations for the Existing Baseline and the Project Operation plus

Existing Baseline scenarios. The 75 µg/m3 isopleth is more noticeable near roadways for the

Project Operation plus Existing Baseline and appears to show the influence of increased traffic

from Project Operations. Over water, the 100 µg/m3 contour encompasses a larger area for

Project Operation plus Existing Baseline, although the predicted impact on the mainland is still

low.

Figure 4-38 illustrates isopleths of maximum daily NO2 concentrations predicted for the Project

Operation plus Existing Baseline. The maximum daily average NO2 concentration predicted on

land is 56 µg/m3 and occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway. Higher concentrations are predicted

over water in the vicinity of Roberts Bank Port. The maximum predicted daily NO2

concentration including a background value is 87 µg/m3, which is 2 µg/m3 or 2% higher than the

maximum daily NO2 concentration predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario.

Figure 4-38 is very similar to Figure 4-18 for the Existing Baseline scenario. Predictions are only

slightly higher near the Roberts Bank Port while the 20 µg/m3 contour is slightly extended along

the railway corridor.

Annual average NO2 concentrations predicted for the Project Operation plus Existing Baseline

scenario are presented in Figure 4-39. The maximum annual average NO2 concentration

predicted over land is 15 µg/m3, and occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway. Higher

concentrations are predicted over water in the vicinity of Roberts Bank Port. When the

background value is included, the maximum predicted annual average NO2 concentration is 40

µg/m3, which is equal to the maximum predicted annual NO2 concentration for the Existing

Baseline scenario.


Maximum one-hour average CO concentrations predicted for Project Operation plus Existing

Baseline are illustrated in Figure 4-40. The maximum hourly average CO concentration

predicted to occur over land is 355 µg/m3. The maximum hourly CO concentration is predicted

to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. The maximum hourly CO concentration including a


background value is 2,989 µg/m3, well below the BC Level A Objective (14,300 µg/m3). This

represents an increase of 220 µg/m3, or 8%, over the Existing Baseline scenario. A comparison

with Figure 4-20 indicates that higher concentrations are predicted over water near the Roberts

Bank Port compared to the Existing Baseline scenario. There are also small increases predicted

along major roadways due to the increase in truck traffic associated with Project Operations. The

increases due to traffic are on the order of one tenth of the 98th percentile background value.

Isopleths of maximum predicted eight-hour average CO concentrations for the Project Operation

plus Existing Baseline scenario are shown in Figure 4-41. The maximum eight-hour CO

concentration predicted over land is 102 µg/m3. When the background value is added the total is

2,378 µg/m3, which is 44 µg/m3 or 2% greater than the maximum predicted for the Existing

Baseline scenario. This maximum concentration is much less than the BC Level A Objective

(5,500 µg/m3). Compared to the Existing Baseline scenario, as depicted in Figure 4-21, predicted

concentrations for the Project Operation scenario are higher near the Roberts Bank Port and

along roadways.


Isopleths of 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations predicted for the Project Operation plus Existing

Baseline Scenario are shown in Figure 4-42. The highest 98th percentile concentration predicted

on land is 6 µg/m3 and is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When the

background value is included the maximum is 21 µg/m3, which is less than the CWS. This

concentration is 5% greater than the 98th percentile PM2.5 concentration predicted for the

Existing Baseline scenario. The isopleths for this case are similar to those for the Existing

Baseline scenario (Figure 4-22) although predicted concentrations for Project Operation plus

Existing Baseline are slightly greater. The maxima for the two scenarios occur at the same

location.

The maximum daily PM2.5 concentration predicted for the Project Operation + Existing Baseline

model scenario, including the background ambient value, is 25 µg/m3, which is less than the

Washington State standard (65 µg/m3). The observed ambient background value, equal to 15.6

µg/m3, accounts for 60% of the total value of 25 µg/m3. As previously discussed, adding the 98th


percentile observed PM concentration is likely too conservative because observed elevated PM

concentrations are associated with winds from the east whereas the main sources of PM are

located at the Roberts Bank Port and can only impact the mainland when the wind is blowing

from the west. Thus, it is highly unlikely that elevated background concentrations would occur

simultaneously with elevated PM concentrations due to the Port.

The maximum annual average PM2.5 concentration predicted on land for the Project Operation +

Existing Baseline model scenario, including the background ambient value, is 7 µg/m3, which is

less than the Washington State standard (15 µg/m3). This maximum occurs on the Roberts Bank

Causeway.

Maximum daily PM10 concentrations predicted for the Project Operation + Existing Baseline

scenario are illustrated in Figure 4-43. The impact of primary PM and precursor emissions from

the Project Operation on ambient air quality is confined to the near vicinity of Roberts Bank

Port. The highest concentrations are predicted to occur over water. The maximum concentration

predicted on land is 10 µg/m3, predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When the 98th

percentile average ambient PM10 concentration is added to this maximum predicted

concentration to represent the impact of background sources not included in the modelling, the

resulting concentration is 37 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Objective of 50 µg/m3 for PM10.

The Project Operation results in an increase of 4% relative to the Existing Baseline,

The maximum annual PM10 concentration predicted to occur over land for Project Operation plus

Existing Baseline, including a background ambient value, is 15 µg/m3. This represents an

increase of 2% relative to the Existing Baseline scenario.

The maximum daily and annual TSP concentrations predicted for Project Operation plus Existing

Baseline are 10 and 1 µg/m3, respectively. These maxima are equal to the maximum daily and

annual average PM10 concentrations predicted for this scenario because the TSP and PM10

emission rates are equal. As a result, the isopleth maps for TSP are also the same as those for

PM10. The maximum daily and annual TSP concentrations including background are 56 and 24

µg/m3, respectively. These concentrations are less than the BC Level A Objectives for TSP and


represent increases of 3% and 1%, respectively, relative to maximum daily and annual TSP

concentrations predicted for the Existing Baseline scenario.


Isopleths of maximum hourly total VOC concentrations predicted for the Project Operation plus

Existing Baseline scenario are illustrated in Figure 4-44. The maximum predicted concentration

is 33 µg/m3 and occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway adjacent to the mainland. Higher

concentrations are predicted to occur over water in the vicinity of Roberts Bank Port. VOC

concentrations greater than 10 µg/m3 are predicted along Deltaport Way and Highway 17 but not

on other major roadways. Although the resulting concentrations are not large, the influence of

VOC from road traffic is apparent in Figure 4-44 as compared to the same plot (Figure 4-24) for

the Existing Baseline. As previously discussed, the predicted increase in maximum VOC

concentrations relative to the Existing Baseline is much larger than the increases for the criteria

air contaminants because ambient background values were not available and because the increase

in VOC emissions was relatively high. There are no ambient criteria for total VOC and therefore

the significance of these increases is assessed in the Human Health Risk Assessment.

4.6.3 Residual Effects Assessment

The effects of confirmed mitigation measures were included in the emissions inventory and the

dispersion modelling for the Project Operation scenario. Therefore, the assessment of the Project

Operation and Existing Baseline provided above is effectively the residual effects assessment.

When the impact of Project Operation plus the Existing Baseline on existing air quality was

assessed using dispersion models and adding 98th percentile observed ambient values to

predicted concentrations, all maximum values were less than relevant Canada-wide Standards

and the most stringent BC Objectives for the criteria air contaminants.

4.6.4 Conclusion

The increase in emissions within the LSA due to Project Operations varies from 7% for TSP to

41% for CO relative to the Existing Baseline emission inventory. However, relative to total


emissions from all sources in the RSA, the incremental increase in emissions due to Project

Operation is less than 1% for all contaminants.


including in the modelling emissions from background sources (i.e., the Existing Baseline) and

adding the 98th percentile observed concentrations to the model predictions to represent

background sources not included in the modelling. This method assumes that ambient air quality

in 2012, when the Project is at full capacity, will be the same as it is today, which is unrealistic.

A more realistic approach is to assess the incremental impact of Project Operations to projected

future air quality. This was the basis of the CEA assessment.

When the Project Operation + Existing Baseline scenario was modelled to assess the incremental

impact of Project emissions on existing air quality, all maximum predicted concentrations were

less than relevant Canada-wide Standards and the most stringent BC Objectives.

4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT


Emissions included in the modelling for the CEA scenario consisted of emissions from the

Project Operation as well as projected 2011 emissions from all background sources included in

the Existing Baseline scenario. As previously discussed, the Project is not expected to be at full

capacity until 2012; however, projections of future shipping traffic were provided for the year

2011 and therefore the projected baseline emissions inventory was prepared for the year 2011.

There are no known approved projects within the LSA and therefore none were included in the

Projected 2011 Baseline. Known proposed projects include Deltaport Terminal 2 and the South

Fraser Perimeter Road; however, at the time this study was completed there was insufficient

information regarding these projects for them to be included in the quantitative modelling

assessment. Nonetheless, there are significant differences between the emissions inventories for

the Projected 2011 and Existing Baseline scenarios, most notably:

• Increase in rail traffic to the Westshore Terminal;


• Replacement of old dockyard equipment and locomotives with newer equipment having

more efficient engines;

• Lower sulphur content in onroad diesel, nonroad diesel, and marine diesel; and

• Increase in size of container vessels thereby decreasing the total number of vessel calls.

Emissions of criteria air contaminants are summarized in Table 4-22 for the CEA scenario. The

largest source of NOx, CO and VOC emissions is the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal at 1,199, 145

and 46 t/yr, respectively, which represent 55%, 48% and 53% of total NOx, CO and VOC

emissions for the CEA Scenario. The largest source of SO2 emissions is the Deltaport Terminal,

emitting 276 t/yr or 54%. The next biggest source of SO2 emissions is Westshore Terminal,

which emits 212 t/yr or 42% of total SO2 emissions modelled for the CEA Scenario. Deltaport is

the largest source of PM2.5 (48.3 t/yr) but Westshore is the largest source of PM10 (55 t/yr) and

TSP (93 t/yr).

In general, emissions from background sources (Deltaport, Westshore Terminal, and

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal) are lower for the Projected 2011 Baseline than for the Existing

Baseline (cf. Table 4-22 and Table 4-13) because newer, more efficient engines and lower

sulphur fuel were assumed for the year 2011 compared to 2003.

Table 4-22 also shows that the relative increase in LSA emissions in 2011 due to the Project

Operation is greatest for CO (44%) and VOC (18%). However, it is important to note that the

emissions inventory for background sources is not exhaustive. Sources such as space heating,

roads and agriculture were not included. If these sources were included, the relative change in

total emissions in the LSA due to the Project Operation would be less than the values shown in

Table 4-22. Furthermore, when one compares the Project Operation emissions to the total

emissions in the RSA (provided in Table 4-22 as projected emissions for the LFV in 2010) the

change due to the Project is less than 1% for all contaminants.


Table 4-22: Summary of Emissions Included in the CEA Scenario (t/yr)

SCENARIO FACILITY/EMISSION SOURCE NOX CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP Deltaport Terminal 619 107 276 25 48 48 48 Westshore Terminal 358 51 212 14 55 39 93 Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal 1,199 145 19 46 30 30 30

Projected 2011 Baseline

Subtotal 2,176 303 507 86 133 117 172 Project Operation 188 133 57 15 13 13 13 CEA Total 2,364 435 563 101 146 130 185 % Change due to Project Operation relative to Projected 2011 Baseline 8.6 44 11 18 10 11 7.7

2010 RSA Total 1 81,784 452,321 20,278 99,819 15,636 8,934 26,336 % Change due to Project Operation relative to 2010 RSA Total 0.23 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.08 0.14 0.05 1 Based on Tables A-1 through A-11 of GVRD Forecast and Backcast of the 2000 Emissions Inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed 1985-2025

Impact ratings for emissions changes due to Project Operation are summarized in Table 4-23.

The direction of the change in emissions due to Project Operation is negative and on an LSA

basis the magnitude is moderate to high depending upon the contaminant. On an RSA basis the

magnitude is negligible. The geographic extent is local, the duration is mid-term, the frequency

is continuous, and the change is reversible. The final rating is Low because the calculation of the

magnitude of the increase on an LSA basis did not include all sources in the LSA and because

the magnitude of the increase is negligible on an RSA basis.



CEA scenario as well as one- and eight-hour average CO concentrations and daily and annual

PM2.5, PM10 and TSP concentrations.


including in the modelling emissions from background sources projected to the year 2011 (i.e.,

the Projected 2011 Baseline). In addition, 98th percentile observed concentrations were added to

the model predictions. Comparing Project emissions to the Projected 2011 Baseline is a more

realistic approach than comparing them to the Existing Baseline because the Projected 2011

Baseline incorporates changes in emissions that have a high probability, such as increases in


background traffic and the implementation of legislation regarding improved engine efficiency

and fuel quality. As discussed in the previous section, emissions in the LSA are expected to be

less than existing emissions. Therefore, while the absolute value of predicted concentrations will

be less for the CEA scenario compared to Project Operation plus Existing Baseline, the relative

change in ambient air quality due to Project emissions will be greater for the CEA scenario.

Table 4-23: Impact Ratings for Emission Changes due to Project Operation

IMPACT ATTRIBUTE RATING COMMENT

Direction Negative The Project will increase pollutant emissions to the atmosphere.

Geographic Extent Local By definition, these emissions are confined to the local study area LSA.

Magnitude Negligible to High

On an RSA basis the change in emissions due to the Project is negligible. On an LSA basis, increases in NOx, SO2, PM10, and TSP are greater than 5% but less than 10% (Moderate). Increases in CO, VOC and PM2.5 are greater than 10% (High).

Duration Mid-term Air emissions will continue through to the end of the operational life of the Project.

Frequency Continuous Emissions due to the Project will be continuous although they may have temporal variations.

Reversibility Reversible Air emissions from the Project will cease at the end of the life of the Project.

Confidence High The most current US EPA models for non-road (Nonroad 2004) and mobile sources (Mobile 6.2C) were applied. Detailed activity information was available for the Project.

Final Rating Low The magnitude of emission changes due to the Project varies from moderate to high relative to total emissions in the LSA but not all background emission sources were included. On an RSA basis the change in emissions due to the Project is negligible.

Maximum concentrations of SO2, NO2, CO and VOC predicted to occur on land for the CEA

scenario, with and without background ambient concentrations added, are compared to predicted

concentrations for the Projected 2011 Baseline scenario and to ambient criteria in Table 4-24.


Maximum PM concentrations predicted to occur on land are compared to ambient criteria in

Table 4-25. Model results for the CEA scenario are discussed in the following sections.

Maximum concentrations predicted to occur at specific receptors used for the human health risk

assessment are presented in Appendix F.

For all contaminants and averaging times, isopleths for the CEA scenario are very similar to

those described earlier for the Project plus Existing Baseline, with CEA predictions slightly

reduced due to reduction in emissions for the Projected 2011 Baseline versus the Existing

Baseline. Similarly, the differences between the CEA and Projected 2011 Baseline are roughly

analogous to those described earlier between the Existing Baseline and the Project plus Existing

Baseline scenarios.


Isopleths of maximum hourly SO2 concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario are shown in

Figure 4-45. The maximum hourly SO2 concentration predicted on land is 214 µg/m3. When the

background value is added the maximum increases to 224 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Level

A Objective (450 µg/m3). The maximum concentration is predicted to occur in the same location

as for the other scenarios, approximately 6 km northeast of the Roberts Bank Port. As indicated

in Table 4-24, the increase in the maximum predicted hourly SO2 concentration relative to the

Projected 2011 Baseline Scenario is 13%.

Figure 4-46 illustrates isopleths of maximum daily SO2 concentrations predicted for the CEA

scenario. The maximum daily SO2 concentration predicted on land is 14 µg/m3 and occurs

midway along and just to the north of the east-west section of Deltaport Road. When the

background value is added the maximum concentration is 21 µg/m3, which is less than the BC

Level A Objective (160 µg/m3). The increase in the maximum predicted concentration relative

to the Projected 2011 Baseline Scenario is 10% (see Table 4-24). Slightly higher concentrations

are predicted over water near the Roberts Bank Port.


Table 4-24: Maximum SO2, NO2, CO and VOC Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the CEA Scenario




Projected 2011 Baseline 187 12 2 84 53 9 116 49 17 4 0 Projected 2011 Baseline + Background1 198 19 4 128 84 40 2,750 2,326 17 4 0

CEA 214 14 2 110 54 14 355 100 32 7 1 CEA + Background1 224 21 5 131 86 40 2,989 2,376 32 7 1

% Change relative to Projected 2011 Baseline 13% 10% 14% 2% 2% 2% 9% 2% 88% 82% 165%


1 98th percentile observed ambient concentrations were added to represent background sources not included in the model. Ambient VOC data were not available for the LSA and therefore background values were not added to predicted VOC concentrations. 2 The objectives shown for NO2 are federal not provincial.


Table 4-25: Maximum PM2.5, PM10 and TSP Concentrations Predicted to Occur on Land for the CEA Scenario



Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual Maximum 24-h

Annual

Projected 2011 Baseline 4 7 1 7 1 7 1 Projected 2011 Baseline + Background1 19 22 6 34 14 53 23 CEA 5 8 1 8 1 8 1 CEA + Background1 20 24 7 35 14 55 24

% Change relative to Projected 2011 Baseline 5% 6% 5% 4% 2% 3% 4%




Annual average SO2 concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario are depicted in Figure 4-47.

The maximum annual SO2 concentration predicted on land is 2 µg/m3 and occurs on the Roberts

Bank Causeway. When the background value is added, the maximum annual SO2 concentration

is 5 µg/m3. This concentration is much less than the BC Level A Objective, equal to 25 µg/m3.

Table 4-24 indicates that the increase in the maximum predicted concentration due to Project

Operation emissions relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline Scenario is 14%.

Impact ratings for SO2 concentration changes due to the Project are provided in Table 4-26. The

final rating is Moderate because the increase in ambient SO2 concentrations relative to the

Projected 2011 Baseline varies from 10 to 14%, which is rated as a high magnitude. However,

maximum predicted concentrations on land are less than half the BC Level A Objectives for all

averaging periods. Furthermore, elevated concentrations will occur infrequently.


Figure 4-48 illustrates isopleths of maximum hourly NO2 concentrations predicted for the CEA

scenario. The maximum concentration predicted on land is 110 µg/m3 and occurs on the Roberts

Bank Causeway. The maximum predicted hourly concentration plus background is 131 µg/m3.

This concentration is less than the Canadian Acceptable Objective equal to 400 µg/m3 . The

change in the maximum predicted hourly NO2 concentration relative to the Projected 2011

Baseline scenario is 2% (see Table 4-24).

Isopleths of maximum daily NO2 concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario are presented in

Figure 4-49. The maximum daily NO2 concentration predicted on land is 54 µg/m3 and occurs

on the Roberts Bank Causeway. When the background NOx value is incorporated, the maximum

daily NO2 concentration is 86 µg/m3, which is less than the Canadian Acceptable Objective (200

µg/m3). This concentration is 2% greater than the maximum predicted for the Projected 2011

Baseline Scenario.


Table 4-26: Impact Ratings for SO2 Concentration Changes due to the Project


Direction Negative SO2 concentrations in the LSA will increase due to emissions from the Project.

Geographic Extent Local Increases in ambient SO2 concentrations due to Project emissions occur in the LSA.

Magnitude High The increase in ambient SO2 concentrations varies from 10 to 14%, which is rated as high. However, the maximum predicted concentrations on land are less than half the BC Level A Objectives for all averaging periods.

Duration Short-term Hourly and daily SO2 concentrations will vary due to meteorological variations. High concentration events tend to be of limited duration due to meteorological variability.

Frequency Infrequent High concentration events tend to be infrequent. However, annual averaging periods are by definition continuous.

Reversibility Reversible When meteorological conditions leading to high concentration events change, concentrations will decrease. Furthermore, at the end of the Project life, air emissions from the Project will cease and so will their contribution to ambient air quality.

Confidence High The model and associated input parameters are well understood.

Final Rating Moderate The magnitude of the change in SO2 concentrations is high but all maximum predicted concentrations are less than half the BC Level A Objectives and elevated concentrations will occur infrequently.

The maximum annual NO2 concentration for the CEA scenario, equal to 14 µg/m3, is also

predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway (see Figure 4-50). The maximum annual NO2

concentration including the background ambient NOx value is 40 µg/m3, which is less than the

Canadian Desirable Objective (60 µg/m3). The increase in predicted annual NO2 for the CEA

scenario relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline scenario is 2% (see Table 4-24).

Table 4-27 presents the impact ratings for NO2 concentrations due to the Project. The final

rating is Low because the magnitude of the change in NO2 concentrations due to the Project is

low and all maximum predicted NO2 concentrations are less than the most stringent Canadian

Objectives.


Table 4-27: Impact Ratings for NO2 Concentration Changes due to the Project

IMPACT ATTRIBUTE

RATING COMMENT

Direction Negative NO2 concentrations in the LSA will increase due to emissions from the Project.

Geographic Extent Local Increases in ambient NO2 concentrations due to Project emissions occur mainly in the near vicinity of Roberts Bank Port and along major roadways.

Magnitude Low The increase in ambient NO2 concentrations is 2% for all averaging periods. No exceedances of existing objectives are predicted.

Duration Short-term Hourly and daily NO2 concentrations will vary due to meteorological variations. High concentration events tend to be of limited duration due to meteorological variability.


Reversibility Reversible When meteorological conditions leading to high concentration events change, concentrations will decrease. Furthermore, at the end of the Project life, air emissions from the Project will cease and so will their contribution to ambient air quality.


Final Rating Low The magnitude of the change in NO2 concentrations is low and all maximum predicted concentrations are less than the most stringent Canadian Objectives.


Isopleths of maximum hourly CO concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario are shown in

Figure 4-51. The maximum predicted hourly CO concentration is 355 µg/m3 (see Table 4-24).

The maximum CO concentration including background ambient is 2,989 µg/m3, which is much

less than the BC Level A Objective of 14,300 µg/m3 and represents a 9% increase relative to the

Projected 2011 Baseline scenario. The maximum concentration is predicted to occur on the

Roberts Bank Causeway, but slightly closer to the mainland than the location predicted for the

Projected 2011 Baseline scenario and the Existing Baseline scenarios (cf. Figure 4-20). Slightly

higher values are predicted over water near the Roberts Bank Port, though even including the

background value these are still well below the most stringent guideline. As with the Project


Operation plus Existing Baseline scenario (Figure 4-40), there are small increases in one-hour

CO along major roadways resulting from increased traffic due to the Project. These increases are

less than 200 µg/m3, or less than 10% of the 98th percentile background value.

