2005 lower fraser valley air emissions - metro vancouver...di cenzo, henry quon, kelli dawson,...

2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions

January 2010

Inventory & Forecast and Backcast

Detailed Listing of Results and Methodology

Additional Information Questions and comments concerning the information presented in this report can

be addressed to:

Metro Vancouver Policy & Planning Department

Air Quality Policy & Management Division 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8

Telephone: (604) 451-6039 Fax: (604) 436-6701

Website: www.metrovancouver.org E-mail: [email protected]

2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions January 2010 Inventory & Forecast and Backcast

i

Preface This document is intended to provide detailed technical information to accompany the report titled “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” (Metro Vancouver, 2007). An emission inventory is a listing of all sources of air pollution within a defined region. It provides information on the types of emission sources in the Metropolitan Vancouver region, their location and the types and amounts of air contaminants emitted, for a given time frame. The emission inventory is an essential tool for air quality management planning in the region. Another essential tool in the air quality planning process is a forecast and backcast of emissions. Emission backcasting involves revisiting previous emission inventories and updating them for consistency with the current year inventory in terms of methodology and study area. This allows for an equitable analysis of emission trends. Emission forecasting is the process of estimating future emissions by projecting changes in activity (growth or decline) combined with changes in emission rates or controls. The forecast allows for an assessment of future air emission levels and impacts of emission reduction measures. The study area for the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley airshed emission inventory encompasses virtually the entire Metro Vancouver area (formerly known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District); the south-western portion of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and Whatcom County in the State of Washington.

Acknowledgements The cooperation and assistance of the following individuals and organizations is gratefully acknowledged: • Tony Wakelin, Michael Rensing, Jeremy Lawrence, Duncan Ferguson, Lloyd Phillips, Chris Procter,

Steffanie Warriner, and other staff – BC Ministry of Environment • Mark Robbins, David Poon, and other staff – BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands • Jennifer Bresciani – Office of the Fire Commissioner, Emergency Management BC • Becky Everett – BC Cattlemen’s Association • Ida Thom – BC Ministry of Provincial Revenue • Dave O’Neil – BC Statistics • Alicja Rudzki and other staff – BC Ferries • Gary Way, Carol Duffy, Chris Wilcock and other staff – Terasen Gas • Clark Lim, Steve Stewart, Dave Gourley, Ken Miller, Clive Rock – South Coast BC Transportation

Authority • Susan Floro, Hardeep Mehrotara, Chris Boxall – Insurance Corporation of British Columbia • Hugh Sloan and other staff – Fraser Valley Regional District • Dr. Shabtai Bittman – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada • Lynn Nadon, Andrew Green, Richard Holt, June Yoo Rifkin, Martin Mullan, Pascal Bellavance, Colin

di Cenzo, Henry Quon, Kelli Dawson, Cristina Dumitras, Brett Taylor, Mahesh Kashyap, John Ayres, Marc Deslaurier, Lianne Noseworthy, Yann Guilbault, Martin Jeanson, Diep Le , Michelle Raizenne and other staff – Environment Canada

• Habib Abdillai-Hassan, Elham Azarafshar, Hertsel Labib – Natural Resources Canada • Gail King and other staff – Northwest Clean Air Agency • Craig Harvey, Larry Landman, David Brzezinski and other staff – United States Environmental

Protection Agency • Sally Otterson and other staff – Washington State Department of Ecology


i i

• John Skowronski – Canadian Petroleum Products Institute • Kelvin Campbell, Maria Furberg, Nancy Chan and other staff – RWDI Consulting Engineers &

Scientists • Rick Bryant, Garth McSween – Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia • Philip Nelson, Mitch Hughes and other staff – Council of Marine Carriers of BC • BC Marine Vessel Air Quality Working Group • Trudi Trask – Vancouver International Airport Authority • Christine Rigby – Vancouver Port Authority and the countless commercial/industrial facilities, utilities, crown corporations, government agencies and other organizations and stakeholders who provided the necessary data to carry out this project. Funding assistance provided by the Fraser Valley Regional District in carrying out this study is gratefully acknowledged.