The eight-hour CO isopleths for the CEA scenario are depicted in Figure 4-52. The maximum

predicted over land is 100 µg/m3 and occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway near the mainland at

the same location as the one-hour maximum. With background added the maximum is 2,376. For

the eight-hour averaging period the maximum predicted CO concentration (100 µg/m3) is only

2% of the 98th percentile background value, and the sum of the modelled plus background

represents just a 2% increase over the Projected 2011 Baseline case. Higher concentrations are

seen over water near the Roberts Bank Port, with smaller increases visible along major

roadways. For eight-hour CO the maximum increase along roadway is on the order of 50 µg/m3,

which is an increase of about 2% over the 98th percentile background value.

Impact ratings for CO concentration changes due to the Project are presented in Table 4-28. The

final rating is Low because maximum predicted CO concentrations including background are

much less than the most stringent BC Objectives and the magnitude of the relative change is low

to moderate.


Isopleths of 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario are illustrated in

Figure 4-53. The highest 98th percentile concentration predicted to occur over land is 5 µg/m3,

which is predicted to occur on the Roberts Bank Causeway. Higher concentrations are predicted

to occur over water in the vicinity of Roberts Bank Port. All concentrations predicted to occur

on the mainland are less than 3 µg/m3. The highest 98th percentile PM2.5 concentration plus

ambient background is 20 µg/m3, which is less than the CWS. This represents a 5% increase in

the predicted maximum relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline (see Table 4-25).


Table 4-28: Impact Ratings for CO Concentration Changes due to the Project

IMPACT ATTRIBUTE

RATING COMMENT

Direction Negative CO concentrations in the LSA will increase due to emissions from the Project.

Geographic Extent Local Increases in ambient CO concentrations occur mainly at Roberts Bank Port and along Deltaport Way, Highway 17 north and Highway 99 north.

Magnitude Low to Moderate

The increase in ambient CO concentrations due to the Project is 9% for one-hour, which is rated as moderate, and 2% for eight-hour, which is rated as low. For Both averaging times the maximum model prediction is much smaller than the existing 98th percentile ambient observation. No exceedances of BC Objectives are predicted anywhere in the model domain.

Duration Short-term One- and eight-hour average CO concentrations will vary due to meteorological variations. High concentration events tend to be of limited duration due to meteorological variability.

Frequency Infrequent High concentration events tend to be infrequent. Reversibility Reversible When meteorological conditions leading to high

concentration events change concentrations will decrease.


Final Rating Low The magnitude of the change in CO concentrations is low to moderate. However, maximum predicted concentrations are much less than the most stringent BC Objectives and are expected to occur infrequently.

The maximum daily and annual average PM2.5 concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario are

8 and 1 µg/m3, respectively. The maximum daily and annual average PM2.5 concentrations

including background, equal to 24 and 7 µg/m3, are less than the Washington State standards.

These concentrations represent 6% and 5% increases relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline

Scenario for daily and annual averaging periods, respectively (see Table 4-25).

The maximum daily PM10 concentration predicted to occur over land for the CEA scenario is

8 µg/m3 and occurs on the Roberts Bank Causeway (see Figure 4-54). Higher concentrations are

predicted to occur over water in the vicinity of Roberts Bank Port and Tsawwassen Ferry

Terminal. When the ambient background value is included, the maximum daily PM10


concentration is 35 µg/m3, which is less than the BC Objective of 50 µg/m3. The increase in

maximum predicted concentrations due to Project Operation emissions is 4% relative to the

Projected 2011 Baseline (see Table 4-25).

The maximum annual PM10 concentration predicted over land for the CEA scenario is 1 µg/m3.

The maximum PM10 concentration including the ambient background value is 14 µg/m3, which is

less than the GVRD Trigger Level. The increase in predicted annual PM10 concentrations due to

Project Operation emissions is 2% at the location of maximum impact on land (see Table 4-25).

The maximum daily and annual average TSP concentrations predicted on land for the CEA

scenario are 8 and 1 µg/m3, respectively. These concentrations are predicted to occur on the

Roberts Bank Causeway. When ambient background values are added, the maximum daily and

annual average TSP concentrations are 55 and 24 µg/m3, respectively. These concentrations are

much less than the BC Level A Objectives for TSP. The increases in these predicted

concentrations relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline Scenario, listed in Table 4-25, are 3% and

4% for the daily and annual averaging periods, respectively.

Impact ratings for PM concentration changes due to the Project are presented in Table 4-29. The

relative change in predicted concentrations is rated low to moderate. However all maximum

predicted PM concentrations are less than applicable Canada-wide Standards and the most

stringent BC Objectives. Furthermore, the changes are confined to the near vicinity of Roberts

Bank Port. Therefore the final rating is Low.


Table 4-29: Impact Ratings for PM Concentration Changes due to the Project


Direction Negative PM2.5, PM10 and TSP concentrations in the LSA will increase due to emissions from the Project.

Geographic Extent Local Increases in ambient PM concentrations occur mainly in the near vicinity of Roberts Bank Port.

Magnitude Low to Moderate

The increase in ambient PM concentrations vary from 2 to 6% depending on the averaging period and the size distribution. An increase of 2% is rated as low whereas the 6% increase is rated as moderate.

Duration Short-term Daily average PM concentrations will vary due to meteorological variations. High concentration events tend to be of limited duration due to meteorological variability.


Reversibility Reversible When meteorological conditions leading to high concentration events change concentrations will decrease. Furthermore, at the end of the Project life, air emissions from the Project will cease and so will their contribution to ambient air quality.


Final Rating Low The magnitude of the change in PM concentrations is low to moderate. However all maximum predicted concentrations are less than the applicable Canada-wide Standards and the most stringent BC Objectives and therefore the final rating is Low.


Maximum hourly total VOC concentrations predicted for the CEA scenario are shown in Figure

4-55. The maximum concentration predicted on land is 32 µg/m3, which is 15 µg/m3 or 88%

greater than the Projected 2011 Baseline scenario maximum (see Table 4-24). The maximum is

predicted along the Roberts Bank Causeway, though it is closer to the mainland than for the

either the Existing Baseline or Projected 2011 Baseline scenarios. The differences in predicted

VOC concentrations for the CEA scenario as compared to either the Existing Baseline or the

Projected 2011 Baseline appears to be due to increased Truck traffic due to Project Operation.


The impact appears to be fairly localized to roadway corridors and the predicted maximum

concentrations are on the order of 10 µg/m3 or less everywhere on the mainland, (i.e. excluding

the Roberts Bank Causeway). Table 4-24 shows that the incremental increases in maximum

predicted impact for the daily and annual averaging periods are 82% and 165%, respectively.

These large percentages are somewhat misleading because the corresponding predicted

maximum concentrations for the CEA scenario are just 7 µg/m3 and 1 µg/m3, respectively. Thus,

the absolute change in ambient VOC concentrations due to the Project Operation is expected to

be low.

As discussed in previous sections, there are no ambient criteria for total VOC in BC. Therefore,

the significance of the predicted increase in total VOC was assessed in the Human Health Risk

Assessment. Impact ratings for total VOC concentration changes due to the Project are presented

in Table 4-30. Based on the results of the Human Health Risk Assessment, the final rating is

Low.

4.7.3 Ozone and Secondary Particulate

During certain meteorological conditions (mainly periods of high temperatures and clear skies

during the summer months), SO2, NOx and VOCs react in the atmosphere to produce undesirable

smog pollutants, such as ground-level ozone and secondary PM. Because of the time required

for the reactions to take place, secondary ozone formation will tend to impact air quality on a

regional rather than a local scale. By contrast, secondary PM formation is predicted to occur

immediately downwind of sources but it can also affect regional air quality. The potential for

Project Operation emissions of smog precursors (SO2, NOx and VOCs) to impact air quality in

the RSA is assessed in this section.


Table 4-30: Impact Ratings for Total VOC Concentration Changes due to the Project


Direction Negative Total VOC concentrations in the LSA will increase due to emissions from the Project.

Geographic Extent Local Increases in ambient VOC concentrations occur mainly in the near vicinity of Roberts Bank Port and the Roberts Bank Causeway and along roadways in the LSA

Magnitude High The increase in ambient total VOC concentrations for all averaging periods is greater than 10% and therefore rated as high.

Duration Short-term Hourly and daily average VOC concentrations will vary due to meteorological variations. High concentration events tend to be of limited duration due to meteorological variability.


Reversibility Reversible When meteorological conditions leading to high concentration events change concentrations will decrease. Furthermore, at the end of the Project life, air emissions from the Project will cease and so will their contribution to ambient air quality.


Final Rating Low Based on the results of the Human Health Risk Assessment the final rating is considered Low.

4.7.3.1 Ozone

Ozone is a reactive form of oxygen that is a strong oxidizer and can irritate the eyes, nose and

throat and decrease athletic performance. Ozone is usually not directly discharged to the air.

Rather it is produced by photochemical reactions of anthropogenic NOx, anthropogenic VOC,

and biogenic VOC emissions. The potential for ozone formation is greatest during summer

periods characterized by high ambient temperatures, clear skies and stagnant weather conditions

(i.e., low wind speeds).

Ozone can be found in the atmosphere in the following locations:


• Ozone concentrations peak in the stratosphere at an elevation of 25 km with a maximum

concentration of about 12 ppm. This “ozone layer” shields the earth’s surface from

ultraviolet radiation. This is beneficial since this radiation has sufficient energy to cause

skin cancer in humans and to destroy acids in DNA. In recent decades, the ozone layer

has been the subject of concern because man-made chlorofluorocarbons have reacted

with the ozone, causing a thinning of this protective layer.

• Near the surface (i.e., in the troposphere), ozone can be formed by photochemical

reactions between NOx and VOC. In this case, ozone is referred to as a secondary

pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, surface ozone can have adverse effects on

vegetation and human health. This so-called “ground-level ozone” has also been the

subject of much concern over the past 40 years, because man-made emissions have

caused it to increase significantly in and around urban areas.

Ground-level ozone forms as a result of dozens of chemical interactions, involving NOx and

numerous VOC species. The primary photochemical cycle of NOx and ozone (O3) can be stated

as:

(1) NO2 + sunlight → NO + O (2) O + O2 → O3 (3) NO + O3 → NO2 + O2

where NOx, when emitted by combustion sources, initially consists mainly of nitric oxide (NO),

which can be oxidized by ozone (i.e., ozone titration). The steady-state ozone concentration is

proportional to [NO2] / [NO]. However, the NO can also react with various VOC species to

form nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which then reacts with sunlight and oxygen (O2) to form ozone.

Thus, the complex chain of reactions in the daytime that lead to the formation of ground-level

ozone can be summarized as follows:

(4) NO + VOC → NO2 (5) NO2 + O2 + sunlight → O3

These reactions require sunlight and also occur more rapidly at high temperatures. Therefore,

periods of clear skies and high temperatures during the summer months are most favourable for


the formation of ground-level ozone. Whether emissions of NOx or VOCs in a region change the

effect on ozone production depends on what the ambient NOx and VOC levels were like prior to

the change. When NOx levels are relatively high compared to VOC levels, as is often the case in

urban areas, ozone formation tends to be controlled by the VOCs. In other words, the potential

change in ozone formation will be sensitive to changes in VOC emissions but relatively

insensitive to changes in NOx emissions. The opposite is the case when NOx levels are relatively

low compared to VOC levels, which often occurs in rural areas. In general, the relationships

between NOx, VOC and ozone are not linear, and a given change in NOx or VOC concentration

can lead to a smaller change in ground-level ozone concentration.

4.7.3.2 Secondary Particulate Matter

In recent years, a growing body of evidence has emerged on the relationship between human

cardiovascular problems and fine airborne particles in smog. Some of these particles consist of

carbon soot and other particles that are emitted directly by combustion sources. Others are

particles that are formed as a by-product of chemical reactions among gaseous pollutants such as

SO2, NOX and VOCs. The latter category of particles is referred to as secondary particulate

matter.

NOx emissions can be oxidized in the atmosphere to form nitric acid (HNO3), which can then

react with ammonia to produce particles of ammonium nitrate. Ammonia is generally present in

small concentrations in the lower atmosphere, being produced by natural sources, such as

decaying organic matter, as well as by various man-made sources, such as use of ammonia-based

fertilizers and agricultural manure spreading. In addition to forming ammonium nitrate particles,

ammonia can also react with by-products of SO2 emissions to produce ammonium sulphate

particles. VOC species, initially emitted as gaseous compounds, can be converted by chemical

reactions in the atmosphere to less volatile organic compounds that condense into tiny aerosol

particles. These particles are referred to as secondary organic aerosols.

The chemical interactions that lead to the formation of sulphate, nitrate and secondary organic

aerosols are complex and, when a change in emissions of NOx, VOCs or SO2 occurs, the

resulting change in the concentration of fine particulate matter is dependent on many factors. As


with ground-level ozone, the absolute change in PM concentration will often be smaller than the

absolute change in precursor emissions (NOx, SO2 and VOC).

4.7.3.3 The Formation of Ozone and Secondary Particulate in the Lower Fraser Valley

RWDI scientists have been involved in studying the formation of ozone and fine particulate in

the LFV (as well as other regions across Canada) using regional airshed models for a number of

years as described in various project reports and conference proceedings (e.g., Boulton et al.,

2004a; Qiu et al., 2004; di Cenzo and Lepage, 2003; Boulton et al., 2003). Model sensitivity

tests and evaluations have been performed as part of this work and have shown generally good

agreement between modelled and observed results for the LFV.

RWDI employees been involved in the performance of numerous test cases for the LFV

pertaining to impacts associated with changes in emissions, meteorology, and other model input

parameters (e.g., chemical mechanism, spatial surrogates, etc.). Impacts on ozone and fine

particulates (as well as other pollutants) have been studied for sensitivity scenarios associated

with the replacement of gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles in the GVRD (Boulton et al.,

2004b; Lepage and Van Altena, 2001), the replacement of gasoline vehicles with those running

on 10% ethanol-blend fuel (Vitale et al., 2004), and a wide range of emission scenarios

developed by Environment Canada and aimed at quantifying how emissions in both Canada and

the US affect pollutant formation and transboundary transport within the region (Qiu et al., 2004;

di Cenzo and Lepage, 2003; Boulton et al., 2003).

As noted elsewhere, changes in ozone levels is complicated, as it is sensitive to emissions of

NOX and VOCs, but also to background NOX and VOC concentrations and meteorological

conditions. However, sensitivity studies for the LFV have indicated that the percent change in

ozone is usually lower than the percent change in emissions. For example, a 15 to 20 percent

reduction in total NOX emissions and simultaneous 31% reduction in VOC emissions (modelled

for a Health Canada sponsored electric vehicle study in the LFV), resulted in small (i.e., 1 to 6

percent) reductions in 1-hour and 8-hour ozone concentrations in rural area, and moderate (i.e., 2

to 7 percent) increases in 1-hour, 8-hour ozone concentrations in urban area (due to weakened


ozone titration). For this same set of changes in regional emissions, a moderate reduction (i.e., 2

to 12 percent) in 1-hour and 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations was predicted.

The following sections present a semi-quantitative assessment of how the proposed Project is

expected to affect regional concentrations of ozone and fine particulate matter in the RSA.

These conclusions are not based on model results per se, rather our in-depth understanding of the

sensitivity of ozone and fine particulate formation to changes in emissions in the LFV based on

previous, extensive modelling work in the region and elsewhere.

4.7.3.4 Impact of Project Operation Emissions on Regional Smog Pollutants

An indication of the impact of Project Operation on the formation of smog pollutants in the

region can be developed by examining the incremental increase in emissions of PM, NOx and

VOCs in the region. If, for example, the Project leads to a small increase in overall emissions of

NOx, VOCs and PM in the region, then we can conclude that this will translate into a small

increase in smog pollutants during air pollution episodes. As previously mentioned, the

chemical reactions that lead to the formation of the smog pollutants are not linear in nature and,

in general, the relative increase in smog pollutant concentrations would be less than the increase

in emissions.

The estimation of Project Operation and Existing Baseline emissions within the LSA are

described in detail in Appendix A. Existing Baseline emissions in the RSA were derived from

the GVRD’s 2000 Emissions Inventory, which contains estimates of pollutant emissions point,

area and mobile sources (on-road and non-road) for the Lower Fraser Valley (GVRD, FVRD and

Whatcom County in Washington State). The 2000 inventory is the most current and contains

projections for future years in 5 year increments, based on anticipated changes in marine, on-

road and non-road vehicle emissions. For this study, the 2000 emission inventory and 2010

projections were used for comparison with Project Operation emissions.

Table 4-31 compares the relative contribution of the emissions from the Project Operation to the

total emissions in the RSA. As shown in the table, the criteria air contaminant with the highest

emission rate from the Project Operation is NOx at 445 tonnes/yr, followed by CO, SO2, VOC,


PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 at 165, 101, 25, 24, 23, 3 tonnes/yr, respectively. However, due to the large

emission background in the LFV, the relative contribution of the Project Operation to regional

emissions of any pollutant is projected to be very small. For example, total annual NOx

emissions from the Project Operation represent an increase of about 0.4% relative to total NOx

emissions in the RSA in 2000 and 0.5% relative to projected total NOx emissions in 2010. The

relative increase in SO2 emissions is about 0.5% in LFV. The incremental increase in emissions

of other pollutants, including primary PM and NH3, is 0.3% or less.

The relative contribution of the increase in NOx and VOC emissions to the formation of regional

smog pollutants such as ground-level ozone and secondary PM2.5 will not typically be greater

than the relative increase in these emissions, and in general, is expected to be less than the

relative increase in emissions. Consequently, the effect of the Project Operation emissions on

regional concentrations of ground-level ozone is estimated to be less than 0.5%. Although there

is a slight increase in SO2 and primary PM2.5 emissions in the RSA due to the Project Operation,

the net increase in total PM2.5 concentrations should be negligible (i.e., less than 1%) in the RSA.

The significance of the potential impact of Project emissions on the formation of ozone and

secondary particulate in the RSA is rated in Table 4-32. Based on the projected emissions in the

year 2011, the final rating for the impact of Project emissions on smog pollutants in the RSA is

Low. As a result, regional airshed modelling was not conducted for this study. However, the

potential impact of secondary formation of PM in the LSA was assessed using the CALPUFF

model.

4.7.4 Greenhouse Gases

4.7.4.1 Introduction

The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which radiant heat from the sun is captured in the

lower atmosphere of the earth maintaining the temperature of the earth’s surface. Rising

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere and climate change concerns

prompted Canada to commit to a six percent reduction in 1990 GHG emissions by 2012 as part

of the Kyoto Protocol.


Table 4-31: Contribution of Project Operation Emissions to Total Emissions in the Regional Study Area

SCENARIO NOX CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP1 NH3 (t/y) (t/y) (t/y) (t/y) (t/y) (t/y) (t/y) (t/y) GVRD 2000 Emissions 2 70,856 326,057 8,382 53,107 8,179 5,353 13,206 6,377 FVRD 2000 Emissions 2 11,645 41,222 324 17,806 1,885 1,075 3,456 8,137 Whatcom County 2000 Emissions 2 17,396 114,654 10,063 40,283 5,299 2,536 8,965 3,490 RSA Existing Baseline (2000 Emissions) 2 99,897 481,933 18,769 111,196 15,363 8,964 25,627 18,004 GVRD 2010 Forecast Emissions 2 60,728 315,561 8,983 46,416 8,552 5,433 14,144 7,658 FVRD 2010 Forecast Emissions 2 8,159 39,063 247 16,870 1,751 927 3,310 9,584 Whatcom County 2010 Forecast Emissions 2 12,897 97,697 11,048 36,533 5,333 2,574 8,882 3,644 RSA Projected 2011 Baseline (2010 Emissions 2) 81,784 452,321 20,278 99,819 15,636 8,934 26,336 20,886 Project Operation Emissions in the RSA 3 445 165 101 25 24 23 24 2.5 % Increase due to Project Operation vs. Existing Baseline 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% % Increase due to Project Operation vs. Projected 2011 Baseline 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% Notes: 1 Particulate Emissions exclude road dust. 2 Based on Tables A-1 through A-11 of GVRD Forecast and Backcast of the 2000 Emissions Inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed 1985-2025

3 RSA Emissions include estimated Deltaport shipping emissions, train emissions and container truck emissions that are within the RSA. Average additional distances that these sources travel outside the LSA but inside the RSA (LFV, Whatcom County and GVRD) are estimated as follows: Container Trucks 100 km Deltaport Container Vessels 47.7 km Deltaport Trains 150 km


The greenhouse gases (GHG) include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,

hydrofluorcarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas,

but its quantitative global warming potential has not been estimated. The primary greenhouse

gas emissions considered in this assessment include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Emission sources of the other greenhouse gases are limited and do not contribute substantially to

total greenhouse gases in the LFV Emissions Inventory.

Table 4-32: Impact Ratings for Changes in Regional Ozone and Secondary PM Formation

due to the Project

IMPACT ATTRIBUTE

RATING COMMENTS

Direction Negative The Project will emit ozone and PM2.5 precursors (NOx, VOCs, SO2) and therefore there is potential for an increase in the secondary formation of ozone and PM in the RSA.

Geographic Extent Regional The secondary formation of pollutants tends to occur at considerable distances downwind of the emission source.

Magnitude Negligible Based on RWDI’s experience with regional airshed modelling, Project emissions of precursors are expected to result in less than a 1% increase in the secondary formation of ozone and PM.

Duration Short-term High concentration events tend to be of limited duration due to meteorological variability.

Frequency Seasonal Secondary formation of pollutants is most prevalent during summer months when the temperature is high and skies are clear.

Reversibility Reversible Changes in regional ozone and secondary PM formation are reversible.

Confidence Moderate Regional airshed modelling was not performed due to the small increase in precursor emissions. However, the assessment of the potential for increased ozone and PM formation is based on several years experience of modelling these pollutants in the LFV.

Final Rating Low The increase in ozone and PM formation in the RSA due to precursor emissions from the Project is expected to be negligible.

Levels of greenhouse gases are typically expressed as CO2 equivalent, which is an index to

compare the potential warming effect of other greenhouse gases to CO2. For example, methane


is 21 times more effective than carbon dioxide at heating the atmosphere and therefore one tonne

of methane is equivalent to 21 tonnes of CO2.

4.7.4.2 Impact of Project Operation GHG Emissions

Impacts from GHG emissions are global in nature. Although Project Operation GHG emissions

will be small relative to global emissions, an indication of the impact of Project Operation GHG

emissions can be developed by examining the incremental increase in GHG emissions at the

regional, provincial and national levels.

The estimation of GHG emissions within the LSA is described in detail in Appendix A. Existing

Baseline and Projected 2011 Baseline GHG emissions in the RSA were derived from the

GVRD’s 2000 Emissions Inventory, which contains estimates of pollutant emissions from point,

area and mobile sources (on-road and non-road) for the Lower Fraser Valley (GVRD, FVRD and

Whatcom County in Washington State). The 2000 inventory is the most current and contains

projections for future years in 5 year increments, based on anticipated changes in marine, on-

road and non-road vehicle emissions. Provincial and national GHG emissions for the year 2001

were obtained from Canada’s GHG Inventory for 1990-2001 (Environment Canada, 2003b).

Table 4-33 compares the relative contribution of the GHG emissions from the Project Operation

to the total emissions in the RSA, BC and Canada. As shown in the table, the relative

contribution of the Project to regional GHG emissions is predicted to be very small. The CO2eq

emissions from the Project represent an increase of about 0.2% relative to the CO2eq emissions

in the RSA in 2000 or an increase of about 0.1% when compared to forecast emissions in the

RSA for 2010. As expected, the incremental increase in GHG emissions due to the Project is

even less when considered on a provincial or national basis.


Table 4-33: Contribution of Project Operation GHG Emissions to Total Emissions in the

Regional Study Area

Emission Source CO2 (kt/yr)

CH4 (kt/yr)

N2O (kt/yr)

CO2eq (kt/yr)

Project Operation GHG Emissions 24.8 0.002 0.008 27.4

LFV 2000 Total Emissions 23,003 70.3 2.81 25,349

LFV 2010 Total Forecast Emissions 26,505 54.2 2.61 28,453

Canada GHG Emissions -- -- -- 720,000

British Columbia 2001 Provincial GHG Emissions -- -- -- 65,000

Project Operation Emissions as % of Total LFV 2000 Total Emissions 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%

Project Operation Emissions as % of Total LFV 2010 Total Forecast Emissions 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Project Operation Emissions as % of Total British Columbia 2001 Emissions -- -- -- 0.04%

Project Operation Emissions as % of Total Canada 2001Emissions -- -- -- 0.004%

The significance of the potential impact of Project GHG emissions in the RSA is rated in Table

4-34. Based on the projected emissions in the year 2011, the final rating for the impact of

Project GHG emissions in the RSA is Low.

4.7.5 Conclusion

Ambient concentrations due to air emissions from the Project and background emission sources

will tend to decrease with increasing distance from the respective sources. The concentrations at

any time will depend on the prevailing meteorology. Ambient concentrations will therefore vary

considerably with location and time. This assessment focuses on predicting maximum

concentrations in the LSA.


Table 4-34: Impact Ratings for Changes in GHG Emissions due to the Project

IMPACT ATTRIBUTE

RATING COMMENTS

Direction Negative The Project will have GHG emissions and therefore there is an increase in GHG emissions in the RSA.

Geographic Extent Global GHG emissions may contribute to global warming. Magnitude Negligible Project GHG emissions are expected to result in a 0.1 %

increase within the RSA. The increase in GHG emissions within the province of British Columbia is 0.04%. Nationally the increase is 0.004%.

Duration Long-term Releases of GHG emissions will have a long-term global impact.

Frequency Continuous GHG will be emitted continuously by the Project. Reversibility Reversible GHG emissions can be removed from the environment

by sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere. Confidence High GHG emission factors are based on fuel consumption

rates that are well defined in the Emissions Inventory. Final Rating Low The relative increase in GHG emissions in the RSA and

the global atmosphere is negligible.

Ambient air quality in the LSA is dominated by existing emissions from operations at the

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, Westshore Terminal and Deltaport. Emissions from the Project are

predicted to have a low impact on ambient air quality in the LSA and RSA.

The CEA scenario is based on projected emissions from existing sources for the year 2011, when

the Project will reach full capacity. This was done to include anticipated increases in road and

rail traffic. Normally, a cumulative effects assessment would also include approved and

proposed projects within the study area. However, there is no known approved but not yet

operating source of air emissions within the LSA. There are two known proposed projects in the

LSA: Deltaport Terminal 2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road; but insufficient information

regarding emissions from these projects was available at the time this study was conducted for

these projects to be included quantitatively. Nonetheless, one would expect that emissions from

these projects would result in a net increase in total emissions in the LSA. If these proposed

projects were included in the CEA scenario, the relative impact of the Project would be

somewhat less than predicted in this study.


Table 4-35 provides a summary of impact ratings for changes in emissions and ambient

concentrations due to the Project. The impacts for air quality changes have been discussed

relative to BC ambient air quality objectives and Canada-wide Standards. Other reference levels,

proposed objectives and American standards have been included in tables, where relevant, for

comparison purposes. No exceedances of US EPA or Washington State standards were

predicted for Point Roberts.

4.7.5.1 Changes in Emissions

The Project will increase SO2, NOx, CO, PM2.5, PM10, TSP and VOC emissions in the LSA by

11, 9, 44, 11, 10, 8, and 18% respectively, relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline Scenario. The

increase in emissions relative to total emissions in the RSA is less than 0.3% for all

contaminants. The final impact rating for emission changes due to the Project is Low.

4.7.5.2 Ambient SO2, NO2, CO, PM and VOC Concentrations

All SO2 concentrations predicted to occur on land were less than half the BC Level A Objectives

for SO2; however the relative increase in maximum predicted ground-level concentrations varied

from 10 to 14%, which was rated as high. Furthermore, the maximum concentrations were

predicted to occur on the mainland. Therefore the final impact rating for SO2 is Moderate.

All NO2 concentrations predicted to occur on land were less than the most stringent BC

Objectives for NO2. Furthermore, the relative increase in maximum predicted concentrations

was 2% for the CEA scenario. The final impact rating for NO2 is Low.

Although the relative increase in maximum predicted CO concentrations varied from low to

moderate, all predicted CO concentrations were much less than the BC Level A Objectives for

CO. The final impact rating for CO is Low.

All PM concentrations predicted to occur on land were less than the Canada-wide Standard for

PM2.5 and BC Level A Objectives for PM10 and TSP. The final impact rating for PM is Low.


The increase in ambient total VOC concentrations due to the Project was small in absolute

magnitude but high relative to the Projected 2011 Baseline. However, there are no ambient

criteria for total VOCs. Therefore the significance of the increase in ambient VOC

concentrations was assessed in the Human Health Risk Assessment. The final impact rating for

total VOC is Low.

4.7.5.3 Regional Formation of Ozone and Secondary Particulate

Although high ozone and secondary PM concentrations can occur in the RSA, the incremental

impact due to Project NOx, SO2 and VOC emissions is negligible. The final impact rating for

regional formation of ozone and secondary particulate is Low.

4.7.5.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Project will increase GHG emissions in the LFV by 0.1%. The incremental increase relative

to BC and Canada is much less than 1%. The final impact rating for greenhouse gas emissions is

Low.

4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mitigation options and their potential feasibility are discussed by source type in Section 4.9.1.

The VPA’s air emission management strategy as it relates to Roberts Bank Port is discussed in

Section 4.9.2. Recommended mitigation measures during construction are provided in Section

4.9.3.

4.8.1 Mitigation options

There are a number of potential mitigation options that would reduce emissions from the Project.

However, many of these options, such as creating a North American SOx Emission Control Area

(SECA) or installing emission control equipment on ships, trains or trucks, are not within the

control of the VPA. However, the VPA can work to influence those who do have control

whether they be regulators, terminal operators or ship owners.


Table 4-35: Summary of Impact Ratings of Changes due to the Project

ISSUE DIRECTION GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT MAGNITUDE DURATION FREQUENCY REVERSIBILITY CONFIDENCE FINAL

RATING Project emissions to the atmosphere Negative Local Negligible to

High Mid-term Continuous Reversible High Low


Negative Local High Short-term Infrequent Reversible High Moderate


Negative Local Low Short-term Infrequent Reversible High Low

Impact of Project emissions on ambient CO concentrations


Impact of Project emissions on ambient PM concentrations


Impact of Project emissions on ambient VOC concentrations

Negative Local High Short-term Infrequent Reversible High Low

Impact of Project emissions on regional O3 and secondary PM formation

Negative Regional Negligible Short-term Seasonal Reversible Moderate Low


Negative Global Negligible Long-term Continuous Reversible High Low


4.8.1.1 Container Ships

A. Create a North American SOx Emission Control Area under MARPOL VI

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main

international convention of the International Marine Organization (IMO) covering prevention of

pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. It is a

combination of two treaties adopted in 1973 and 1978 and updated by amendments through the

years. The MARPOL Convention currently includes six technical Annexes. States Parties must

accept Annexes I and II (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil and Regulations for

the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk), but the other Annexes are

voluntary.

Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships – was added to the

MARPOL Convention in 1997. The requisite 15 states controlling a minimum of 50% of the

world’s tonnage have ratified Annex VI and therefore it will enter into force on 19 May 2005.

Annex VI sets limits on SOx and NOx emissions from ships; prohibits deliberate emissions of

ozone depleting substances; and prohibits the incineration on board ship of certain products, such

as contaminated packaging materials and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The SOx emission limits of Annex VI include a global cap of 4.5% on a mass basis of the sulphur

content of fuel oil used on board ships and establishment of "SOx Emission Control Areas"

(SECAs) where vessels must use fuel oil with a sulphur content of no more than 1.5% on a mass

basis or fit an exhaust gas cleaning system or use any other technological method to limit SOx

emissions to ≤ 6 g/kWh (as SO2 mass). The Baltic Sea Area is designated as a SECA and the

North Sea, including the English Channel, will be so designated once the Annex comes into

force.

The enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI will not have much effect on SOx emissions within the

region of Roberts Bank Port because the current average sulphur content in fuel used by

container ships in the region is 2.88%, which is well below the emission limit of 4.5%.

However, if the region was declared a SECA, the sulphur content would decrease to 1.5%, which

would result in a reduction of SOx emissions from container ships by almost 50%. The VPA is


actively working with other ports, industry, regulators and other organizations to create a SECA

for both the east and west coasts of North America. There is strong support for this initiative on

the west coast.

B. Emission Regulations

Canada is considering harmonizing its emission standards with the clean fuel regulations

finalized by the US EPA that will limit the sulphur content in marine diesel fuel to 500 parts per

million by 2007 and to 15 parts per million by 2012. For this assessment, it has been assumed

that Canada will adopt these regulations. It has also been recommended that Canada develop

domestic marine diesel engine emission standards that are aligned with those of the US EPA

(Environment Canada, 2004).

Other regulations could be developed to limit domestic marine emissions. For instance, the

European Union requires the use of low-sulphur fuel for passenger vessels and stipulates the use

of very low sulphur fuel while at berth; however, the cost-benefit ratios of these approaches are

at a significant disadvantage compared to the SECA alternative (Environment Canada, 2004).

C. Economic Incentives

The VPA is considering reducing port fees for vessels using better quality fuel. Or they may

implement graduated fees whereby the fees are raised overall but clean ships pay less. A system

of differential port fees is in place in Sweden for NOx and sulphur where fees are based upon

certifications and guarantees of fuel sulphur and engine NOx emissions. This is a possible

mitigation option that is directly within VPA’s control. However, to prevent port avoidance by

vessel operators, a system of special port fees would have to be applicable to all ports on the

West Coast.

Taxes are another type of economic measure that could be introduced on fuel purchase, fuel use

or on emissions. The first method requires the least administrative burden as individual ships do

not need to be monitored. However, increasing taxes in one region is likely to cause ships to

avoid that region. Another initiative that would likely be more acceptable than penalizing


polluters would be to lower taxes on cleaner fuel to encourage container ships to pollute less.

However, this mitigation measure is not within the VPA’s control.

D. Emissions Trading

An emission trading system would provide incentives for domestic (coastal) ship owners to

invest in NOx and PM abatement technologies before required to do so by regulations. It also

provides industry with greater flexibility in meeting regulations. Several types of emission

trading systems for the marine industry in the Georgia Basin / Puget Sound airshed were

evaluated for Environment Canada (2004) including: cap and trade, credit based and mobile

emission reduction credits. It was found that the GB/PS airshed would most likely not be able to

offer adequate flexibility and liquidity as a stand-alone defined area and program. It was also

found that the administration could be complicated and expensive.

E. Fuel and Engine Technology Options

There are a number of different fuel and technology options that may help reduce ship emissions

such as direct water injection (DWI), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), marine diesel oil

(MDO), low-sulphur bunker (<0.5%), fuel additives, humid air motors, and seawater scrubbers.

The cost effectiveness of a range of options was evaluated in a report prepared for Environment

Canada (2003a). It was found that using low-sulphur bunker provides the greatest pollution

reduction (mainly reduced SOx and PM) per dollar spent. However, at present there is

insufficient low-sulphur bunker for all large vessels operating in the Georgia Basin – Puget

Sound area.

The same report indicates that the most cost-effective way to significantly reduce emissions from

large vessels while they are underway is a combination of DWI and MDO. This reduces

emissions by up to 65% at a cost of $1,542/tonne. Advantages of DWI include: reduced fuel

consumption (up to 5%), reduced NOx formation (up to 30%), reduced peak combustion

temperature, and reduced maintenance cost (up to 25%). However, DWI is currently only

available on Wartsila diesel engines and retrofit technology for other maufacturer’s engines may

require further development.


The most cost-effective technology for reducing total emissions of ships while in port is a

combination of SCR for NOx control and MDO for PM and SOx control. This option results in a

reduction of total emissions of up to 90% for $2,700/tonne.

The VPA cannot control the incorporation of such technologies in ships. However, the VPA is

supporting in principle the initiative by BC Ferries to assess the potential for implementing direct

water injection in their ferries.

F. Fuel-Switching Near Land

A possible option to reduce emissions in ports without imposing a significant economic penalty

to shipping companies, is to allow them to burn high-sulphur fuel at sea as long as they switch to

low-sulphur fuel near land. Although this option appears reasonable in principle, there have

been technical difficulties in implementing this measure and there is the potential for ships to

become disabled near shore if a malfunction occurs. Due to the potential safety concerns, the

VPA will not implement a fuel-switching measure.

G. Speed Reductions in Harbour

Emission rates from ships tend to be lower when they travel at lower speeds. However, it will

take ships longer to travel a given distance at a reduced speed. There has been insufficient study

to date as to whether the reduction in emission rates is sufficiently great to offset the greater

travel time. In other words, it is not yet clear whether the total emissions will be less if ships

travel at lower speeds. In addition, speed limits tend to be difficult to enforce. Therefore, the

VPA does not plan to implement speed reductions in harbours at this time.

H. Shore Power

Container ships currently use auxiliary diesel engines for power when they are in port or

“hotelling”. One way to reduce or even eliminate these emissions at the port would be to have

them connect to shore power. Although conceptually simple – one would think that the ships

would just have to plug in – this would in fact be very difficult and costly to implement because

of the lack of standardization internationally in ship power supply. In fact, two studies have

shown that shore power is one of the most costly alternatives for reducing air emissions


(Environment Canada, 2003a; BC Hydro, 2003). Emissions are reduced by 100% but the cost is

US$6,000 per tonne of pollution removed (Environment Canada, 2003a). Furthermore, ship

owners are unlikely to consider a project to switch to shore power because the apparent savings

in operating costs do not warrant the investment in modifying ships (BC Hydro, 2003).

There is a great deal of variability in the voltages, amperages and frequencies used

internationally. Even if the power supply on all ships were the same there are other technical

difficulties with shore power, such as hooking-up safely in all weather conditions and all tide

levels. In addition, transformers that would need to be located at dockside would potentially get

in the way of dockyard equipment. Furthermore, shore power is not applicable to vessels

moored at anchor.

Despite these technical hurdles, the use of shore power has been successfully implemented for

single-user terminals. For example, Princess cruise ships connect to shore power in Juneau

Alaska and the China Shipping Line has retrofit 11 of its Los Angeles-bound ships so that they

can connect to the new Alternative Maritime Power terminal at the Port of Los Angeles.

The VPA does not believe that shore power is practical for Deltaport for the following reasons:

• A variety of ships from all over the world call at the port and they have many different

power supply requirements;

• Bulk cargo ships are the major source of SOx and NOx emissions in the Port of

Vancouver but this type of ship does not have regular routes and visits the Port

infrequently making it cost ineffective and impractical for them to use shore power unless

the majority of ports in the world convert to shore power.

• The container ships spend only about 30 hours in port on each visit; and

• The future availability of power in the Lower Mainland is unknown.

4.8.1.2 Dockyard Equipment

The VPA has the greatest amount of control and influence over mitigation measures related to

dockyard equipment.


A. Electric Dockyard Equipment

Use of electric rather than diesel-powered equipment will result in lower local emissions (total

emissions will also be lower when the source of electricity is not fossil fuels). All container

cranes are electrically powered. Rail-Mounted Gantry (RMG) cranes currently in use at

Deltaport are electric.

TSI has recently agreed to purchase two prototype low emission RTGs for its Deltaport and

Vanterm container terminals. These are the first RTGs to use technology similar to that in

hybrid cars to reduce the amount of energy needed from the diesel engines of the RTGs. This

reduction in energy demand is expected to significantly reduce emissions from the RTGs.

B. Fuel Selection

Air emissions could be reduced if dockyard equipment such as tractors, loaders, and handlers

were fuelled using ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD), which contains only 15 ppm sulphur, or

possibly alternate fuels such as natural gas or propane. This would reduce SO2 and particulate

emissions. Canadian regulations require that on-road diesel contain only 15 ppm sulphur by

June 2006. Therefore the switch to ULSD would be equivalent to using on-road rather than off-

road diesel. Canada is considering adopting the proposed US regulations for off-road diesel,

which limit the sulphur content to 500 ppm by 2007 and to 15 ppm by 2010.

A disadvantage of using natural gas as an alternative fuel is the power reduction, which results in

greater fuel use and therefore greater greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the cost to convert

equipment is high.

Another alternative fuel is O2Diesel, an ethanol-diesel blend that reduces PM emissions by up

to 40%, CO emissions by up to 30%, and NOx and CO2 emissions by up to 6% without

sacrificing power and performance (O2Diesel, 2003). The average premium of O2Diesel is

about US$0.02 to 0.05 per gallon over the cost of the base diesel fuel. The ethanol can be

blended with conventional or advanced diesel fuels, such as ULSD. It can be used in existing

diesel fleet equipment without engine modifications or compromising vehicle performance or

fuel economy.


Biodiesel, which is derived from agricultural byproducts, is another alternative fuel. EPA Tier I

and Tier II testing of B20 (20% biodiesel blended with 80% conventional diesel fuel) found that

total hydrocarbons were reduced by up to 30%, CO by up to 20% and total PM by up to 15%.

Typically, emissions of NOx are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the

duty cycle of the engine and testing method. Pure biodiesel does not contain sulphur and

therefore does not result in SO2 emissions.

C. Fuel Additives and Emission Controls

There are a number of commercially available fuel additives and catalysts for diesel fuel that

result in lower emissions. One example is “CombustAll”, a catalyst that increases the

combustion efficiency of diesel engines and thereby reduces emissions of CO, NOx, VOC and

PM. A series of emissions tests was carried out on eight pieces of cargo handling equipment at

the Port of Vancouver Vanterm and Centerm container terminals operated by TSI Terminal

Systems Inc. and P&O Ports Canada Inc., respectively. The test equipment included two rubber-

tired gantries (RTGs), two top picks, two tractors and two pulp clamps. Preliminary results

indicated NOx reductions of 16% on electronically controlled equipment and up to 32% on

mechanically controlled equipment. Reductions in PM emissions as high as 66% have also been

achieved. Based on the results, TSI Terminal Systems Inc. will now be using CombustAllTM in its

cargo handling equipment at Vanterm to reduce air emissions while the VPA is using

CombustAllTM in its fuel supply for its shore-based maintenance equipment.

There are also emission control systems that can reduce emissions such as particulate filters,

oxidation catalysts and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). In most systems, Diesel Oxidation

Catalysts (DOCs) consist of a stainless steel canister that contains a honeycomb structure called a

substrate or catalyst support that is coated with catalytic metals such as platinum or palladium.

The catalyst oxidizes the soluble organic fraction of particulate matter, specifically carbon

monoxide, gaseous hydrocarbons and the liquid hydrocarbons absorbed on carbon particles. The

soluble organic fraction is converted into carbon dioxide and water. DOCs can reduce VOCs by

40% and PM by 40 to 50% at a reasonable cost – about US$5,000/ton (PSCAA et. al., 2003).


Diesel particulate matter filters (DPF) are ceramic devices that collect particulate matter in the

exhaust stream. The high temperature of the exhaust heats the ceramic structure and allows the

particles inside to break down (oxidize) into less harmful components. They can be installed on

new and used vehicles, but they must be used in conjunction with ULSD. The combination of

particulate matter filters and ULSD can reduce emissions of PM, hydrocarbons and CO by 60 to

90 percent but the cost is high – greater than US$25,000/ton (PSCAA et. al., 2003).

The objective of EGR is to reduce peak combustion chamber temperatures and thereby reduce

NOx emissions by recycling a portion of the exhaust gases back to the engine. Some laboratory

research has demonstrated NOx reductions of 10 to 30% with only a marginal increase in fuel

consumption (PSCAA et. al., 2003). Higher NOx reductions can be obtained but at the cost of

significantly increased fuel usage. On larger ships, EGR requires the use of high quality fuel to

avoid equipment damage and the application of control technologies to reduce particulate

emissions. A combination of EGR and DPF with ULSD fuel gives an emission reduction of

greater than 50% but at very high cost – greater than US$20,000/ton (PSCAA et. al., 2003).

D. Replace Old Equipment

Emissions of PM, hydrocarbons and NOx from new non-road diesel engines are about half of the

emissions from pre-1996 equipment (US EPA, 2004b). All additional equipment purchased for

the project will be new rather than used.

4.8.1.3 Trains

The VPA cannot control the updating of locomotives, the use of alternative fuels or the retrofit of

emission control technologies. But it will try to influence the train operators – CN, CP and

Burlington Northern – to implement change.

A. Replace Old Engines

Many of the train engines being used at Roberts Bank Port are quite old. In part, this is a tax

depreciation issue and the VPA supports a change in tax legislation so that CP and CN can

depreciate their equipment more quickly and thereby change their rolling stock more frequently.


The potential reduction in emissions by replacing or rebuilding old engines is large. Year 2005

manufactured or rebuilt Line Haul locomotives will emit 50% less PM, 47% less hydrocarbons

and 28% less NOx compared to pre-2000 locomotives (US EPA, 1997a). Similarly, year 2005

switch locomotives will emit 56% less PM, 50% less hydrocarbons, and 20% less NOx than pre-

2000 switch locomotives. Based on a study completed for the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

(PSCAA), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the US EPA, the cost-

effectiveness of engine upgrades is relatively low – less than US$200/ton of emissions reduced

(PSCAA et al., 2003).