Cover Photographs Autumn leaves: Neil Guernsey Tugboat and fireplace: Laurie Bates-Frymel


i i i

Table of Contents List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... xii List of Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... xiv 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1 3. Air Contaminants Inventoried....................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Common Air Contaminants and Ammonia.................................................................................. 3 3.2 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................................ 4

4. Sources of Emissions.................................................................................................................... 6 References ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Appendix A – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Point Sources ............................................................. A-1 A.1 Point Source Emission Estimation Methodology................................................................... A-1 A.2 Quality Control and Assurance ................................................................................................ A-3 A.3 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Point Sources............................................................... A-3

Moderate Scenario........................................................................................................................A-4 Low-High Scenarios ......................................................................................................................A-5

A.4 Emission Results for Point Sources ........................................................................................ A-5 References – CLFV Point Sources ................................................................................................ A-13

Appendix B – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Area Sources .............................................................. B-1 B.1 Area Source Emission Estimation Methodology.................................................................... B-2

B.1.1 Agricultural Sources ...............................................................................................................B-2 B.1.2 Burning ...................................................................................................................................B-8 B.1.3 Gasoline Marketing.............................................................................................................. B-10 B.1.4 Landfills................................................................................................................................ B-12 B.1.5 Natural Sources................................................................................................................... B-13 B.1.6 Solvent Evaporation ............................................................................................................ B-14 B.1.7 Heating ................................................................................................................................ B-16 B.1.8 Miscellaneous Area Sources............................................................................................... B-18

B.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Area Sources.............................................................. B-21 Moderate Scenario..................................................................................................................... B-21 Low-High Scenarios ................................................................................................................... B-22

B.3 Emission Results for Area Sources....................................................................................... B-23


i v

References – CLFV Area Sources ................................................................................................. B-25 Appendix C – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Mobile Sources........................................................... C-1

C.1 On-Road Motor Vehicles ........................................................................................................... C-1 C.1.1 On-Road Motor Vehicles Emission Estimation Methodology................................................ C-1

Common Air Contaminants.......................................................................................................... C-1 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKmT) .......................................................................................... C-1 Development of Vehicle Emission Factors .................................................................................. C-2 Vehicle Population Data............................................................................................................... C-3 Vehicle Age Distribution............................................................................................................... C-3 Diesel Fractions ........................................................................................................................... C-5 Annual Mileage Accumulation Rates ........................................................................................... C-7 Fractions of Vehicle Kilometres Traveled .................................................................................... C-8 Fuel Quality and Meteorological Data.......................................................................................... C-8 Final Emission Factors............................................................................................................... C-10 AirCare and Inspection and Maintenance Programs ................................................................. C-10 Greenhouse Gases from On-Road Vehicles ............................................................................. C-11 Actual Fuel Consumed............................................................................................................... C-12 Diesel Sales ............................................................................................................................... C-13 Gasoline Sales ........................................................................................................................... C-13 Adjusted Total Fuel Consumption.............................................................................................. C-13 Vehicle Fuel Consumption Rates............................................................................................... C-14 GHG Emission Factors .............................................................................................................. C-16 Propane and Natural Gas-Fuelled Vehicles .............................................................................. C-17 Road Dust .................................................................................................................................. C-17

C.1.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for On-Road Motor Vehicles ........................................... C-18 Backcast Assumptions 1990-2000 Emissions ........................................................................... C-18 Forecast Assumptions 2010-2030 Emissions............................................................................ C-21 Moderate Scenario..................................................................................................................... C-23 Low Scenario ............................................................................................................................. C-23 High Scenario............................................................................................................................. C-23

C.1.3 Emission Results for On-Road Motor Vehicles ................................................................... C-27 C.2 Aircraft ...................................................................................................................................... C-31

C.2.1 Aircraft Emission Estimation Methodology .......................................................................... C-31 C.2.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Aircraft Emissions ...................................................... C-34

Moderate Scenario..................................................................................................................... C-34 Low-High Scenarios ................................................................................................................... C-35

C.2.3 Spatial Allocation for Aircraft Emissions.............................................................................. C-35 C.2.4 Emission Results for Aircrafts.............................................................................................. C-37

C.3 Railways.................................................................................................................................... C-38 C.3.1 Railway Emission Estimation Methodology......................................................................... C-38 C.3.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Railway Emissions..................................................... C-39