B. Hybrid Switch Locomotives

Another option is to make use of hybrid switch locomotives such as the 2,000 hp Green Goat

or the smaller, 1,000 hp Green Kid, constructed by Southern Railway of British Columbia

Limited. Hybrid switch locomotives have electric traction motors on the axles that are powered

by a large bank of custom-designed lead acid batteries, which are kept charged by a small diesel

generator. Compared to standard diesel switch locomotives, the capital cost of the Green Goat is

expected be about 30% lower, it consumes 50 to 80% less diesel and therefore emits

proportionately less greenhouse gas, and its NOx emissions are 80 to 90% lower (Railpower,

2004). The cost-effectiveness of hybrid replacement is about US$1,000/ton of emission

reduction (PSCAA et al., 2003).

In June 2004, IDC Distribution Services Ltd. signed a Letter of Intent to purchase a Green Kid

for its intermodal yard adjacent to Fraser Surrey Docks in Surrey, BC. Green Goats have been

leased or purchased in Texas and California where there are grant schemes to assist locomotive

companies with the replacement of old switch locomotives with hybrids.

The VPA cannot control the updating of locomotives or the purchase of Green Goats but they

will try to influence the train operators – CN, CP and Burlington Northern – to implement

change.


C. Alternative Fuels and Emission Controls

Alternative fuels for trains include low sulphur diesel or liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Continuous water injection (CWI), which sprays a fine water mist into the air intake side of the

engine to reduce the engine temperature and hence NOx emissions, can be applied to

locomotives. In addition, DOC can be retrofitted as a replacement “muffler” on engines to

reduce PM and VOCs.

D. Idle Reduction Technologies

Diesel locomotive engines can reduce their fuel costs and exhaust emissions by shutting down

during extended periods of idling. Some new locomotives are equipped with a control system

that automatically stops the engine when idling for a certain period of time. Also available is the

Hotstart Diesel Driven Heating System that uses a compact, diesel-engine generator to heat the

locomotive’s engine coolant and oil, keep the batteries charged, and power cab heaters during

cold weather. The Smart-Start system is a microprocessor technology that automatically

manages the shutdown and restart of locomotives while parked idling. These technologies are

being marketed together as the Hotstart-Smartstart package. This system has a negative cost-

effectiveness for line-haul locomotives (due to reduced fuel consumption) and reduces idling

emissions by 82% (PSCAA et al., 2003). However, this system is not cost-effective for smaller

yard engines.

4.8.1.4 Container Trucks

Some mitigation options for trucks are within the control of the VPA, such as regulating and

enforcing time limits for truck idling and improving the efficiency of terminal operations.

However, other measures, such as building new roads or installing emission control equipment

are not within the control of VPA.

A. Minimize Idling

Reducing or eliminating truck idling by improving efficiency and minimizing truck wait time

will result in lower emissions. The VPA has implemented a truck reservation system that

reduces idling by trucks waiting for cargo from two hours to less than 20 minutes and security


guards enforce a requirement for trucks to shut down. Some terminals have installed paperless

gates that make use of greater automation, such as optical number readers, to reduce truck idling

(truck drivers currently leave their trucks idling when they report in to a standard manned gate to

save wear on their ignition system and to keep the climate control system of their truck

operating). The VPA will recommend to TSI, the Deltaport terminal operator, that they

investigate the possibility of implementing a paperless gate.

B. Reduce Traffic Congestion Near the Terminal

Reducing traffic congestion results in shorter travel times and hence lower emissions from

vehicles on roads. There are a number of ways that traffic congestion can be improved from

building new roads to providing incentives for trucks to use the roads during non-peak hours.

The construction of the South Fraser Perimeter Road, which forms part of the Gateway Program,

would improve congestion on Highways 17, 10 and 99, which are currently used by trucks

driving to and from Deltaport. The VPA supports the construction of this road. In fact, the

proposed Terminal 2 at Deltaport is contingent on approval of the Gateway Program.

Traffic congestion would also be reduced if trucks operated during non-peak hours. Economic

incentives can be used to spread the cargo flow throughout the day by either charging a premium

to load up during the day or a discount to load up at night. For this to work, both the terminal

gate and warehouses would need to extend their operations. Ideally, the gates would operate 24-

hours a day, seven days a week, for the greatest reduction in traffic congestion. The VPA have

greater influence on the hours of operation of the terminal gate than they have on the hours of

operation of warehouses. They have suggested a trial of night-time operation whereby the gates

are open until 9 p.m. for long-distance trucks. The main disadvantage of this system would be

the increase in vibration and noise in nearby residential areas at night.

C. Alternative Modes of Transportation

Trains have lower emissions per container than trucks. Therefore moving more containers by

train than by truck should result in lower emissions. This mitigation measure is already being


implemented. The ratio of train to truck transportation is currently 60:40 and it is projected to

increase to 65:35 in the future.

Short-sea shipping is also a lower emission alternative to trucking. One barge can transport the

equivalent of 58 large semi-trailer trucks.

4.8.1.5 Other Measures

The VPA is actively encouraging ports on the west coast to create an information clearinghouse

of best management practices for ports. This would be a medium whereby terminal operators

and port authorities can share information on cost-effective measures to reduce air emissions.

Furthermore, the VPA could adopt measures to offset emissions such as:

• Employee commute programs,

• Hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle fleet, or

• Purchasing green power.

4.8.2 The VPA Air Emission Management Strategy

The VPA have developed a strategy to manage air emissions that consists of four levels of action

plan.

4.8.2.1 Level One: Data Baseline

Level one consists of compiling scientific data to determine current air quality in the region and

establishing the contribution of operations associated with the Port of Vancouver to the regional

total. Reductions achieved in the past five years will also be quantified. As part of this process

the Marine Vessel Air Quality Work Group was established and includes representatives from

foreign registered shipping, domestic shipping, coastal ferries, the VPA, and provincial, federal

and municipal government. The purpose of this group is to coordinate and facilitate the

development of emissions inventories and forecasts, develop agreement on methodologies for air

quality measurement and testing, to foster the implementation of air quality improvement


measures, and to keep abreast of policy and regulatory developments. This is an industry

initiative fully supported by the VPA.

4.8.2.2 Level Two: Operational Efficiency

Level two consists of continuously improving the operational efficiency of the Port of

Vancouver terminals. A number of initiatives in the past ten years have resulted in significant

improvements to the movement of cargo and passengers to and from Vancouver terminals:

• In 1999 the VPA implemented a truck reservation system at its container terminals that

decreased congestion and reduced idling by trucks waiting for cargo from two hours to

less than 20 minutes.

• When Coast 2000, a full service transhipment intermodal yard that facilitates the

unloading and reloading of trucks at the same location, comes on line about 10,000

truck trips a year may be eliminated from city streets, thereby reducing truck emissions

in the region.

• A VPA transportation specialist is working closely with transit authorities and

municipalities to improve efficiencies along the transportation corridors that serve the

Port terminals, to reduce congestion and decrease trip times.

• The VPA has been coordinating an initiative to model train movements and predict

future capacity constraints and innovative ways to address them. Anticipating and

managing the effects of increased cargo volumes is a pro-active way to maintain and

improve efficiencies in the transportation links at the Port.

4.8.2.3 Level Three: Innovative Technological Improvements

Level three consists of the VPA maintaining up-to-date knowledge in the area of technical

innovations that may reduce air quality emissions associated with port operations. A number of

technologies that may help decrease emissions at Deltaport have been reviewed including shore

power; O2Diesel, and ethanol/diesel mixture for land-based equipment; water injection to

reduce emissions from auxiliary engines; and Biodiesel. VPA has also undertaken a

demonstration study for CombustAll, a catalyst intended for use in diesel engines. Two


terminals (Vanterm and Centerm) tested CombustAll on land-based equipment. Preliminary

results indicate that significant NOx and PM reductions are achievable.

4.8.2.4 Level Four: International Regulatory Change

Level four consists of working with other ports, regulators, and other organizations to influence

change. Due to the competitive nature of the global shipping industry, significant changes

require international agreement on new policy and new regulations to maintain a level playing

field for all ports operating on the west and east coasts of North America. The VPA is working

with the Chamber of Shipping and the Marine Vessel Air Quality Work Group on issues related

to the establishment of a SECA for North America. The VPA believes that this is the most

sensible measure with the most potential to reduce emissions in a significant way.

The Port of Vancouver is also participating with US West Coast ports and Canadian and US

regulatory agencies in the West Coast Diesel Emissions Reduction Collaborative (WCDERC) to

seek solutions to reduce air emissions resulting from port operations.

4.8.3 Recommended Mitigation Measures during Project Construction

There are a number of potential mitigation options that would reduce emissions from Project

Construction. There are two main types of construction mitigation measures: those that reduce

emissions from construction equipment and those that reduce the formation of dust. Preferential

consideration should be given to contractors who can demonstrate that they will implement a

plan to reduce potential emissions. The prime contractor can be obliged in contract to provide a

plan demonstrating that they will achieve a certain level of performance. For example, achieving

a minimum fleet averaged 20 percent NOx reduction or particulate reduction. Successful

implementation of this plan requires the contractor to submit a comprehensive inventory of

proposed equipment.

Mitigation options readily available for construction equipment are listed below. These

mitigation options are similar to the mitigation options that are available for dockyard equipment

and more detailed information is provided in Section 4.9.1.2.


1. Use of newer engines that have more stringent emission standards.

2. Use of alternative fuels such as natural gas, or propane rather than diesel.

3. Retrofit construction equipment with oxidation catalysts.

4. Retrofit construction equipment with diesel particulate filters.

5. Use cleaner fuels, such as ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel, or use fuel additives that increase

combustion efficiency, such as “Combust All”.

6. Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained.

7. Idling time of equipment, where practical, should be minimized to a period of 10

minutes.

8. A visual survey of all combustion operating equipment used on the project site can be

conducted on a periodic basis to ensure that exhaust emissions from the construction

equipment does not exceed 40% opacity. Opacity of the exhaust is indicative of

incomplete combustion and high particulate emissions.

9. Temporary power generators should only be used where it is not possible to use existing

electrical grid power sources.

The following measures should be implemented to minimize the formation of dust:

1. An operational water truck should be on site at all times to apply water to control dust as

needed to prevent dust impacts offsite.

2. Effective water sprays should be used to control potential dust emission sources such as

unpaved roads, and disturbed soil areas. During dry weather periods, water may need to

be applied up to three to four times daily to control fugitive dust.

3. Stockpiles of aggregate or soil should be covered or moistened to minimize fugitive dust

emissions.

4. Haul vehicles with loads that have the potential to create dust while in transport should be

covered, with the cover secured and extended over the sides and tail boards.

5. Construction vehicle speeds should be controlled on the construction site to reduce traffic

induced dust. Speed limits should be posted.


6. Wheel washing facilities should be provided and maintained at the exit of the

construction site to minimize the quantity of soil material tracked from construction

vehicle wheels onto public roads.

In addition, secondary emissions associated with construction activities, such as increased

congestion on nearby roadways, can be reduced by developing and implementing a traffic plan to

minimize the impact of construction trucks on general traffic flow.

4.9 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

There are limitations and uncertainties associated with the Emissions Inventory, the dispersion

modelling, and the human health risk assessment.


The emissions inventory is based on detailed activity data provided by the terminal operators or

estimated from vessel port-of-call data and traffic counts. Temporal factors were taken into

account where possible; however, there are no detailed schedules for activity at the Deltaport and

Westshore Terminals as the terminals operate on demand, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Emission factors for on-road mobile sources were based on the most recent Canadian version of

the US EPA MOBILE6 model (version Mobile6.2c). The MOBILE6 model is the predominant

model for estimating on-road emissions for regulatory applications. The US EPA plans to

replace MOBILE6 with a new model, the Multi-Scale motor Vehicle and Engine Emission

System (MOVES), that will address some existing problems and limitations with MOBILE6.

Emissions in the MOVES model will be related to vehicle-specific power accounting for speed,

acceleration, grade and road load, allowing for improved microscale emission analysis for

intersections and group links. The emission factors will also be revised to include a much larger

emission test dataset then the one used to develop MOBILE6. The MOVES model will not be

available until 2006 for on-road emission calculations.


Emission factors for dockyard equipment and locomotives were based on emission factors from

the US EPA NONROAD2004 model. This model takes into account the latest regulatory

standards for engines, as well as providing default loading factors, transient emission factors and

deterioration emission factors for different equipment and engine classes. Actual operation

conditions for dockyard equipment at the Deltaport and Westshore Terminal may be different

from the default assumptions.

Emission factors for ship emissions were based on the 2000 Marine Emissions Inventory for the

Lower Fraser Valley (Levelton, 2002). These emission factors are generally based on data that

were collected and summarized by the US EPA (US EPA, 2000). Container and bulk carrier

vessel emission factors are based on a limited test dataset from the Lloyds Marine Emissions

Research Program and the Coast Guard Test Program. These tests relate emissions to the

deadweight tonnage and speed of the vessel. Most of the data analyzed was for engines rated at

less than 8,000 kW, and the relationship of emission factors to all engine sizes is not firmly

established. The effects of engine deterioration and fleet replacement on the emission factors are

not accounted for in the analysis. Default engine loading factors are used and may be different

from the manoeuvring and underway loads of vessels calling at the Deltaport and Westshore

Terminals.

The average percent by weight of sulphur in fuel oil used by the container and bulk carrier

vessels calling at the Deltaport and Westshore Terminals was estimated from a fuel use inventory

provided by the Chamber of Shipping. This average fuel sulphur content (2.88%) was within

15% of estimates provided in the 2000 Marine Emissions Inventory (Levelton, 2002). However,

the sulphur content of marine fuel oil varies widely around the world and therefore depending on

where a ship purchased its fuel the sulphur content could be up to 5%.

Detailed schedules for trains arriving and departing the Deltaport Terminal and age distribution

for the locomotive fleet were not available. Conservative activity assumptions were made and

all trains visiting the Deltaport Terminal were assumed to idle for a period of 24 hours before

departing. Predicted emissions from idling locomotives are likely conservative since Canadian


Pacific (CP) has an automatic shutdown after one hour if the temperature is above 6 degrees

Celcius.

Fugitive dust emissions from the Westshore Terminal were calculated using US EPA

methodologies that are specific for coal stockpiles. Site-specific correction parameters (i.e,

hourly wind speed, moisture content, silt content and mitigation efficiency of water sprays) were

used to achieve the highest data quality rating. However, there is always a large degree of

uncertainty associated with fugitive dust emissions.

4.9.2 Dispersion Modelling

By definition, air quality models can only approximate atmospheric processes. Many

assumptions and simplifications are required to describe real phenomena in mathematical

equations. Model uncertainties can result from:

• Simplifications and accuracy limitations related to source data;

• Extrapolation of meteorological data from selected locations to a larger region; and

• Simplifications to model physics to replicate the random nature of atmospheric dispersion processes.

Models are reasonable and reliable in estimating the maximum concentrations occurring on an

average basis. That is, the maximum concentration that may occur at a given time somewhere

within the model domain, as opposed to the exact concentration at a point at a given time will

usually be within the ±10% to ±40% range (US EPA, 2003b). Typically, a model is viewed as

replicating dispersion processes if it can predict within a factor of two, and if it can replicate the

temporal and meteorological variations associated with monitoring data. Model predictions at a

specific site and for a specific hour, however, may correlate poorly with the associated

observations due to the above-indicated uncertainties. For example, an uncertainty of 5° to 10°

in the measured wind direction can result in concentration errors of 20% to 70% for an individual

event (US EPA, 2003b).


5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

The primary objective of an HHRA is to evaluate the likelihood of occurrence of adverse health

effects in relation to potential exposures to chemicals in light of what is known regarding the

toxicity of those chemicals. The HHRA follows a conventional ‘paradigm’ (see Figure 5-1) in

accordance with formal and informal procedures recommended by regulatory agencies including

Health Canada, Environment Canada, the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (BC

MWLAP), Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), the United States

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO). The approach used to

evaluate potential health risks involves a four-step process, as follows: i) Problem Formulation;

ii) Exposure Assessment; iii) Toxicity Assessment; and iv) Risk Characterization.

Figure 5-1 Risk Assessment Paradigm

Risk Characterization

Risk Estimation-Exposure and Toxicity Assessment Integration-Uncertainty Analysis

Risk Description-Risk Summary-Interpretation of Significance

Problem Formulation

Receptor ScreeningChemicalScreening

Conceptual Model

PathwayScreening

Preliminary Considerations

Exposure and Toxicity Analysis

ChemicalCharacterization

ReceptorCharacterization

ToxicityClassification

Dose-ResponseAnalysis

Exposure Limit orPotency Factor

ExposureAnalysis

Ris

k C

omm

unic

atio

n C

onsu

ltatio

n

Collection and Validation of Site D

ata

Toxicity AssessmentExposure Assessment

Risk Characterization

Risk Estimation-Exposure and Toxicity Assessment Integration-Uncertainty Analysis

Risk Description-Risk Summary-Interpretation of Significance

Problem Formulation

Receptor ScreeningChemicalScreening

Conceptual Model

PathwayScreening

Preliminary Considerations

Exposure and Toxicity Analysis

ChemicalCharacterization

ReceptorCharacterization

ToxicityClassification

Dose-ResponseAnalysis

Exposure Limit orPotency Factor

ExposureAnalysis

Ris

k C

omm

unic

atio

n C

onsu

ltatio

n

Collection and Validation of Site D

ata

Toxicity AssessmentExposure Assessment


The HHRA process involves the use of problem formulation in order to focus efforts on the risk

issues of greatest concern, as well as by incorporating as much existing Project-specific and

regional data as possible into the assessment. The main components of the risk assessment

methodology include the following (see Figure 5-1):

• Problem formulation: Characterization of the Project and site, identification of

the Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC), characterization of receptors, and

identification of exposure pathways to be evaluated in the risk assessment;

• Toxicity assessment: Identification of potential adverse effects of the COPC and

the determination of the maximum doses that are unlikely to result in adverse

health effects (exposure limits);

• Exposure assessment: Quantification of the total dose of the COPC received by

human receptors via all relevant exposure pathways; and,

• Risk characterization: Comparison of estimated exposures with exposure limits to

provide an indication of whether unacceptable risks are likely to exist in defined

scenarios, and evaluation of uncertainties.

Each step of the risk assessment paradigm was completed using site-specific information in order

to identify any potential health risks associated with the Project. These steps are described in

more detail below in Section 5.1. Both Project-specific and cumulative impacts were addressed

by the HHRA and are consistent with the air quality assessment (Section 4.0).

Health Canada’s Health Determinants approach was employed for the baseline health assessment

and is presented in the problem formulation section of the report (see Section 5.1.2.3). A review

of available health determinants and information respecting the demographics of the Roberts

Bank area, including population size, projected growth, age and gender distribution, overall

health status, and disease incidence was conducted. The objective is to determine whether

elevated exposure to chemicals or an elevated incidence in health problems is occurring relative

to other areas or to health-based guidelines. The Health Determinants approach is particularly

relevant for the First Nations since factors such as lower socio-economic and health status may

increase the First Nations sensitivity to impacts from the Project (Health Canada, 2003).


As well, for the assessment of PM, Health Canada (Health Canada, 1999) and Bates et al. (2003)

recommend undertaking an incremental risk analysis in addition to comparing predicted ground

level PM concentrations to health based exposure limits. These methods attempt to provide an

indication of the increased number of hospitalizations and deaths per year that can be attributed

to an incremental increase of PM concentrations above ambient concentrations as a result of the

Project. Both methods are employed for this assessment and are presented in the Section 5.2.3.1

5.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION

Problem Formulation acts as an information-gathering and interpretation stage, which is

conducted to plan and focus the approach of the risk assessment on critical areas of concern for

the Project. The key tasks requiring evaluation within the Problem Formulation phase include

the following:

• Chemical characterization: Identification of the COPC emitted from the proposed

Project which typically includes development and/or review of an inventory of

chemicals used, stored or released from the site, including air emissions;

• Receptor selection and characterization: Identification of persons potentially at

risk of exposure to the COPC which can include review of available information

respecting nearby community statistics, population demographics, age

distributions, community health profiles, and other types of census data. The

analysis normally includes the identification of people who may be overly

sensitive to chemicals. Infants, the elderly and people with compromised health

generally are less tolerant of chemical exposure. The potential increased

sensitivity of such individuals should be respected as part of the risk assessment;

and,

1 There are a number of limitations inherent to these methods and consequently, limited confidence should be placed

on the calculated health risks attributable to predicted PM concentrations in the local study area.


• Identification of potential exposure pathways: Determination of potential avenues

by which the COPC might reach the receptors (e.g., via the air, through contact

with soil, through consumption of local foodstuffs) taking into account physical-

chemical properties (e.g., vapour pressure, water solubility, partition coefficients)

and fate and transport in the environment. Effort also is directed at the

determination of the potential routes by which the chemicals might enter the body

(e.g., via inhalation, skin contact and/or ingestion).

5.1.1 Chemical Characterization

The Project will result in a number of increases in activity levels for a number of air emission

sources. These include: i) increased container ship, rail and truck traffic; and, ii) increased

dockyard equipment activity. A number of the COPC were identified based on these emission

sources.

Environment Canada has set national standards for a number of compounds, including SO2, NO2,

CO, PM10 and PM2.5. These compounds are referred to as criteria compounds. Because the

release and subsequent potential health risks of these compounds is closely regulated, their

evaluation as part of the health risk assessment is generally required. With respect to VOCs and

PAHs, combustion is the major source of organic compound emissions. Metals also are being

released. Accordingly, a number of chemicals were identified by RWDI as potentially being

emitted from the Project. The COPC identified for the HHRA are presented in Table 5-1.


Table 5-1: COPC for the HHRA

CRITERIA COMPOUNDS VOCs PAHs METALS OTHER

SO2 NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5

Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Formaldehyde

Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Fluoranthrene, Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium (III and VI) Manganese Nickel

Diesel PM

Surrogate chemicals were used to accommodate a lack of toxicity information for a number of

the PAHs. In those instances, reliance was placed on a toxicological principle that states that the

molecular structure of a chemical has a distinct bearing on its reactivity, biological activity and

toxicity. This principle allows the toxicity of a chemical for which little or no toxicological

information exists to be predicted on the basis of information available on another chemical of

similar molecular structure. The second chemical is often termed a “surrogate”, and the term

“read across” has been coined to describe the principle. The principle also may be applied to

groups of chemicals of similar structure in which toxicity data on individual members of the

group may be limited or lacking. In such cases, all members of the group are assumed to share

the same toxic potency as the most toxic chemical in the group for which toxicity information is

known. The following surrogates were employed:

• Naphthalene was used to represent acenaphthene, acenaphthylene and

naphthalene.

• Fluorene was used to represent fluoranthene, fluorene, phenanthrene and pyrene.


In both cases, the most toxic chemical within each group was selected as the surrogate.

In addition, the Whole Mixture Model (WMM) (OMOE, 1997) and the Individual PAH Model

(IPM) were used for the assessment of carcinogenic PAHs (i.e., benz(a)anthracene,

benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene,

dibenz(a,h)anthracene, flouranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene and

pyrene). The WMM approach is based on the conservative assumption that the carcinogenic

potency of the PAH fraction of any environmental mixture is proportional to the benzo(a)pyrene

(B(a)P) content of the mixture (OMOE, 1997). The WMM uses the concentration of B(a)P

together with the toxic potency of the PAH-WMM group, and this group is referred to as B(a)P.

The IPM approach predicts risk of the PAH fraction based on the sum of the attributable risks for

each individual PAH using Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs). TEFs allow large groups of

compounds with a common mechanism of action such as PAHs to be assessed when there are

limited data available for all but one of the compounds. Both PAH models were employed for

this assessment. Further detail is presented in Appendix I.

5.1.2 Receptor Selection and Characterization

Human receptors were selected that represent a reasonable ‘worst-case’ in terms of potential

exposure to the Project air emissions. In selecting specific receptors, consideration was given to

identification of receptors that would be at greatest potential risk to air emissions from the

Project through relative degree of exposure.

5.1.2.1 Identification of Receptor Locations

The HHRA focused on the potential health risks to individuals living in areas located near

Roberts Bank. Representative communities near Roberts Bank were selected based on:

• Proximity to the proposed expansion;

• Predicted ground-level air concentrations associated with the proposed expansion;

• Size of population;

• Land use; and,


• History of concerns relating to the potential impacts of the air emissions on air

quality and human health.

Using these selection criteria, the following Canadian locations were identified:

• The City of Richmond (Steveston),

• Ladner,

• TFN Indian Reservation (IR),

• Tsawwassen,

• Campsite (located on the TFN IR)

• Beach Grove,

• Boundary Bay, and

• Point Roberts.

Two receptor locations in the Point Roberts region of Washington State were selected and will

be used to represent individuals living in communities in the United States. Another area

potentially impacted by the Project is the agricultural land to the east of Roberts Bank.

Consequently, three locations closest to the Project were selected to represent agricultural

receptors (one of which is located on leased land situated on the Musqueam IR 4). All receptor

locations included in the risk assessment are inside the 30 km zone of potential impact (i.e., the

local air quality study area) (see Table 5-2). The communities are scattered within the Roberts

Bank area such that broad spatial orientation relative to the Project was achieved. Figure 5-2

illustrates the discrete receptor locations relative to the Project.


Table 5-2: Discrete Receptors near Roberts Bank Selected for the HHRA

RECEPTOR TYPE

POPULATION DESCRIPTION

Residential Tsawwassen 21,337(1) The town of Tsawwassen is located in close proximity to

the Project, approximately 5 km to the east. Beach Grove n/a A suburban area located approximately 7 km east of the

Project. Boundary Bay n/a A suburban area located approximately 8 km east of the

Project. Ladner 21,367(1) An urban community located approximately 8 km directly

north and east of the Project. Steveston (City of Richmond)

51,977(2) Sizable urban community located approximately 12 km north of the Project.

Point Roberts 1,308(3) A suburban area located approximately 6 to 9 km south of the Project.

First Nation Tsawwassen IR 0 474(4) The First Nation’s community nearest to the Project,

situated just 4 km north and east of the Project. Agricultural Farmer #1 -- Located approximately 5 km north and east of the Project. Farmer #2 -- Located approximately 4 km east of the Project. Farmer #3 -- Located approximately 4 km east of the Project (located

on the Musequeam IR 4). Recreational Campsite -- Also situated 4 km east of the Project.

1) Sourced from the City of Delta Website based on the 2001 population (http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/press_releases/2001population_census.pdf)

2) Sourced from BC Statistics 2001 Census Profile of British Columbia’s British Electoral Districts Richmond-Steveston

3) The U.S. receptor population was sourced from the Washington Office of Financial Management and was based on 2000 census data.

4) Sourced from Statistics Canada (2001) (http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/PlaceSearchForm1.cfm)

Note: IR = Indian Reservation


5.1.2.2 Identification of Receptor Types

A human receptor is described as any person who resides or visits the area being investigated and

is, or could potentially be, exposed to the chemicals identified as being of potential concern.

General physical and behavioural characteristics specific to the receptor type (e.g., body weight,

breathing rate, amount of food consumed, etc.) are used to determine the amount of chemical

exposure received by each receptor. Due to differences in these characteristics between children

and adults and between males and females, the exposures received by a female child, a male

child, a female adult or a male adult will be different. Consequently, the potential risks posed by

the chemicals being evaluated also will differ depending on the chosen receptor. Since people

have varying physical features, lifestyles and habits, it is not possible to evaluate all types of

individuals. However, the HHRA must be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that those

receptors with the greatest potential for exposure to COPC, and those that have the greatest

sensitivity or potential for developing adverse effects from these exposures are included in the

evaluation.

The rationale for this approach is based on the assumption that if unacceptable risks are not

predicted for highly exposed receptors, unacceptable risks would not be expected for less

exposed individuals. People that represent such highly exposed scenarios were selected to err on

the side of safety. Exposures and subsequent risks to typical individuals in a realistic exposure

scenario will be much less than those estimated for the highly exposed scenario. Only potential

risks to the public were evaluated here, potential risks to workers associated with on-site air

emissions are addressed by the VPA’s health and safety plan, and were not addressed.

The HHRA focused on the following four receptor-types:

1. First Nation Families. First Nation families were considered to have local, year-

round residency and to participate in such traditional activities as hunting, seafood

procurement (i.e., consumption of molluscs only, further details are provided in

Section 5.1.3) and the gathering and consumption of country foods. Native Canadian

consumption rates described by O’Connor and Richardson (1997) to estimate

traditional food consumption rates were used. Information pertaining to the types of


traditional foods consumed was obtained from the Roberts Bank Cumulative

Environmental Effects Study – Traditional Use Study (VPA, 2001). It was assumed

that the First Nation families derive a substantial fraction of their diet locally. The

TFN will likely be the only First Nation group spending any considerable time near

the Roberts Bank area. Thus, the First Nation receptors were characterized according

to this group.

2. Agricultural/Farming families. Agricultural receptors were assumed to have year-

round residency near Roberts Bank for the duration of their lives. Consumption rates

for these receptors were based on values for typical Canadians reported by Health

Canada (1994). Members of local farming families derive a significant proportion of

their diet from their own agricultural production. Farming residents are assumed to

consume agricultural items such as dairy products, poultry and eggs.

3. Local residents. Local residents were assumed to have year-round residency near

Roberts Bank for the duration of their lives. It was assumed that these individuals

would not be consuming significant amounts of local produce and that inhalation of

air emissions was their only source of exposure. Inhalation rates for the local

residents were based on values for typical Canadians reported by Health Canada

(1994).

4. Recreational (seasonal/occasional) users. Recreational users throughout the year visit

the surrounding area. Use is more frequent during the summer tourist season owing

to the presence of camping areas, natural areas (George C. Reifel Bird Sanctuary,

South Arm Marches), beach areas (English Bluff/Tsawwassen Beach) and regional

parks (Boundary Bay Greater Vancouver Regional District Park). Since a recreational

user would not remain in the area for extended periods and would not be consuming

local produce, it was assumed that short-term inhalation was their only significant

source of exposure.

In selecting specific receptors (i.e., First Nation families, agricultural families, local residents,

and the recreational users), consideration was also given to identification of receptor types that


would be at greatest potential risk from the air emissions from the Project. In scenarios where

humans of all ages might be exposed, the most critical receptors are often preschool or school

age children, due to the likelihood of higher rates of exposure, based on respiration rates on a per

body weight basis, and behavioural differences that tend to increase exposure. For the

assessment of chemicals thought to be capable of causing cancer (i.e., carcinogens such as

acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium, chromium VI, and

formaldehyde), a composite receptor (all life stages from infant to adult), representing the

cumulative exposure over a lifetime, was assessed. Individuals with compromised health (e.g.,

asthmatics, chemical hypersensitivities) or within sensitive life stages (e.g., pregnancy) are

considered in the assessment by ensuring that selected regulatory exposure limits are sufficiently

stringent to protect such individuals.

The First Nation families, agricultural families, local residents and recreational users were

assumed to exhibit exaggerated lifestyle habits to ensure that exposures were not underestimated

(e.g., high consumption rates of country foods or local produce, continual year-round residency

at the location of maximum air concentrations for the duration of their lives, etc.). The First

Nation families and agricultural families represent the “worst-case” exposure scenario because of

their proximity to Roberts Bank, as well as their ingestion of local country food and produce

which increase COPC exposure when compared to other receptors who do not consume these

food items on a regular basis. If health risks were considered to be acceptable or minimal for

these receptors, it would suggest that health risks to receptors at all other locations would be

lower and hence acceptable as well. However, it also should be noted that lower socio-economic

status and poorer overall health might increase the sensitivity of the TFN to impacts from the

Project (See Section 5.1.2.3) (Health Canada, 2003).

Receptors from each of five age classes were assessed:

• infant (0 to 6 months);

• pre-school child (7 months to 4 years);

• child (5 years to 11 years);

• adolescent (12 to 19 years); and


• adult (20 years and over).

Toddlers were identified as the most sensitive age group for the assessment of non-carcinogenic

chemicals. For the assessment of carcinogenic chemicals, a composite receptor (composed of all

life stages from infant to adult) was used, representing the cumulative exposure over a lifetime.

5.1.2.3 Baseline Health Assessment

For this evaluation, the risk assessment methodology is augmented by Health Canada’s Health

Determinants approach. Health Canada recommends that a Health Determinants approach be

taken to evaluate the overall health of a population (Health Canada, 2003a). This multi-factorial

approach considers other factors that can influence health such as where we live, the state of our

environment, genetics, our income and education level, and our relationships with friends and

family. Accordingly, this approach recognizes the complex inter-relationships of genetics, social

environment, physical environment, behaviour and health services that contribute to the level of

health and sense of a well-being in an individual. Key health determinants as recommended by

Health Canada include: income and social status; social support networks; education and

literacy; employment and working conditions; social environments; physical environments;

personal health practices and coping skills; health child development; biology and genetic

endowment; health services; gender and culture. These factors are considered in assessing the

potential impacts of the Project’s air emissions on the First Nation and local communities in the

study area.

This approach goes beyond typical assessments, which typically use indicators such as death,

disease and disability. The Health Determinants approach is especially relevant for the

aboriginal population, which traditionally has a poorer health status than the non-Aboriginal

population (Health Canada, 1999). In effect, the Health Determinants approach may be used to

compliment the holistic view of health held by the First Nations. For example, the TFN put

emphasis on the preservation of a strong relationship with the natural world and the importance

of maintaining balance and harmony with the environment (Tsawwassen First Nation, 2004).


As well, population demographics and population-based health effects data are used to augment

the risk assessment by evaluating the actual situation at a given point in time in the region of

concern with respect to environmental quality, chemical exposure or health status. The

knowledge gained may guide aspects of the methodology or interpretation of the risk assessment,

aid in the determination of baseline health status and provide insight into whether regional

development has had an appreciable impact on exposure media and on populations. However,

the exact nature of the relationship between Health Determinants and their impacts on health can

only be posited in a qualitative manner.

The existing published community health information relevant to the Roberts Bank area was

reviewed as part of the baseline health assessment. Using the Health Determinants approach the

results of the Canadian community health data from the area of impact were compared with other

communities in BC, and in Canada as a whole. Similarly, the health statistics from Point Roberts

were compared to Whatcom County, Washington and the United States as a whole, whenever

possible. The communities in BC were located in the Fraser South and South Fraser Valley

Health Regions depending on the year of the data sources. The complete baseline health

assessment literature review can be found in Appendix J.

Certain of the census data were considered especially relevant to the assessment of the potential

Project-related health risks, and are outlined below.

First Nation Receptor Locations

In light of the fact that health information was not available for the TFN, information pertaining

to the Delta region was utilized instead. The TFN are within this region. Findings considered to

be of particular interest with respect to the current assessment were:

• Age-standardized mortality rates for respiratory disease and smoking-attributable

deaths among Status Indians were elevated in the South Fraser Valley health

region with respect to the general population of Fraser Valley health region and

the province of British Columbia, but were appreciably lower than that of the

Simon Fraser health region.


• Relative to the general populations of British Columbia and Canada, the Status

Indians of British Columbia and the First Nations of Canada commonly reported

higher health outcomes (e.g., mortality rates for all cancers, circulatory system

diseases, respiratory system diseases, and smoking-attributable mortalities).

• Asthma prevalence in people 12 years of age and older and the prevalence of

current smokers were notably higher among the Status Indians of British

Columbia and the First Nations of Canada than the general populations of British

Columbia and Canada.

• Age-standardized mortality rates for the Status Indians of the South Fraser Valley

were typically on the order of twice the general population.

• The proportion of seniors (i.e., 65 years or older) among Status Indians in the

South Fraser Health Authority was lower than that of the general population.

• No appreciable difference was identified between the non-medical health

determinants of interest (i.e., employment, income, and education) for the First

Nations and the general populations of the LHAs of the Fraser South geographical

area, the Fraser Health Authority, and the province of British Columbia.

• Overall, the Status Indians of the Delta LHA and the Fraser South health region

reported higher health outcomes than the Status Indians of British Columbia, the

First Nations of Canada, and the general populations of British Columbia and

Canada, with few exceptions.

The social and economic environments of Aboriginals are less favourable than non-Aboriginals

and unfortunately the discrepancy in health is in part due to widespread inequities with respect to

opportunities for health. The prevalence of chronic diseases in Aboriginal communities seems to

be increasing and is substantially higher than in the Canadian population (Health Canada,

2003b). The findings indicate growing communities with a significant population of individuals

who could be vulnerable to air pollution. While the First Nations should be considered a

population at risk, it is still unclear as to the exact nature of the relationship between Health

Determinants and their impacts on health. Ongoing examination of both health status and the

factors that determine or influence health will help to further elucidate this relationship.


Canadian Receptor Locations

Findings considered to be of particular interest with respect to the current assessment were:

• Asthma prevalence in British Columbia was slightly lower than that of the

national average.

• Respiratory disease deaths were slightly higher in British Columbia than Canada

as a whole, but respiratory hospitalization rates were lower in British Columbia.

• Age-standardized mortality rates for respiratory system diseases were slightly

elevated in the local health authority (LHA) of Delta compared with the

provincial average.

• The proportion of seniors (i.e., 65+ years of age) in the Delta LHA was less than

that of British Columbia as a whole. The number of seniors in the Delta LHA was

also the lowest of the LHAs in the Fraser South health region.

• Overall, no appreciable difference in health status was identified between the

general population of the LHAs of the South Fraser Valley region, the province of

British Columbia, and Canada with respect to the health outcomes reviewed

above.

Health indicators for the LHA of the South Fraser Valley are generally similar to the rest of

Canada, and suggest a healthy population. There is no obvious indication that the population as a

whole may be overly vulnerable to air pollution; however, individual responses to pollutants will

necessarily vary.

United States Receptor Locations

Findings considered to be of particular interest with respect to the current assessment were:

• No health status data specific to Point Roberts was available.

• Age-standardized mortality rates for chronic lower respiratory system disease

were lower among citizens of Whatcom County than Washington State, but

slightly higher than the national average.


• The asthma hospitalization rate and the prevalence of current cigarette smokers

were lower in Whatcom County compared with Washington State and the United

States as a whole.

• The proportion of seniors in Point Roberts was higher than that of Whatcom

County, Washington State, and the United States as a whole.

• Overall, the health status of Whatcom County was not appreciably different from

that of the state of Washington or the United States as a whole, with respect to the

health outcomes examined above.

Health indicators for Whatcom County are generally better than for Washington State, and

suggest a relatively healthy population. There is no obvious indication that the population as a

whole may be overly vulnerable to air pollution; however, individual responses to pollutants will

necessarily vary. Moreover, Point Roberts has a higher proportion of seniors who could be

vulnerable to air pollution.

5.1.3 Selection of Exposure Pathways

The HHRA focused specifically on the potential health risks associated with the air emissions

from the Project. The determination of exposure pathways involved assessing the means by

which the air emissions could travel from the site boundaries of the Project to reach the human

receptors living in the communities chosen for study and by what pathway(s) and route(s) of

exposure. Airborne emissions can impact environmental media in a number of ways, including:

• Ambient air through direct emission and dispersion as vapour or suspended

particulate;

• Surface soils, through deposition from the air column;

• Vegetation, both through direct deposition and via uptake from soil and vapour;

• Molluscs through deposition from the air column in the inter-tidal zone; and,

• Wild game, through the consumption of food (e.g., vegetation and insects) and

soil.


Each of the selected receptors are exposed to chemicals in media through a variety of exposure

pathways, including the following:

• Inhalation of chemicals present in air emissions (all receptors);

• Inhalation of chemicals in dust (all receptors);

• Dermal contact with chemicals deposited on soil (First Nation families and

agricultural families);

• Incidental ingestion of chemicals deposited on soil (First Nation families and

agricultural families);

• Ingestion of chemicals in vegetation (First Nation and agricultural families);

• Ingestion of chemicals in molluscs (First Nation families);

• Ingestion of chemicals in domesticated animals (agricultural families); and

• Ingestion of chemicals in wild game (First Nation families).

The possible exposure pathways evaluated for the First Nation families, agricultural families,

residential, and recreational receptors are illustrated in Figure 5-3. The exposure pathways vary

depending on the receptor type.

The primary exposure pathway for the COPC emitted from the Project was determined to be air

inhalation. This is particularly true for the gaseous criteria compounds such as nitrogen dioxide,

sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Potential health effects caused by these compounds are

associated with inhalation only (i.e., they do not deposit and accumulate through the food chain).

Similarly, potential health effects such as long-term morbidity or mortality caused by PM are

solely associated with inhalation.


Figure 5-3 Possible Exposure Pathways for the HHRA

Other COPC classified as VOCs have high vapour pressures, and therefore, will tend to remain

airborne and not deposit locally. When they do deposit, they do not persist in water or soil since

they biodegrade and volatilize rapidly to the atmosphere where they undergo rapid photo-

oxidation (Health Canada, 1998). Despite the physical-chemical properties that argue against

deposition and accumulation of VOCs, the secondary exposure pathways listed above were

evaluated for the First Nation families and the agricultural families. Reasons include potential

concerns related to contamination of local food and limited evidence that plants can take up

VOCs (e.g., benzene) via air-to-plant transfer (Hattemer-Frey et al., 1990; Topp et al., 1989;

Scheunert et al., 1985; Grob et al., 1990). Exceptions include the gaseous criteria compounds

where inhalation is the only pathway of concern from a health effects perspective. Acetaldehyde

and formaldehyde were excluded from the multi-media assessment (secondary pathways) since

there are no available data to adequately provide guidance concerning the potential risks

Emissions

SOILvolatilization

AIR

HUMANS

rootuptake

TERRESTIALFAUNA and

DOMESTICATEDANIMALS

ingestion

ingestioninhalation

dermal

inhalation

inhalationdepositiondiffusiondeposition

ingestioninhalation

PLANTS/FLORA

ingestion

MOLLUSCS

ingestion (First Nations receptors only)

SEDIMENT(INTER-TIDAL

ZONE)


associated with the ingestion of either acetaldehyde or formaldehyde (CEPA, 2000a; CEPA,

2001). Consequently, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were assessed only via the inhalation

pathway.

PAHs show little tendency to travel through the food chain since they are rapidly metabolized

and eliminated by organisms (Health Canada, 1998; Eisler, 1987; ATSDR, 1995). However,

some PAHs are known to persist in the environment (ATSDR, 1995) and therefore have the

potential to impact secondary pathways. Consequently, most of the secondary exposure

pathways previously listed were evaluated for PAHs. The exception was particular components

of the aquatic pathway related to seafood procurement.

Seafood procurement for the First Nation families is an important cultural heritage activity;

therefore the aquatic exposure pathway was assessed. Evidence suggests that PAHs can be

accumulated in molluscs (e.g., clams, snail) due to their inability to metabolise and excrete them

(Eisler, 1987). Moreover, molluscs in the inter-tidal zone are directly exposed to COPC in the

air and by wet/dry deposition. Accordingly, molluscs were included since exposures to PAHs

could potentially occur through the ingestion of molluscs. However, fish and aquatic

invertebrates (e.g., arthropods, echinoderms and annelids) were not included since PAHs are

rapidly metabolized and eliminated by these organisms (i.e., little tendency to bioaccumulate)

(James, 1989; Eisler, 1987).

Metals occur naturally in the environment and consequently organisms have developed a variety

of mechanisms to regulate their tissue concentrations of essential metals and detoxify

nonessential metals. A number of metals are essential to maintaining proper organism health and

may cause adverse effects if present in excess or at deficient amounts (US EPA, 2004A). Metals

are typically released into the environment in particulate or aerosol form. Once released into the

environment, in this case via the air, metals can be distributed among a variety of environmental

media (e.g., soil, sediment, water). Terrestrial wildlife and plants can accumulate metals from

direct contact with the soil or sediment, with wildlife also accumulating metals via the ingestion

of contaminated foods. Aquatic species accumulate metals via respiration, dermal absorption

and diet. Consequently, since metals have the potential to accumulate in plants, most of the


secondary exposure pathways for exposure via ingestion previously listed were evaluated. With

respect to seafood procurement for the First Nation families the exposure relates to ingestion of

molluscs.

For the assessment of chronic health risks, exposure is assessed using a multi-media exposure

model to account for the secondary pathways of exposure (i.e., soil, vegetation, country food,

molluscs, domestic animal and wild game ingestion). The model allows for the estimation of the

chemical exposure that might occur to the receptors through the primary inhalation pathway and

the various secondary pathways.

5.1.4 Summary of Problem Formulation Specific to the Project

The major outcomes of the Projects Problem Formulation are summarized in Table 5-3. The

Table shows the compounds, receptors and exposure pathways chosen for assessment.

Table 5-3: Summary of the Problem Formulation

SCENARIO CHEMICAL TYPE OF IMPACT

RECEPTOR TYPE EXPOSURE PATHWAY

Acute First Nation families Agricultural families Residential Recreational

Inhalation Existing Baseline (2003) Project Construction Project Operation CEA

Criteria compounds (SO2, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO) Organic compounds (VOCs and PAHs) Metals

Chronic First Nation families Agricultural families Residential

Inhalation Ingestion Dermal

In most instances, baseline health in the local study area was unremarkable suggesting a healthy

population. The exception is the First Nations which should be considered a population at risk

since factors such as lower socio-economic and health status may increase their sensitivity to

impacts from the Project. However, it is unclear as to the exact nature of the relationship between

Health Determinants and their impacts on health.