Moderate Scenario..................................................................................................................... C-40


v

Low-High Scenarios ................................................................................................................... C-40 C.3.3 Spatial Allocation ................................................................................................................. C-40 C.3.4 Emission Results for Railways ............................................................................................ C-42

C.4 Marine Vessels ......................................................................................................................... C-42 C.4.1 Ocean-Going Vessels (OGVs) ............................................................................................ C-43

Ocean-Going Vessels Emission Estimation Methodology......................................................... C-43 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels ...................................................... C-47 Emission Results for OGVs ....................................................................................................... C-51

C.4.2 Harbour Vessels .................................................................................................................. C-53 Harbour Vessels Emission Estimation Methodology ................................................................. C-53 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Harbour Vessels............................................................... C-55 Emission Results for Harbour Vessels....................................................................................... C-55

C.4.3 Ferries.................................................................................................................................. C-56 Ferries Emission Estimation Methodology................................................................................. C-56 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Ferries .............................................................................. C-57 Emission Results for Ferries ...................................................................................................... C-58

C.4.4 Fishing Vessels ................................................................................................................... C-59 Fishing Vessels Emission Estimation Methodology................................................................... C-59 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Fishing Vessels ................................................................ C-59 Emission Results for Fishing Vessels ........................................................................................ C-59

C.4.5 Results for All Commercial Marine Vessels ........................................................................ C-60 C.5 Non-Road Engines................................................................................................................... C-61

C.5.1 Non-Road Engines Emission Estimation Methodology....................................................... C-61 C.5.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Non-Road Engines .................................................... C-61

Moderate Scenario..................................................................................................................... C-61 Low-High Scenarios ................................................................................................................... C-62

C.5.3 Spatial Allocation ................................................................................................................. C-62 C.5.4 2005 Emission Results for Non-Road Engines ................................................................... C-62 References – CLFV Mobile Sources ............................................................................................. C-64

Appendix D – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley 2005 Emissions by City/Municipality........................ D-1 Appendix E – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions..........................E-1 Appendix F – Ocean-Going Vessels Addendum ..................................................................................F-1 Appendix G – 2005 Emission Inventory for Whatcom County, USA ................................................. G-1

G.1 Results and Methodology ......................................................................................................... G-1 G.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology.............................................................................................. G-1

References – 2005 Emission Inventory for Whatcom County, USA ............................................... G-7


v i

List of Tables Table A.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Point Source Emission Inventory -

By North American Industry Classification System Codes (metric tonnes)...........................................................................................................A-6

Table A.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Point Source Emissions Inventory - by Facility and Municipality (metric tonnes)...............................................................A-7

Table B.1.1.1: Emission Factors for Livestock Enteric Fermentation and Dust Generation ........................................................................................................B-3

Table B.1.1.2: Emission Factors for Livestock Manure Management ..............................................B-4

Table B.1.1.3: Particulate Emission Factors for Application of Fertilizers and Pesticides ...........................................................................................................B-5

Table B.1.1.4: Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Application of Limestone and Dolomite .............................................................................................................B-6

Table B.1.1.5: Particulate Emission Factors for Tilling Operations Per Season...............................B-6

Table B.1.1.6: Number of Tilling Events Per Crop Per Season in the Metro Vancouver and FVRD..................................................................................................................B-7

Table B.1.1.7: Particulate Emission Factors from Wind Erosion by Crop, Averaged for the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley.......................................................................B-8

Table B.1.2.1: Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Burning...................................................B-8

Table B.1.3.1: Emission Factors for Automobile Service Stations and Bulk Fuel Users (g VOC/litre) ................................................................................................. B-12

Table B.1.7.1: Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Heating................................................ B-17

Table B.1.8.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Construction ......................................................................... B-19

Table B.1.8.2: Base Quantity and Emission Factors for Tobacco Smoke..................................... B-20

Table B.1.8.3: Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Meat Cooking...................................... B-20


v i i

Table B.1.8.4: Miscellaneous Ammonia Emission Factors............................................................ B-21

Table B.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Area Source Emission Inventory by Sector (metric tonnes) ....................................................................................... B-23

Table B.3.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Area Source Emission Inventory by Municipality (metric tonnes)............................................................................... B-24

Table C.1.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley (CLFV) VKmT Extrapolated from 2003 CLFV VKmT Provided by TransLink (in TransLink's Groupings) .................... C-1