5.1.5 Toxicity/Hazard Assessment

The Toxicity or Hazard Assessment stage of the risk assessment involves identification and

understanding of the potential health impacts that can be produced by each of the COPC and the

conditions under which these effects are observed. The assessment relies on the first principle

that the dose of a chemical largely dictates the nature and magnitude of any health impacts that

can be expressed. More specifically, it is the amount of the chemical that reaches the critical

target site within the living system that determines whether an adverse response will be

produced.

For the purposes of the assessment, chemicals are commonly categorized into one of two types

depending on the nature of the toxic response. ‘Threshold’ chemicals comprise the largest

category. These chemicals are distinguished by the fact that a certain threshold or minimum dose

is required before any toxicity is expressed. Once the threshold dose is exceeded, some form of

toxic response is produced, the magnitude of which increases with increasing dose. The

threshold phenomenon applies to virtually all types of toxic responses and chemicals, with the

exception of some carcinogens and some forms of cancer. For chemicals with threshold-type

dose-response relationships, for which no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) can be

determined, a NOAEL represents the dose of the chemical that produces no obvious response in

the most sensitive test species and test endpoint. The NOAEL can then be used to derive an

exposure limit or safe level of the chemical through application of uncertainty or safety factors

that provide an added level of protection (e.g., protection for sensitive individuals and potential

inter-species differences). The exposure limit represents the dose of the chemical that is

expected to be without effect on even the most sensitive subjects following exposure for a

prescribed time period.

‘Non-threshold’ chemicals comprise a select group of substances, which potentially can produce

cancer through a genetically mediated mechanism. A mathematical model-unit risk estimation

approach which is generally applied to genotoxic carcinogens and is based on the assumption

that "absolutely no risk of the occurrence of adverse effects" yields an estimate of a unit risk

cancer potency estimate (q1*), from which a risk-specific dose (RsD) is calculated. Regulatory


policy in effect in many jurisdictions suggests that no safe dose level exists for this type of

carcinogen and that the threshold phenomenon does not apply.

The exact terminology by which threshold and non-threshold exposure limits are known differs

according to the source and type of exposure, and will often vary between regulatory

jurisdictions. Generic nomenclature has been developed, with the following terms and

descriptions commonly used:

Threshold

• Reference Concentration (RfC) … Refers to the safe levels of air-borne chemicals

in which the primary (and almost exclusive) avenue of exposure is through

inhalation. It is expressed as a concentration of the chemical in air (e.g., µg/m3).

• Reference Dose (RfD) … Refers to the safe levels of chemicals to which exposure

occurs through multiple pathways. It is most commonly expressed in terms of the

total intake of the chemical (e.g., mg/kg body weight (bw)/day).

Non-threshold

• Risk-Specific Dose (RsD) … Reserved for certain carcinogens and refers to the

dose of the carcinogen that results in a socially acceptable increased incidence of

cancer, typically in the one in 100,000 to one in 1,000,000 range. Alternatively, it

may be expressed as the dose that results in an acceptable incremental increase in

cancer incidence (i.e., 1 to 5%) above background rates.

• Risk-Specific Concentration (RsC) … Same meaning as that outlined for RsD, but

applies to air-borne chemicals that act as carcinogens and for which the primary

(and almost exclusive) avenue of exposure is through inhalation.

Because variability in toxic responses are often witnessed for the same chemical following acute

exposure versus chronic exposure, it is important to differentiate exposure limits on the basis of

duration of exposure. Ideally, both acute and chronic exposure limits are determined for each of

the COPC. Differentiating exposure limits on the basis of the duration of exposure respects the


variability in toxic responses that may be seen with the same chemical following an acute, or

short-term, challenge versus a chronic, or long-term, exposure. The two exposure limit durations

used in this assessment can be described as follows:

• Acute exposure limits refer to the amount or dose of a chemical that can be

tolerated without evidence of adverse health effects on a short-term basis. These

limits are routinely applied to conditions in which exposures extend over several

hours or several days only.

• Chronic exposure limits refer to the amount of a chemical that is expected to be

without effect, even when exposure occurs continuously or regularly over

extended periods, lasting for periods of at least a year, and possibly extending

across an entire lifetime.

The criteria used in the determination of exposure limits may differ depending on the responsible

scientific authority or regulatory jurisdiction charged with developing the safe level of exposure.

The limits also may differ in terms of the primary determinant(s) of concern (e.g., health effects

versus nuisance effects such as odour versus effects on vegetation versus damage to physical

structures and/or materials). In addition, the limits may vary depending on the level of protection

required.

Separate assessments were completed for both the acute and chronic exposure scenarios in

recognition of the fact that the toxic response produced by chemicals and the target tissues

affected can change, depending on whether exposure is short-term or long-term.

5.1.5.1 Exposure Limits Specific to the HHRA

For the purposes of the current health risk assessment, reliance was placed on exposure limits

developed by leading scientific authorities and regulatory agencies as objectives, guidelines or

standards for the protection of air quality and human health (i.e., BC MWLAP, Health Canada,

OMOE, US EPA, ATSDR). These objectives and guidelines typically incorporate a high level of

conservatism, in view of the mandate of the authorities to offer guidance aimed at the protection

of public health. The exposure limits used to assess acute and chronic health risks for each


COPC are summarised in Table 5-4 and Table 5-5. Toxicity summaries and a description of the

basis of the selected exposure limits are found in Appendix I.

The criteria for selection included the need for the exposure limits to be:

• Health-based.

• Protective of the health of the general public based on current scientific

understanding of the health effects known to be associated with exposures to the

compounds.

• Protective of vulnerable people, including children and the elderly.

• Established and/or recommended by reputable scientific or regulatory authorities.

• Supported by adequate documentation.

In some instances, the above criteria were satisfied by more than one objective, guideline or

standard, in which case the exposure limit was based, by default, on the most stringent objective,

simply to provide added assurance of protection. In some of these instances, the level of

stringency was judged to be questionable on the basis of the strength or relevance of the

scientific evidence used in support of the objective or standard. Each of the objectives,

guidelines or standards that served as candidates for selection respected the need for protection

of public health. Invariably, the determination of each guideline and standard encompassed

some measure of professional judgement.

A brief discussion of the sources, basis, and meaning of the exposure limits adopted for use is

presented below, arranged by compound category.

Criteria Air Compounds

The air quality guidelines or RfCs adopted for the criteria compounds are shown in Table 5-4.

The source of each limit is shown. Different averaging periods are indicated.


Table 5-4: Air Quality Guidelines Adopted for the Assessment of Potential Inhalation

Health Risks Associated with the Criteria Compounds in the Project’s Air Emissions(1)

COMPOUND

AIR QUALITY

GUIDELINES (µg/m3)

CATEGORY TYPE SOURCE

10-minute SO2 500 RfC AQG WHO, 2000 One-hour CO 14,300 RfC AAQO BC MWLAP, 1995 NO2

400 RfC AQG CCME, 1999 SO2 450 RfC NAAQ

O CCME, 1999

Eight-hour CO 5,500 RfC AAQO BC MWLAP, 1995 24-hour NO2 200 RfC NAAQ

O CCME, 1999

PM10 50 RfC AAQO/ AAQS

BC MWLAP, 1995 CARB, 2003

30 RfC CWS CCME, 2000 PM2.5 15 RfC RL HC/EC, 1999 SO2 150 RfC NAAQ

O CCME, 1999

Annual NO2 60 RfC AQG CCME, 1999 PM10 20 RfC AAQS CARB, 2003 PM2.5 12 RfC AAQS CARB, 2003 SO2 25 RfC AAQO BC MWLAP, 1995

1) References and details of the health effect basis for each air quality guideline are presented in Appendix I. N/A = not applicable

With few exceptions, the RfCs were selected from among the following federal, state or

provincial ambient air quality standards or objectives:

• The National Ambient Air Quality Objectives established by the Canadian

Council of the Ministers of the Environment (“CCME-NAAQO”).

• The Canada-wide Standards developed by the CCME (“CCME– CWS”).


• The Air Quality Objectives and Standards established by the British Columbia

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (“BCMWLAP-AAQO”).

• The Air Quality Objectives recommended by the Greater Vancouver Regional

District (“GVRD-AQO”).

• The National Ambient Air Quality Standards developed by the USEPA (“USEPA

– NAAQS”).

• The Ambient Air Quality Standards established by the Washington State

Department of Ecology (“WDOE – AAQS”).

In some instances, the RfCs were based on ambient air quality guidelines or standards developed

by other authorities, namely:

• The Air Quality Standards for PM developed by the California Air Resources

Board (“CARB-AQS”).

This latter guideline or standard has no legal standing in either jurisdiction of interest, but was

selected to provide an added level of conservatism to avoid understating any potential health

risks that the Project air emissions might present to people living in Roberts Bank region of

Delta, British Columbia and Whatcom County. It is stricter than the enforceable limits. If no

health risks from the Project air emissions were to be demonstrated based on comparisons

against these conservative limits, there is a high degree of confidence that public health will be

fully protected.

As stated above, the choice of RfC was driven by the need to protect health. Each of the

objectives, guidelines or standards that served as candidates met this criterion, as evidenced by

the following statements:

• The NAAQOs developed by the CCME under the authority vested in the

Canadian Environmental Protection Act are … “national goals for outdoor air

quality that protect public health, the environment, or aesthetic properties of the

environment. They are targets for air quality, measured at relevant receptors (e.g.,

persons, plants, animals, and materials)” (CCME, 1999).


• The CWS developed by the CCME … “encompass qualitative or quantitative

standards, guidelines, objectives, and criteria for protecting the environment and

human health”. The CWS for PM … are an important step towards the long-term

goal of minimizing the risks they impose to human health and the environment

(CCME, 2000).

• The AAQOs adopted by BC MWLAP and the AQOs recommended by the GRVD

reference the need to … “protect public health” as well as “personal comfort and

well-being” (BC GRVD, ab).

• The USEPA-NAAQSs represent … “a national target for an acceptable

concentration of a specific pollutant in air” (USEPA, 2002). Under the Clean Air

Act, the USEPA has developed two standards for each criteria compound: a

primary standard to protect public health, and a secondary standard to protect

public welfare from any known adverse effects of a compound (EPA, 2002).

• The WDOE-AQSs generally mimic the USEPA-NAAQSs, and capture the same

philosophy concerning the need for the standards to be protective of public health

and welfare.

The remaining RfC, which was obtained from CARB, provided an even higher level of

protection that captured not only the health of the general public, but also the health of

vulnerable individuals, as evidenced by the following statement:

• CARB in setting the AQSs for PM2.5 and PM10 sought to develop standards that

incorporated a margin of safety that would … “protect nearly all of the

population, including infants and children, against PM-associated effects

throughout the year” … and would capture the legislative directive to protect

identifiable susceptible subgroups, as well as the general population (CARB,

2002).


Non-Criteria Compounds

The selection criteria used for the exposure limits for the non-criteria compounds differed

somewhat from those used for the criteria compounds. Unlike the criteria compounds, non-

criteria compounds are not governed by ambient air quality objectives, guidelines or standards

promulgated by the CCME under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or by the USEPA

under the Clean Air Act. Provincial- or State- mandated air quality objectives and standards that

are legally enforceable also do not exist for the non-criteria compounds in either of the

jurisdictions of interest. Accordingly, exposure limits were chosen strictly on the basis of the

health-based selection criteria, without consideration of enforceability.

Reliance was placed on exposure limits developed by a number of regulatory authorities in

Canada and the US under the authority vested in various regulations and statutes aimed at the

protection of health and the environment. Emphasis was given to limits that were either national

in scope or developed by a reputable authority from which supporting documentation could be

retrieved. The limits that formed the basis of the exposure limits adopted for use included the

following:

• The Tolerable Concentrations (“TCs”), Tolerable Daily Intakes (“TDIs”),

Tumorigenic Concentrations 05 (“TC05s”) and Tumorigenic Doses 05 (“TD05s”)

developed by Health Canada.

• The Reference Concentrations (“RfCs”), Reference Doses (“RfDs”), Risk-specific

Concentrations (“RsCs”) and Risk-specific Doses (“RsDs”) developed by the

USEPA.

• The Ambient Air Quality Criteria (“AAQC”) recommended by the Ontario

Ministry of the Environment (“OMOE”).

• The Air Quality Guidelines (“AQG”) recommended by the WHO.

• The Reference Exposure Levels (“RELs”) recommended by the California Office

of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”).

• The Minimal Risk Levels (“MRLs”) developed by the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (“ATSDR”).


A listing of the exposure limits adopted for use is shown in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5: Exposure Limits Adopted for the Assessment of Potential Health Risks

Associated with the Non-criteria Compounds Found in the Project Air Emissions(1)

EXPOSURE LIMIT CHEMICAL ROUTE UNITS TYPE VALUE

REFERENCES

Short-term Acetaldehyde Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 500 OMOE, 2001 Acrolein Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 23.3 OMOE, 2001 Arsenic Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 0.3 OMOE, 2001 Benzene Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 160 ATSDR, 2004 Benzo(a)pyrene Inhalation n/a 1,3-Butadiene Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 22,000 AIHA, 2001 Cadmium Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 2 OMOE, 2001 Chromium VI Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 1.5 OMOE, 2001 Fluorene group Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 1,217 ATSDR, 2004 Formaldehyde Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 49.3 ATSDR, 2004 Manganese Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 2.5 OMOE, 2001 Naphthalene group Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 28.8 OMOE, 2001 Nickel Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 2 OMOE, 2001 Long-term Acetaldehyde Inhalation µg/m3 RsC 17.2 CEPA, 2000a

Inhalation µg/kg bw/day

RfD 0.13 CEPA, 2000b Acrolein

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RfD 7.5 CEPA, 2000b


RsD 0.00051 HC, 2003 Arsenic

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RsD 0.0036 HC, 2003


RsD 1.0 HC, 2003 Benzene

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RsD 0.032 HC, 2003


RsD 0.00014 OMOE, 1997 Benzo(a)pyrene (WMM)

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RsD 0.0034 OMOE, 1997


RsD 0.000038 WHO, 1999 Benzo(a)pyrene (IPM)

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RsD 0.0012 OMOE, 1997


RsD 0.033 CEPA, 2000c 1,3-Butadiene

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RsD 0.033 CEPA, 2000c


EXPOSURE LIMIT Inhalation µg/kg

bw/day RsD 0.00034 HC, 2003 Cadmium

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RfD 0.8 HC, 2003


RfD 1,500 U.S. EPA IRIS, 2004 Chromiun III

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RfD 1,500 U.S. EPA IRIS, 2004


RsD 0.00004326 HC, 2003 Chromium VI

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RfD 1 HC, 2003

Diesel PM Inhalation µg/m3 RfC 5 U.S. EPA IRIS, 2004 Inhalation µg/kg

bw/day RfD 25.3 U.S. EPA IRIS, 2004 Fluorene group

Oral µg/kg bw/day

RfD 40 U.S. EPA IRIS, 2004

Formaldehyde Inhalation µg/m3 RsD 1.9 CEPA, 2001 Inhalation µg/kg

bw/day RfD 0.016 HC, 2003 Manganese

Oral µg/kg bw/day



RfD 1 U.S. EPA IRIS, 2004 Naphthalene group

Oral µg/kg bw/day



RfD 0.007 HC, 2003 Nickel

Oral µg/kg bw/day


1) References and details of the health effect basis for each exposure limit are presented in Appendix I. N/A = not applicable

Each of the exposure limits was health-based, and captured the need to protect public health and

well-being, as evidenced by the following statements. It should be noted the limits were aimed at

guarding against non-cancer related health effects or cancer-related effects, depending on the

particular compound.

• The TC/TDIs recommended by Health Canada are … “concentrations to which it

is believed that a person can be exposed continuously over a lifetime without

deleterious effect”…based on non-carcinogenic health effects (Health Canada,

1996).


• The TC05/TD05 recommended by Health Canada are… “the concentration in

air/total intake associated with a 5% increase in incidence of mortality due to

tumours”… based on carcinogen health effects. (Health Canada, 1996, 2003).

• The RfCs/RfDs developed by the USEPA are … “used to estimate a level of

environmental exposure at or below which no adverse effect is expected to occur”

(USEPA IRIS, 2003).

• The RsCs/RsDs developed by the USEPA are unit risks (i.e., the upper-bound life

time cancer risk) translated into “…excess tumours that are expected to develop

per [100,000] people if exposed daily [to a hazardous substance] for a lifetime.”

(USEPA IRIS, 2003).

• The AAQCs developed by the OMOE represent human health or environmental

effect-based values that are … “not expected to cause adverse effects based on

continuous exposure” (OMOE, 2001).

• The RELs developed by the California OEHHA represent air concentrations that

would pose no significant health risk to human populations, including sensitive

subgroups. The RELs … “are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in

the population....” (OEHHA, 1999).

• The MRLs recommended by the ATSDR are … “estimates of the daily human

exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of

adverse non-cancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure”

(ATSDR, 2003).

In most instances, the regulatory limits were adopted outright, without any need for adjustment.

However, an additional uncertainty factor of 10 was applied to the Emergency Response

Planning Guidelines (ERPG-1) developed by American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA

2001). This was because the ERPG do not incorporate safety factors to protect sensitive

individuals. The ERPG were only used when regulatory limits from such agencies as Health

Canada or the US EPA were unavailable. This method was utilized for the development of the

acute exposure limit for 1,3-butadiene only. The ERPG-1 guidelines are intended for the general

population, but are derived as planning and emergency response guidelines, not exposure


guidelines. The ERPG-1 values represent the maximum airborne concentration below which it is

believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing

other than mild transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable

odour (AIHA, 2001). However, as previously mentioned, since they were not developed to

protect sensitive individuals, a ten-fold uncertainty factor was applied to the ERPG-1 value.

5.1.6 Exposure Assessment

The Exposure Assessment involves the estimation of the amounts of the COPC that the First

Nation families, agricultural families, local residents, and recreational receptors could potentially

be exposed to in the study area. The assessment distinguished between exposures of brief

duration (i.e., acute) and those of longer duration (i.e., chronic).

The primary objective of the Exposure Assessment was to predict, using a series of conservative

assumptions, the rate of exposure of the identified receptors to the COPC via the exposure

scenarios and pathways identified in the Problem Formulation for the Project. There are several

important elements in Exposure Assessment that will determine the extent of COPC exposure to

human receptors, including:

• The concentration of a COPC in environmental media as a result of direct air

emissions;

• The operational life of the Project was assumed to be the lifetime of a human (i.e.,

75 years), introducing the potential for chronic (i.e., long-term) exposure to the

emissions;

• The concentration of a COPC available to other environmental media;

• The various physical-chemical characteristics (e.g., water solubility, volatility,

deposition rates) which determine the fate and transport of the COPC in various

environmental media and the food chain;

• Absorption characteristics of a COPC once exposure has occurred; and,

• The activity patterns and characteristics of human receptors (e.g., respiration rate,

food consumption, etc.).


The assessment of the potential health risks resulting from chronic exposure was performed

using an in-house multi-media exposure risk assessment model (ERAM) that accounted for each

of the various secondary pathways involved (e.g., incidental ingestion of soils, dermal contact

with soils, consumption of produce). Full details concerning the model can be found in Appendix

K.

The following factors were incorporated into the exposure assessment:

• Physical-Chemical Properties of COPC: The specific physical-chemical properties of a

COPC (e.g., water solubility, volatility, and tendency to bind to environmental substrates)

will largely determine its behaviour in the environment. Thus, identification of the

physical-chemical characteristics of a COPC is important in estimating the potential

exposure of a COPC via a specific exposure pathway. This information can be found in

Appendix K.

• Bioavailability: The bioavailability of a chemical defines the fraction of the ambient

concentration of the chemical that is available to produce toxic impacts at a particular site

of action (i.e., target organ). The bioavailability fraction adjusts the external dose of the

chemical to reflect the internal dose that is available to produce systemic effects.

Bioavailability fractions were utilized in assessing the exposure to a systemically acting

chemical (e.g., benzene) where toxicity is dependent upon the internal dose of the

chemical and upon multiple exposure pathways (For more details see Appendix I). For

the criteria pollutants, diesel PM, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde bioavailability

fractions were not applied, since their toxicity is dependent on air concentration only,

rather than on total internal dose.

• Receptor Characteristics and Exposure Pathways: Four receptor scenarios were

developed in the risk assessment: First Nation families, agricultural families, local

residents and recreational users. The contribution of a particular route of exposure (e.g.,

inhalation, ingestion) to total exposure is determined by chemical behaviour and fate in

the environment, as well as by the receptor characteristics relevant to each route of


exposure (e.g., breathing rate, food consumption rate, area of skin exposed). Specific

receptor characteristics used in the assessment were selected to best reflect the lifestyle

characteristics of First Nation families and residents in the local study area. Receptor

characteristics and exposure variables are summarized in Appendix K.

5.1.6.1 Predicted Air Concentrations

The assessment relied extensively on the air dispersion modeling results performed by RWDI for

this project. The results were in the form of predicted ground-level air concentrations for each of

the various chemical constituents found in the air emissions. The results were expressed as a

function of different averaging times (i.e., one-hour average, 24-hour and annual average) so

exposures could be calculated on either an acute or chronic basis.

Short-term (10-minute, one-hour, eight-hour, 24-hour) and chronic (annual) predicted air

concentrations at the selected receptor locations are presented in Tables L-1 to L-21 in Appendix

L.

5.1.6.2 Consideration of Background Air Quality

Assumed background ambient air concentrations assumed for the risk assessment are presented

in Table 5-6.

Assumed background ambient air concentrations for the criteria chemicals were identified by

RWDI in Section 4.0., and are presented in Table 5-6.

For the non-criteria chemicals assumed background ambient air concentrations are based on

urban background air concentrations obtained from the scientific literature, typically from cities

within Canada, with the exception of diesel PM. Diesel PM was based on the assumption that

diesel exhaust is responsible for 1 µg/m3 of PM2.5 across the Greater Vancouver Regional

District (Bates et al., 2003). Non-criteria ambient air concentrations are presented in Table 5-6.


Table 5-6: Assumed Background Ambient Air Concentrations from Urban Areas.

CHEMICAL AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION

[µg/m3]

REFERENCE

Criteria 10-minute SO2 15.0 Table 4-9

CO 2634.0 Table 4-9 NO2 (1) Table 4-9

One-hour

SO2 10.5 Table 4-9 Eight-hour CO 2276.1 Table 4-9

NO2 (1) Table 4-9 PM2.5 15.6 Table 4-9 PM10 26.9 Table 4-9

24-hour

SO2 6.8 Table 4-9 NO2 (1) Table 4-9 PM2.5 5.4 Table 4-9 PM10 13.3 Table 4-9

Annual

SO2 2.4 Table 4-9 Non-criteria Acetaldehyde 1.23 Keill and Maykut 2003: six city average in

Washington’s Puget Sound Acrolein 0.18 CEPA 2000b; Mean concentrations (24-hour samples)

for 15 sites in 5 provinces including rural, suburban, and urban locations

Arsenic 0.00112 Keill and Maykut 2003: six city average in Washington’s Puget Sound

Benzene 2.03 NAPS 1999, 2001, 2002; Annual mean of 24-hour averages; Vancouver.

1,3-Butadiene 0.30 NAPS (2001, 2002); Annual mean of 24-hour averages; Vancouver

Cadmium 0.000328 Keill and Maykut 2003; six city average in Washington’s Puget Sound

Chromium (III) 0.00142 Keill and Maykut 2003; six city average in Washington’s Puget Sound

Chromium (VI) 0.000123 Keill and Maykut 2003; six city average in Washington’s Puget Sound

Diesel PM 1.0 Bates et al 2003 Fluorene group 0.0032 Environment Canada 1998; Median air concentration

between 1987 and 1997 at 35 Canadian sites. Formaldehyde 1.31 Keill and Maykut 2003; six site average in Washington’s

Puget Sound Manganese 0.02 WHO 1999; Annual geometric mean concentration in

the Vancouver, Canada area in 1984 Naphthalene group 0.94 HSDB 2004; Median naphthalene level in urban air in

11 US cities Nickel 0.0016 Keill and Maykut 2003; six city average in

Washington’s Puget Sound 1) Ambient ratio method was used to calculate background NO2 concentrations and thus background

concentrations vary by receptor location. Background NO2 concentrations are presented in Appendix L for each receptor location.


Background concentrations were not added to predicted chronic ground-level air concentrations

for the carcinogens (i.e., acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, 1,3-butadiene,

cadmium, chromium VI, formaldehyde) because incremental cancer risks above background

were calculated, which is standard risk assessment procedure for carcinogens.

5.1.7 Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization represents the final step of the paradigm and involves comparison of the

exposure estimates (determined as part of the Exposure Assessment) to the exposure limits

(developed as part of the Toxicity/Hazard Assessment) in order to predict the potential health

risks that might be associated with the release of each of the COPC. The potential risk is

expressed as an “Exposure Ratio”, calculated as follows:

Exposure Estimate Exposure Ratio =

Exposure Limit

Alternatively, in cases in which exposure by inhalation is the only pathway of concern, the

potential risk is expressed as a “Concentration Ratio” (CR), calculated as follows:

Concentration in Air Concentration Ratio (CR) = Reference Concentration (RfC)

Interpretation of the Exposure Ratios (or Concentration Ratios) proceeds as follows:

• ER or CR < 1.0 … Signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure

limit (i.e., the safe level of exposure) and no health risks are indicated. Added

assurance of protection is provided by the fact that the derivation of both the

exposure limit and the exposure estimate typically embraces a high degree of

conservatism.


• ER or CR > 1.0 and < 10 … Signifies some potential risk, interpretation of the

significance of which must necessarily weigh the degree of conservatism

incorporated into the HHRA. Generally this requires that the assumptions used in

the Toxicity Assessment and Exposure Assessment be reviewed to determine

whether they reflect “realistic-case” versus “worst-case” scenarios.

• ER or CR > 10 … Signifies a higher likelihood of potential health risks. Efforts

should be directed at mitigating the potential risk through various risk

management measures. As part of this effort, “sensitivity analysis” aimed at

identifying the primary sources and determinants of the risk can be performed.

Mitigation can then focus on these sources and determinants.

Some uncertainty is invariably introduced at each stage of the risk assessment. Typically, the

risk assessment proceeds in the face of many unknowns, which emerge due to lack of

information and/or lack of understanding. This uncertainty must be acknowledged and

documented. To compensate for the uncertainty, it is common practice to build a number of

worst-case assumptions into each stage of the risk assessment such that any potential impacts are

much more likely to be overestimated than understated. This fits with the ultimate goal of risk

assessment, which is the protection of human health and the environment. As with the

uncertainty, it is important that the assumptions used be acknowledged, understood, and

documented.

5.2 RESULTS OF THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

5.2.1 Inhalation Exposure Assessment

Predicted ground level air concentrations were compared to exposure limits for the acute and

chronic effects assessments for all receptor locations and for each development scenario. The CR

values were calculated on the basis of the ground-level air concentrations of the COPC predicted

for short-term averaging periods (i.e., 10-minute, one-hour, eight-hour, and 24-hour) and long-

term averaging periods (annual) and compared to applicable exposure limits. For convenience,

the CR values were presented for one representative receptor location selected from each


receptor type (agricultural families, local resident [Canadian and U.S.] and recreational). The

First Nations receptor type was represented by only one receptor location (i.e., the Tsawwassen

First Nation). The results are presented in Tables 5-7 through 5-15. Details pertaining to each of

the other receptors locations within the residential, agricultural, and recreational receptor types

are provided in Appendix M.

5.2.1.1 Short-term (Acute) Concentration Ratios

Potential acute inhalation health risks for chemicals assessed at the selected receptor locations,

for each receptor type (i.e., First Nation families, agricultural families, local resident [Canadian

and U.S.] and recreational), for all development scenarios are summarized in Tables 5-7 through

5-11.

The findings reveal that the CR values were uniformly less than 1.0 (with and without

background) signifying negligible acute health risks for all development scenarios. The

characterization of negligible acute health risks applied irrespective of the chemical constituent,

residential receptor location, or averaging period examined.


Table 5-7 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Tsawwassen First Nation Receptor (1)

WITHOUT BACKGROUND WITH BACKGROUND (3) CHEMICAL (2) EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION

CEA PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Criteria 10-minute

SO2 (4)

0.19 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.25 0.22 CO 0.0019 0.0050 0.0049 0.0023 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 NO2 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

One-hour

SO2 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.17 Eight-hour

CO 0.0019 0.0055 0.0052 0.0023 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42

NO2 0.11 0.133 0.13 0.12 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 PM2.5 (CWS) 0.046 0.053 0.050 0.051 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 PM10 0.076 0.086 0.079 0.081 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.62

24-hour

SO2 0.041 0.051 0.046 0.041 0.086 0.096 0.092 0.087 Organic Compounds Acetaldehyde 0.00014 0.00017 0.00015 0.00017 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 Acrolein 0.00081 0.00060 0.00054 0.0011 0.0085 0.0083 0.0083 0.0089 Benzene 0.00073 0.0016 0.0015 0.0011 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.014 1,3-Butadiene 0.00000052 0.0000017 0.0000016 0.00000076 0.000014 0.000015 0.000015 0.000014 Fluorene group (5) 0.00000025 0.00000031 0.00000030 0.00000025 0.0000029 0.0000029 0.0000029 0.0000029 Formaldehyde 0.016 0.010 0.0091 0.022 0.042 0.037 0.036 0.049 Naphthalene group (6) 0.000092 0.00012 0.00011 0.000094 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 Metals Arsenic 0.00016 0.00019 0.00018 0.00016 0.0038 0.0039 0.0038 0.0038 Cadmium 0.000022 0.000026 0.000025 0.000023 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 Chromium (III) (7) 0.000011 0.000013 0.000012 0.000011 0.00094 0.00095 0.00095 0.00094 Chromium (VI) (8) 0.00000095 0.0000011 0.0000011 0.0000010 0.000081 0.000081 0.000081 0.000081 Manganese 0.000037 0.000047 0.000041 0.000038 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 Nickel 0.000058 0.000068 0.000065 0.000060 0.00086 0.00087 0.00087 0.00086

1) A CR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. 2) Acute exposure limits were not available for one-hour PM2.5, one-hour PM10, 24-hour carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene, or diesel PM.


3) Background air concentrations for criteria chemicals are based on the 98th percentile ambient air concentration as presented by RWDI West Inc. (2004), with the exception of NO2 for which the ambient ratio method was used to calculate background NO2 concentrations and thus NO2 background concentrations may vary between receptor locations. Background air concentrations for non-criteria chemicals are based on urban ambient air concentrations typically obtained for cities within Canada (see main report for further detail).

4) 10-minute sulphur dioxide was calculated from the predicted one-hour sulphur dioxide air concentration using a conversion factor of 1.43. 5) Represents the constituents of the fluorene group (i.e., fluorene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pyrene). 6) Represents the constituents of the naphthalene group (i.e., acenaphthene, acenaphthylene and naphthalene). 7) Calculated as 92% of the predicted total chromium air concentration. 8) Calculated as 8% of the predicted total chromium air concentration. CWS = Canada-wide Standard


Table 5-8 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Agricultural Receptors (1,2)


PROJECT OPERATION


EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Criteria 10-minute

SO2 (5)

0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 CO 0.0033 0.0059 0.0054 0.0038 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 NO2 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31

One-hour

SO2 0.083 0.089 0.083 0.083 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Eight-hour

CO 0.0023 0.0059 0.0058 0.0028 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42

NO2 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 PM2.5 (CWS) 0.040 0.049 0.041 0.043 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.56 PM10 0.084 0.099 0.085 0.10 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.64

24-hour


1) A CR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. 2) Three agriculture receptors were assessed as a part of the HHRA (Farmer 1, Farmer 2, and Farmer 3); however, one representative receptor (Farmer

1) was selected for presentation below. Details pertaining to the other agricultural receptors are provided in Appendix M.


3) Acute exposure limits were not available for one-hour PM2.5, one-hour PM10, 24-hour carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene, or diesel PM. 4) Background air concentrations for criteria chemicals are based on the 98th percentile ambient air concentration as presented by RWDI West Inc.

(2004), with the exception of NO2 for which the ambient ratio method was used to calculate background NO2 concentrations and thus NO2 background concentrations may vary between receptor locations. Background air concentrations for non-criteria chemicals are based on urban ambient air concentrations typically obtained for cities within Canada (see main report for further detail).



Table 5-9 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Canadian Residential Receptors (1,2)


PROJECT OPERATION


EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Criteria 10-minute

SO2 (5)

0.18 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.21 0.27 0.26 0.21 CO 0.0018 0.0032 0.0031 0.0023 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 NO2 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30

One-hour

SO2 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.16 0.21 0.20 0.16 Eight-hour

CO 0.0018 0.0031 0.0028 0.0021 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42

NO2 0.159 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 PM2.5 (CWS) 0.051 0.057 0.054 0.053 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.57 PM10 0.088 0.11 0.090 0.10 0.63 0.64 0.63 0.64

24-hour


1) A CR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected.


2) Five Canadian residential receptors were assessed as a part of the HHRA (Steveston, Ladner, Beach Grove, Boundary Bay, and Tsawwassen); however, one representative receptor (Tsawwassen) was selected for presentation below. Details pertaining to the other Canadian residential receptors are provided in Appendix M.





Table 5-10 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the U.S. Residential Receptors (1,2)


PROJECT OPERATION


EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Criteria 10-minute

SO2 (5)

0.18 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.21 CO 0.0022 0.0034 0.0031 0.0026 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 NO2 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30

One-hour

SO2 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.16 Eight-hour

CO 0.0024 0.0038 0.0035 0.0028 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42

NO2 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 PM2.5 (CWS) 0.051 0.064 0.059 0.060 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 PM10 0.085 0.10 0.084 0.10 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.64

24-hour




2) Two U.S. residential receptors were assessed as a part of the HHRA (Point Roberts 1 and Point Roberts 2); however, one representative receptor (Point Roberts 2) was selected for presentation below. Details pertaining to the other U.S. residential receptor are provided in Appendix M.





Table 5-11 Acute Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Recreational Receptor (1)


PROJECT OPERATION


EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Criteria 10-minute

SO2 (4)

0.17 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 CO 0.0017 0.0032 0.0029 0.0019 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 NO2 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

One-hour

SO2 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.15 Eight-hour

CO 0.0020 0.0040 0.0037 0.0022 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42

NO2 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 PM2.5 (CWS) 0.050 0.055 0.051 0.053 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 PM10 0.059 0.069 0.057 0.069 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.61

24-hour




5.2.1.2 Long-term (Chronic) Concentration Ratios

Potential chronic inhalation health risks for chemicals assessed at the selected receptor locations,

for each receptor type (i.e., First Nation families, agricultural families, local resident [Canadian

and U.S.] and recreational), for all development scenarios are summarized in Tables 5-12

through 5- 15.

Similar to the short-term CR values, examination of the findings reveal that the CR values were

uniformly less than 1.0 (with and without background), signifying negligible health risk for all

development scenarios.

5.2.2 Chronic Multimedia Health Risk Assessment

Estimated chronic health risks due to chronic multiple pathway exposures for chemicals assessed

at the selected receptor locations, for each receptor type (i.e., First Nation families, agricultural

families), for all development scenarios are summarized in Tables 5-16 and 5-17. Chronic

multimedia exposures were not assessed for the local resident and recreational user receptors

since they were assumed to be exposed to the COPC via inhalation alone.

The exposure ratios (ER) for all scenarios are below 1.0 (with or without background) signifying

that adverse chronic health risks from the COPC are negligible. A comparison of maximum

predicted ground level air concentrations for the Baseline, Project Operation and CEA cases

indicates that incremental COPC air concentrations from the Project are minimal and it is not

expected to influence human health.


Table 5-12 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Tsawwassen First Nation Receptor (1)

WITHOUT BACKGROUND WITH BACKGROUND (3,4) CHEMICAL (2) EXISTING

BASELINE PROJECT

OPERATION CEA PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Criteria NO2 0.037 0.051 0.050 0.042 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 PM2.5 0.023 0.029 0.026 0.026 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 PM10 0.014 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 SO2 0.026 0.030 0.026 0.027 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 Organic Compounds Acetaldehyde 0.00041 0.00055 0.00054 0.00051 Acrolein 0.00088 0.0013 0.0012 0.0011 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Benzene 0.00071 0.0018 0.0018 0.00092 Benzo(a)pyrene (IPM) 0.018 0.025 0.024 0.021 Benzo(a)pyrene (WMM) 0.0040 0.0052 0.0050 0.0045 1,3-Butadiene 0.0021 0.0071 0.0069 0.0027 Diesel PM 0.027 0.035 0.034 0.030 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 Fluorene group 0.00000029 0.00000061 0.00000059 0.00000032 0.000042 0.000042 0.000042 0.000042 Formaldehyde 0.0077 0.011 0.010 0.010 Naphthalene group 0.000065 0.00013 0.00013 0.000073 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Metals Arsenic 0.0032 0.0042 0.0040 0.0036 Cadmium 0.0047 0.0061 0.0059 0.0054 Chromium (III) 0.00000000038 0.00000000049 0.00000000047 0.00000000043 0.00000030 0.00000030 0.00000030 0.00000030 Chromium (VI) 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.0013 Manganese 0.00020 0.00030 0.00029 0.00022 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Nickel 0.00062 0.00079 0.00077 0.00070 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081

1) A CR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. 2) A chronic exposure limit was not available for carbon monoxide. 3) Background air concentrations for criteria chemicals are based on the 98th percentile ambient air concentration as presented by RWDI West Inc.


4) Cancer risks are not summed for the risk estimates incorporating background because they are calculated based on an acceptable incremental risk above background.


Table 5-13 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Agricultural Receptors (1,2)


BASELINE PROJECT



PROJECT OPERATION



1) A CR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. 2) Three agriculture receptors were assessed as a part of the HHRA (Farmer 1, Farmer 2, and Farmer 3); however, one representative receptor (Farmer

1) was selected for presentation below. Details pertaining to the other agricultural receptors are provided in Appendix M. 3) A chronic exposure limit was not available for carbon monoxide.


Table 5-14 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the Canadian Residential Receptors (1,2)


BASELINE PROJECT



PROJECT OPERATION



1) A CR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. 2) Five Canadian residential receptors were assessed as a part of the HHRA (Steveston, Ladner, Beach Grove, Boundary Bay, and Tsawwassen);

however, one representative receptor (Tsawwassen) was selected for presentation below. Details pertaining to the other Canadian residential receptors are provided in Appendix M.

3) A chronic exposure limit was not available for carbon monoxide.


Table 5-15 Chronic Concentration Ratios (CRs) for the U.S. Residential Receptors (1,2)


BASELINE PROJECT



PROJECT OPERATION



1) A CR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. 2) Two U.S. residential receptors were assessed as a part of the HHRA (Point Roberts 1 and Point Roberts 2); however, one representative receptor

(Point Roberts 2) was selected for presentation below. Details pertaining to the other U.S. residential receptor are provided in Appendix M. 3) A chronic exposure limit was not available for carbon monoxide. 4) Background air concentrations for criteria chemicals are based on the 98th percentile ambient air concentration as presented by RWDI West Inc.

(2004), with the exception of NO2 for which the ambient ratio method was used to calculate background NO2 concentrations and thus NO2


background concentrations may vary between receptor locations. Background air concentrations for non-criteria chemicals are based on urban ambient air concentrations typically obtained for cities within Canada (see main report for further detail).



Table 5-16 Exposure Ratios (ERs) for the Tsawwassen First Nation Receptor (1)

WITHOUT BACKGROUND WITH BACKGROUND (3,4) CHEMICAL (2) EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Organic Compounds Acrolein 0.0017 0.0025 0.0024 0.0022 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Benzene 0.00074 0.0019 0.0018 0.00095 Benzo(a)pyrene (IPM)

0.020 0.027 0.026 0.023

Benzo(a)pyrene (WMM)

0.0077 0.0099 0.0096 0.0065

1,3-Butadiene 0.0022 0.0075 0.0074 0.0029 Fluorene group 0.00000048 0.0000010 0.0000010 0.00000055 0.000074 0.000074 0.000074 0.000074 Naphthalene group

0.0017 0.0025 0.0024 0.0022 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88

Metals Arsenic 0.026 0.034 0.033 0.030 Cadmium (Non-Carcinogen)

0.00087 0.0011 0.0011 0.0010 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047

Chromium (III) 0.00000017 0.00000023 0.00000022 0.00000018 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 Chromium (VI) (Non-Carcinogen)

0.0000016 0.0000020 0.0000019 0.0000018 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020

Manganese 0.00041 0.00064 0.00061 0.00045 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Nickel 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.0013 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

1) An ER equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. Exposure was estimated via CEI’s multi-pathway exposure model.

2) Acetaldehyde, diesel PM and formaldehyde were not assessed through the multi-pathway exposure model (basis for exclusion is discussed in the main report); however, these chemicals are expected to contribute to the mixtures via inhalation (i.e., CR).

3) Background air concentrations are based on urban ambient air concentrations, typically from cities within Canada. 4) Cancer risks are not summed for the risk estimates incorporating background because they are calculated based on an acceptable incremental risk

above background. Bold = indicates an ER greater than 1.0


Table 5-17 Exposure Ratios (ERs) for the Agricultural Receptors (1,2)

WITHOUT BACKGROUND WITH BACKGROUND (4,5) CHEMICAL (3) EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


EXISTING BASELINE

PROJECT OPERATION


Organic Compounds Acrolein 0.0011 0.0017 0.0017 0.0013 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Benzene 0.00065 0.0021 0.0020 0.00084 Benzo(a)pyrene (IPM) 0.020 0.030 0.029 0.022 Benzo(a)pyrene (WMM) 0.023 0.029 0.028 0.024 1,3-Butadiene 0.0020 0.0085 0.0084 0.0025 Fluorene group 0.00000042 0.0000011 0.0000011 0.00000048 0.000090 0.000091 0.000091 0.000090 Naphthalene group 0.0011 0.0017 0.0017 0.0013 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Metals Arsenic 0.0043 0.0061 0.0060 0.0049 Cadmium (Non-Carcinogen) 0.000022 0.000029 0.000029 0.000025 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 Chromium (III) 0.00000012 0.000000168 0.00000017 0.00000011 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 Chromium (VI) (Non-Carcinogen) 0.00000056 0.00000076 0.00000074 0.00000063 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 Manganese 0.00025 0.00045 0.00044 0.00027 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Nickel 0.00072 0.00096 0.00094 0.00077 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

1) An ER equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is less than the exposure limit and no health impacts are expected. Exposure was estimated via CEI’s multi-pathway exposure model.

2) Three agriculture receptors were assessed as a part of the HHRA (Farmer 1, Farmer 2, and Farmer 3); however, one representative receptor (Farmer 1) was selected for presentation below. Details pertaining to the other agricultural receptors are provided in Appendix M.

3) Acetaldehyde, diesel PM and formaldehyde were not assessed through the multi-pathway exposure model (basis for exclusion is discussed in the main report); however, these chemicals are expected to contribute to the mixtures via inhalation (i.e., CR).

4) Background air concentrations are based on urban ambient air concentrations, typically from cities within Canada. 5) Cancer risks are not summed for the risk estimates incorporating background because they are calculated based on an acceptable incremental risk

above background. Bold = indicates an ER greater than 1.0


5.2.3 Consideration of PM

Risk estimates for PM2.5 and PM10 were calculated using the method outlined in the BC Lung

Association report Health and Air Quality 2002 – Phase 1: Methods for Estimating and Applying

Relationships between Air Pollution and Health Effects (Bates et al, 2003). Health risks were

calculated for mortality, respiratory hospital admissions (RHA) and cardiac hospital admissions

(CHA). In order to assess potential heath outcomes due to exposure to PM the predicted ground-

level PM concentrations at Ladner and Tsawwassen were used to represent the Corporation of

Delta (population 97,210). Other local communities are unlikely to show significant measurable

health effects due to their much smaller population sizes.

Bates et al. (2003) recommend use of a quantitative effects estimation model to determine the

overall potential health impacts as a result of changes in PM. The model considers:

• Incremental air quality changes (air concentrations, µg/m3)

• Concentration-response factors (CRFs) for specific health effects (outcomes per

µg/m3)

• Estimated number of effects (health outcomes)

The incremental changes to the predicted PM air concentrations were calculated by subtracting

the Existing Baseline concentrations from the Project Operation (Project + Existing Baseline)

concentrations (see Table 5-18).

Table 5-18: Predicted incremental changes in PM2.5 and PM10 in Ladner and Tsawwassen

as a result of the Project

MAXIMUM PROJECT-RELATED INCREMENTAL AIR

CHANGES (µg/m3)

PM2.5 PM10 COMMUNITY

24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual

Ladner 0.2 0.03 0.2 0.03

Tsawwassen 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.05


Bates et al. (2003) present CRFs for a number of health effects associated with ambient levels of

PM2.5 and PM10. Some of these include mortality, respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations,

impaired lung function, restricted activity risk factors, and adverse respiratory symptoms.

However, as recommended by Health Canada (1999), the quantitative analysis for this

assessment focused on the potential impacts on daily mortality rates and changes in the rates of

hospital admissions attributable to cardio-respiratory causes. The CRFs for these health effects

were taken from the BC Lung Association report (Bates et al., 2003). The studies used by Bates

et al. (2003) were recommended by the Royal Society of Canada and include the reanalysis of

the National Mortality, Morbidity, and Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS) data (HEI 2003;

Dominici et al., 2003), the current Harvard Six-Cities Study (HEI 2000a) and the recent results

from the American Cancer Society Study (HEI 2000b) and the Health Canada studies of

Canadian cities (Pope et al., 2002; Pope et al., 1995). As well, Bates et al. (2003) reported

updated respiratory-cardio morbidity CFRs from Health Canada’s Air Quality Valuation Model

(AQVM) and from the Report of an Expert Panel to Review the Socio-Economic Models and

Related Components Supporting the Development of Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate

Matter and Ozone presented to the Royal Society of Canada, June 2001.

A range of CRFs representing uncertainty distributions for each health endpoint are presented in

Table 5-19 and Table 5-20.

Table 5-19: Mortality CRFs for PM10 and PM2.5 recommended for use in BC by Bates et

al. (2003)

HEALTH ENDPOINT CRF (% PER 10 µg/m3

INCREASE)

SOURCES

Acute, daily mortality Low 0.2 Central: 1 High: 1.3

NMAPS (corrected); Dominici et al., (2003) Stieb et al., (2002b, 2003) Six-Cities (updated)

Chronic, total mortality Low 1 Central: 4 High: 11

Time Series: Stieb et al., (2002b, 2003) PM10 &PM2.5 (Pope et al., 1995 and 2002) Six Cities Study (re-analysis)


Table 5-20: Morbidity CRFs for PM10 and PM2.5 adopted from the Air Quality Valuation

Model and recommended by Bates et al. (2003) for use in BC in the absence of regional

estimates

CRF HEALTH ENDPOINT PM2.5 PM10

RHA (daily per 1 µg/m3 increase)

Low: 1.00 x 10-8 Central: 1.21 x 10-8 High: 1.42 x 10-8


CHA (daily per 1 µg/m3 increase)



Changes in mortality events were calculated as follows:

∆Emort = CRF x ∆AC x BR x POP

Where:

∆Emort = changes in mortality events

CRF = concentration-response factor

∆AC = change in PM air concentration

BR = per capita mortality occurrence rate (0.0062, Bates et al. 2003)

POP = the exposed population (21,367 for Ladner and 21,337 for Tsawwassen)

Changes in morbidity events (i.e., CHA and RHA) were calculated using a slight alteration of the

mortality equation:

∆Emorb = CRF x ∆AC x POP

The key difference is that the CHA and RHA estimates are based on AQVM CRFs (Table 5-20)

which already have the per capita morbidity occurrence rates (i.e., BRs) incorporated into them.

The calculated risk estimates (see Table 5-21) indicate that measurable health effects as a result

of the Project’s PM emissions are unlikely to occur. The highest risk estimates are for annual

mortality in Ladner and Tsawwassen. Considering the relatively small populations of Ladner and

Tsawwassen (when compared against the populations of the urban centers upon which the CRFs


are based) and the small predicted increases in annual PM concentrations, it is improbable that

these low risk estimates would lead to measurable health effects in any of the communities

surrounding the Project.

Table 5-21: Changes in mortality and morbidity events attributable to predicted Project-

related increases in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations in Ladner and Tsawwassen

LADNER TSAWWASSEN HEALTH EFFECT PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10

Mortality (daily)

0.00007 (0.00001-0.00009)

0.00008 (0.00002-0.0001)

0.00007 (0.00001-0.00009)

0.00006 (0.00001-0.00008)

Mortality (annual)

0.02 (0.004-0.05)

0.02 (0.004-0.05)

0.02 (0.006-0.07)

0.03 (0.006-0.07)

CHA (daily) 0.00004 (0.00003-0.00005)

0.00003 (0.00002-0.00004)

0.00004 (0.00003-0.00005)

0.00003 (0.00002-0.00003)

RHA (daily) 0.00005 (0.00004-0.00006)

0.00003 (0.00003-0.0001)

0.00005 (0.00004-0.00006)

0.00003 (0.00002-0.0001)

Note: All risks are based on central estimates, each of which is accompanied by a range of values (in parentheses) that represent the low to high CRFs.

Interpretation of the mortality and morbidity health effects must consider the:

• Transferability of concentration-response functions: CRFs provide an estimate of

the relationship between the health endpoints of interest and PM concentrations.

CRFs may not always provide an adequate representation of the CRFs

relationship in times and places other than those in which they were estimated (as

is the case for some of the AQVM data).

• Extrapolation of concentration-response relations beyond the range of observed

PM data: A concentration-response relationship estimated by an epidemiological

study is likely not valid at concentrations below the range of concentrations

observed for the analysis location. The form of the CRF is log-linear and it is

expected that the confidence intervals increase substantially at the lower end of

the concentration range for health endpoints associated with PM2.5 and PM10.

• The local population likely isn’t “sufficient to produce a reasonably precise

estimate of the mortality [and morbidity] effect of PM” (Bates et al., 2003)


• The association between PM and mortality is small, explaining only a minor

fraction of daily mortality – this implies that the level of stress imposed by

ambient PM is low or that the population at risk is small (Frank and Tankersley,

2002).

• Due to the many sources of uncertainty inherent in PM risk analyses, any PM risk

estimates should not be interpreted as demonstrated health impacts or precise

measures of risk (US EPA, 2004).

Despite the limitations of the quantitative analysis and even though the population surrounding

the Project is too small to demonstrate an increased risk, it remains important to recognize that,

assuming a non-threshold response, any increases in PM “will enhance the risk of an outcome”

(Bates et al., 2003). However, considering that the:

• PM risk estimates determined using the Bates et al. (2003) approach were

generally low;

• Project contribution is very small for PM2.5 and PM10;

• 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations are not anticipated to exceed the Canada-Wide

Standard of 30 µg/m3 for any of the development scenarios;

• 24-hour PM10 concentrations are not expected to exceed BC’s Ambient Air

Quality Objective of 50 µg/m3 for any of the development scenarios; and the

• Annual PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations are not predicted to exceed California’s

Ambient Air Quality Standards of 12 µg/m3 and 20 µg/m3 for any of the

development scenarios,

the overall health risks associated with the Project’s PM emissions are characterized as being

low.

5.3 SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE HHRA AND HOW THESE WERE ADDRESSD

Intrinsic to virtually all health risk assessments is the practice of applying conservative

assumptions to accommodate the various uncertainties surrounding the predictions that are made.

These uncertainties apply both to the estimates of exposure and to the estimated safe levels of


exposure (i.e., exposure limits) that often require the extrapolation of health effects data across or

within species. Conservatism is introduced into the risk assessment paradigm as a means to

reduce the possibility of risks being over-looked or understated.

A considerable number of conservative assumptions were incorporated into the current HHRA,

including:

• Results of the air dispersion modelling are based on maximum continuous COPC

emission rates. The predicted ground level air concentrations therefore represent

the maximum levels likely to be encountered at each of the chosen receptor

locations.

• The air dispersion modelling incorporated one year of meteorological data from

the local area, and was deemed to capture conditions resulting in the maximum

ground level air concentrations.

• The exposure limits selected for use included safety factors to protect vulnerable

individuals who might be susceptible to the effects of air pollution.

• The predicted chronic health risks assumed that individuals would be exposed

continuously (i.e., 24 hours per day and 365 days per year) to the maximum

predicted concentrations for the duration of their lifetimes (i.e., the operating life

of the Project was assumed to be 75 years).

• The human receptor that is most sensitive to chemical exposure (composite for

carcinogens, toddler for all other chemicals) was deliberately reported in the risk

assessment.

• It was assumed the First Nation receptor consumed 100% of their focused diet

(i.e., wildlife game and seafood procurement), fruits and vegetables from food

obtained locally in the study area.

• It was assumed the agricultural receptor consumed 100% of their agricultural

items such as dairy products, poultry and eggs from food impacted by chemical

deposition.


• Estimated changes in tissue concentrations (plant, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife)

for applicable COPC were based on the maximum predicted air concentrations.

• It was assumed that no degradation over time of the chemical compounds in

vegetation occurred (i.e., only continuous accumulation).

• Water, soil and wildlife tissue concentrations for the future scenario (i.e., CEA

scenario) were predicted assuming 75 years of continuous operation and chemical

deposition. It was assumed that wildlife game would be continuously exposed to

the maximum predicted ground level air concentration (i.e., the maximum

predicted air concentration for each COPC at the receptor locations).

5.4 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF THE HHRA

Potential human health risks were assessed in relation to air emissions from the Project and other

emission sources in the study area. The risk assessment included the following components:

• Problem formulation

• Exposure assessment;

• Toxicity assessment; and

• Risk characterization.

The overall conclusions drawn from the HHRA are that the health risks are negligible for the

selected receptor locations from acute or chronic inhalation exposures, or from ingestion of food

grown or raised within the local study area. These findings applied to all chemicals, all receptor

locations, and all exposure scenarios.

Special consideration was given to the Project’s PM emissions. Health risks were estimated

using quantitative methods outlined by Bates et al. (2003). The resultant health risks were low

and considering that no guideline exceedances were predicted on either an acute or chronic basis,

overall health risks as they relate to PM were characterized as being low.


6.0 REFERENCES

AIHA (American Industrial Hygiene Association). 2001. Emergency Response Planning

Guidelines. AIHA Press.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1995. Toxicological Profile for

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), August 1995. URL:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp124.html

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2004. Minimal Risk Levels

(MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. January 2004.

Bates, D. 2002. Health Risk Assessment from Air Emissions. Prepared for West Coast

Environmental Law. October 2002.

Bates, D.V., Koenig, J., Brauer, M., RWDI West Inc. 2003. Health and Air Quality 2002 –

Phase I. Methods for Estimating and Applying Relationships between Air Pollution and

Health Effects. Final Report. Prepared for the BC Lung Association.

BC Hydro. 2003. Cold Iron in Vancouver. A study prepared for BC Hydro by HydrogENable.

June, 2003.

BC MWLAP (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection). 1995. Air Quality

Objectives and Standards. URL: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/air/airquality/airqual_1.pdf

BC Statistics. 2001. Census Profile of British Columbia’s British Electoral Districts Richmond-

Steveston.

Boulton, J.W., M. Gauthier, X. Qiu, M. Lepage, and C. di Cenzo. 2003. Emissions Inventory

Preparation and Air Quality Modelling in the Pacific Northwest, US EPA 12th Annual

Emissions Inventory Conference, San Diego, California, April, 2003.

Boulton, J.W., M. Lepage, X. Qiu, M. Gauthier, C. di Cenzo, and M. Hingston. 2004a.

Applications of Models-3 in Coastal Areas of Canada, 2004 Models-3 Users’ Workshop,

Raleigh, North Carolina, October, 2004 (in print).

Boulton, J.W., M. Lepage, X. Qiu, and M. Gauthier. 2004b. Atmospheric Modelling in the

Pacific Northwest: Studying the Effect of Zero-Emission Vehicles on Regional Air

Quality, Poster Session, Environment Canada’s Third Canadian Workshop on Air Quality


(AQ 2004), Pollutants across boundaries: The atmospheric transport of pollutants in

North America, Quebec City, Quebec, March, 2004.

California EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Health Effects of Particulate Matter.

December 2001. California EPA. 2001. Health Effects of Particulate Matter. Review of

the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. Public

Review Draft. December 2001. URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/ceh/airstandards.htm

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2002. Ambient Air Quality Standards. URL:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2003. Ambient Air Quality Standards. URL:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1996. A Protocol for the Derivation

of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. March 1996. The National

Contaminated Sites Remediation Program. Canadian Council for Ministers of the

Environment.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. Canadian Environmental

Quality Guidelines. URL: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/e1_062.pdf

CCME (Canadian Council Ministry of the Environment). 2000. Canada-Wide Standards for

Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. Accepted November 29, 1999, for Endorsement in

May 2000.

CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 1993. Priority Substances List Assessment

Report. Arsenic. Government of Canada.

CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 1994a. Priority Substances List Assessment

Report. Cadmium. Government of Canada.

CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 1994b. Priority Substances List Assessment

Report. Chromium. Government of Canada.

CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 2000a. Priority Substances List Assessment

Report. Acetaldehyde. Government of Canada, May 2000.

CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 2000b. Priority Substances List Assessment

Acrolein. Government of Canada. Ottawa.


CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 2000c. Priority Substances List Assessment

1,3-Butadiene. Government of Canada. Ottawa.

CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 2000d. Priority Substances List Assessment

Formaldehyde. Government of Canada. Ottawa.

CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 2001. Priority Substances List Assessment

Report. Formaldehyde. Government of Canada. February 2001.

City of Delta. 2001. 2001 Population Census. URL: http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/press_release/

2001population_census.pdf

di Cenzo, C. and M. Lepage. 2003. The Application of CMAQ over the Pacific Northwest to

Determine the Significance of the International Trans-Boundary Flows of Air

Contaminants. 2003 Models-3 Users’ Workshop, Raleigh, North Carolina. October,

2003.

Cooper. D.A., 2003. Exhaust Emissions from ships at Berth. Atmospheric Environment 37 p. 3817-3830.

Dominici, F., Daniels, M., McDermott, A, Zeger, S.L. 2003. Shape of the exposure-response

relation and mortality displacement in the NMMAPS database. Health Effects Institute.

pp. 91-96.

Eisler, R. 1987. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates:

A Synoptic Review. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.11). 81.pp.

Environment Canada. 2003a. Technologies and Other Options for Reducing Marine Vessel

Emissions in the Georgia Basin (Draft). A report prepared for Environment Canada by

Genesis Engineering Inc. May, 2003.

Environment Canada. 2003b. Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2001. Annex 10

National and Provincial Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends.

Environment Canada. 2004. Management Options for Marine Vessel Emissions. Draft final

report prepared for Environment Canada by BMT Fleet Technology Limited. June, 2004.

Frank, R., and Tankersley, C. 2002. Air pollution and daily mortality: a hypothesis concerning

the role of impaired homeostasis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110: 61-65.


Grob, K., Frauenfelder, C. and Artho, A. 1990. Uptake by foods of tetrachloroethylene,

trichloroethylene, toluene, and benzene from air. Z. Lebensm Unters Forsch 191: 435-

441.

GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District). 2003. Lower Fraser Valley Ambient Air Quality

Report 2002. Policy and Planning Department, GVRD.

Hattemer-Frey, H.A., Travis, C.C. and Land, M.L. 1990. Benzene: Environmental partitioning

and human exposure. Environ. Res. 53: 221-232. Cited In: ATSDR, 1997.

Health Canada. 1994. Human health risk assessment for priority substances. Canadian

Communication Group Publishing. Ottawa, Canada

Health Canada. 1995. Investigating Human Exposure to Contaminants in the Environment: A

Handbook for Exposure Calculations. Volume 1 – 3. Published by the Minister of

National Health and Welfare.

Health Canada. 1996. Health-Based Tolerable Daily Intakes/ Concentrations and Tumorigenic

Doses/ Concentrations for Priority Substances. Ottawa, ON.

Health Canada. 1998. The Health and Environment Handbook for Health Professionals.

Contaminant Profiles. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Health Canada/Environment Canada. 1999. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for

Particulate Matter. Part 1: Science Assessment Document. CEPA/Federal-Provincial

Advisory Committee Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. Ottawa.

Health Canada. 1999. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Matter:

Addendum to the Science Assessment Document. A report by the Federal – Provincial

Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. December 1997, Revised

April 1999.

Health Canada. 2003a. A Statistical Profile on the Health of First Nations in Canada. URL:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnihb-dgspni/fnihb/sppa/hia/publications/

statistical_profile.htm#Top

Health Canada. 2003. Health Determinants Approach. URL: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/

phdd/determinants/index.html


HEI (Health Effects Institute). 2000a. National Morbidity, mortality, and air pollution study.

Prepared by Jonathan M. Samet, Francesca Dominici, Scott Zeger, Joel Schwartz, and

Douglas Dockery. June 2000.

HEI (Health Effects Institute). 2000b. Special Report. Reanalysis of the Harvard six cities study

and the American Cancer Society study of particulate air pollution and mortality. A

special report of the institute’s particle epidemiology reanalysis project. July 2000.

HEI (Health Effects Institute). 2001. Airborne particles and health: HEI epidemiologic evidence.

HEI Perspectives. June 2001.

HEI (Health Effects Institute). 2003. Special Report. Revised analyses of time-series studies of

air pollution and health. May 2003.

Hrebenyk, B. 2004, Personal Communication

HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank). 2004. Database on-line search. URL:

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB

Jacques Whitford (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited). 2002. Deltaport Pod 3 Expansion

Environmental Screening Report. Prepared for the Vancouver Port Authority.

Krewski, D., and Thomas, R.D. 1992. Carcinogenic mixtures. Risk Anal 12(1):105-113.

Lepage, M. F., and M. Van Altena. 2001. The Effect of Electric Vehicles on Air Quality in

Canada: A Regional Air Quality Study. A&WMA 94th Annual Conference and

Exhibition. Orlando, Florida.

Levelton (Levelton Engineering Ltd.). 2002. Marine Vessel Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser

Valley for the Year 2000. Prepared for Policy and Planning Department Greater

Vancouver Regional District.

NAPS (National Air Pollution Surveillance). 1999. Annual Summary for 1997. Report EPS

7/AP/30. July 1999. Environmental Technology Advancement Directorate,

Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada.


7/AP/33. December 2001. Environmental Technology Advancement Directorate,




7/AP/34. December 2002. Environmental Technology Advancement Directorate,


O’Connor Associates Environmental Inc. and G. Mark Richardson. 1997. Compendium of

Canadian Human Exposure Factors for Risk Assessment.1155-2720 Queensview Dr.,

Ottawa, Ontario.

O2Diesel. 2003. Investing in a Clean Air Future. An O2Diesel Report. www.o2diesel.com

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment). 1999. Part I. The

Determination of ‘acute’ Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants. Air Toxics

Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. March 1999

Oke, Tim and John Hay. 1996. The Climate of Vancouver. Second Edition, BC Geographical

Series, Number 50. Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.

OMOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy). 1997. Scientific Criteria Document

for Multimedia Standards Development - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). Part

1: Hazard Identification and Dose-response Assessment. Ontario Ministry of

Environment and Energy, Standards Development Branch. February 1997.

OMOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy). 2001. Summary of Point-of-

Impingement Standards, Point-of-Impingement Guidelines, and Ambient Air Quality

Criteria (AAQCs). Standards Development Branch, Ministry of the Environment,

Ontario, September 2001.

Pope, C.A., Thun, M.J., Namboodiri, N.M., Dckery, D.W., Evans, J.S., Spiezer, F.E., Heath,

C.W. 1995. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of

US adults. Am. J. Crit. Care Med. 151: 669-674.

Pope, C.A., Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., and Thurston, G.D.

2002. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality and long-term exposure to fine particulate

air pollution. JAMA. 287(9), 1132-1141.

PSCAA (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency), ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality) and US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Non-

Road Diesel Emission Reduction Study. A report prepared by Genesis Engineering Inc.

and Levelton Engineering Ltd. October, 2003.


Qiu, X., M. Lepage, J. W. Boulton, M. Gauthier and C. di Cenzo. 2004. Urban and Regional Air

Quality Modelling in the Pacific Northwest. 4th AMS Annual Meeting. Seattle. January,

2004.

Railpower (Railpower Technologies Corporation). 2004. Website http://www.railpower.com/

greengoat.php (access date August 13, 2004)

Scheunert, I., Topp E., schmitzer, J. et al., 1985. Formation and fate of bound residues on

benzene and chlorobenzenes in soil and plants. Ecotox Environ. Safety. 9: 159-170.

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis and R.J. Yamartino. 2000. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Model

(Version 5.0). Concord, MA: Earth Technologies Inc.

Seed, J., Brown, R.P., Olin, S.S. and Foran, J.A. 1995. Chemical mixtures: Current risk

assessment methodologies and future directions. Regulatory Toxicology and

Pharmacology. 22: 76-94.

Statistics Canada. 2001. 2001 Community Profiles. URL: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/

Profil01/PlaceSearchForm1.cfm

Topp, E. Scheuner, I., and Korte, F. 1989. Kineticsof the uptake of 14C-labeled chlorinated

benzene from soil by plants. Ecotox Environ Safety. 17:157-166.

Tsawwassen First Nation. 2004. Land Facing the Sea: Tsawwassen First Nation. A Fact Book.

URL: http://www.tsawwassen-fn.org/TFN-BUILT_FEB2404.pdf

US EPA IRIS (United States Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Risk Information

System). 2004. IRIS Database On-line search. United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Emission Factors for

Locomotives. Document EPA420-97051. December 1997.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Human Health Risk

Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, Volume I Peer Review

Draft. (US) United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6. Multimedia

Planning and Permitting Division. Center for Combustion Science and Engineering.

Office of Solid Waste.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Analysis of Commercial

Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. EPA420-R-00-002.


US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Air Quality Criteria for

Particulate Matter. Fourth External Review Draft. June, 2003. United States

Environmental Protection Agency. URL: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/partmatt.htm

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Appendix W to Part 51,

Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Volume 68, No 72/April 15, 2003).

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004a. Framework for Metals Risk

Assessment. July 2004.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004b. Compression Ignition Inputs

for Draft NONROAD 2004: Appendix A Technology Distributions, Zero-hour, Steady-

state Emission Factors, Transient Adjustment Factors, Deterioration Factors.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Support Center for Regulatory

Air Models CALPUFF model code and documentation. URL: http://www.epa.gov/

scram001/tt22.htm#calpuff

Vitale, R.D., J.W. Boulton, M. Lepage, M. Gauthier, X. Qiu, and S. Lamy. 2004. Modelling the

Effects of E10 Fuels in Canada. US EPA 13th Annual Emissions Inventory Conference:

Working for Clean Air in Clearwater. Clearwater, Florida. June, 2004.

VPA (Vancouver Port Authority). 2001. Roberts Bank Cumulative Environmental Effects Study

Summary Report. Tradition Land Use Study. December 11.

WHO (World Health Organization). 1999. Air Quality Guidelines, WHO, 1999. Chapter 3.

Health-based Guidelines.

WHO (World Health Organization). 1999. Concise International Chemical Assessment

Document 12. Manganese and its Compounds. International Programme on Chemical

Safety. Geneva 1999.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2000. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. World Health

Organization: Copenhagen. URL: http://www.who.int/peh/air/Airqualityg

air quality assessment - jan05 · air quality assessment a standard assessment approach was used to...

Documents