Table C.1.2: 2005 VKmT for the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley by M6.2C categories ................................................................................................................. C-2

Table C.1.3: MOBILE 6.2C Category Code and Description........................................................ C-3

Table C.1.4: ICBC Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Registered and Licensed to Operate in Territories D,E,H, and Z as of June 30, 2005....................................................... C-4

Table C.1.6: Diesel Vehicle Population Distribution by MOBILE 6.2 Classes .............................. C-6

Table C.1.7: Annual Mileage Accumulation Rates by Vehicle Category (miles) .......................... C-7

Table C.1. 8: Fraction of VkmT Accumulated by Vehicle Type ..................................................... C-8

Table C.1.9: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Seasonal Fuel Reid Vapour Pressure and Meteorological Data.................................................................................................. C-9

Table C.1.10: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ambient Hourly Temperatures (oF) .................................................................................................... C-9

Table C.1.11: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ambient Hourly Relative Humidity (%) ............................................................................................................. C-9

Table C.1.12: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Factors for Common Air Contaminants (g/VkmT) .................................. C-10

Table C.1.13: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley MOBILE 6.2C Input Parameters to Model AirCare Inspection and Maintenance Program.................... C-11

Table C.1.14: Fuel Adjustment Factors......................................................................................... C-13


v i i i

Table C.1.15: Fuel Consumption Rates (L/100 km), Model Years 1960-2030, Under Three Scenarios .......................................................................................... C-15

Table C.1.16: Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for On-Road Vehicles (kg/L).......................... C-16

Table C.1.17: Emission Factors for Road Dust from On-Road Vehicles ...................................... C-18

Table C.1.2.1: Backcast Assumptions ........................................................................................... C-19

Table C.1.2.2: Adjusted Historic VKmT Based on TransLink – Provided Total VKmT and 2003 Distribution Across Classes.................................................................... C-19

Table C.1.2.3: 2005 VKmT for the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley by M6.2C Categories .............................................................................................................. C-20

Table C.1.2.4: Litres of Fuel Sold within the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Region .................... C-21

Table C.1.2.5: Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Forecast Assumptions .......................................... C-21

Table C.1.2.6: Growth Surrogates for Vehicle Populations in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley................................................................................................ C-22

Table C.1.2.7: Expected Emission Reductions (in percentage) from Biodiesel Blends ................ C-24

Table C.1.2.8: Emission Reductions Assumed Achievable by AirCare On-Road (ACOR) Program in Forecast Years..................................................................................... C-25

Table C.1.2.9: Emission Reductions for Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Fleet in Forecast Years Resulting from Retrofit Regulation ............................................................... C-26

Table C.1.2.10: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Spatial Distribution of Light Duty Vehicle Emissions .................................................................................................. C-26

Table C.1.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley On-Road Motor Vehicle Fleet Emissions (metric tonnes) ...................................................................................... C-28

Table C.1.3.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Light Duty Vehicle Emissions by Municipality (metric tonnes)........................................................................................................ C-28

Table C.1.3.3: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions by Municipality (metric tonnes)........................................................................................................ C-29

Table C.2.1.1: 2005 Aircraft Base Quantities (LTO) ...................................................................... C-32


i x

Table C.2.1.2: Engine-Specific Emission Factors for Vancouver International Airport.................. C-33

Table C.2.1.3: Generic Aircraft Emission Factors.......................................................................... C-34

Table C.2.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Aircraft Emission Inventory by Municipality (metric tonnes)........................................................................................................ C-36

Table C.2.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Aircraft Emission Inventory by Airport ................................................................................................................ C-37

Table C.2.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Aircraft Emission Inventory by Aircraft Type ...................................................................................................... C-37

Table C.3.1.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Rail Fuel Consumption by Rail Company ......................................................................................................... C-38

Table C.3.1.2: Emission Factors for Railways by Activity .............................................................. C-39

Table C.3.1.3: Fugitive Dust Emission Factors for Rail Transport of Coal .................................... C-39

Table C.3.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Railway Emission Inventory by Municipality ........................................................................................................ C-41

Table C.3.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Railway Emissions by Activity...................... C-42

Table C.3.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Emissions by Railway Companies............... C-42

Table C.4.1.1: IMO Post-1999 NOx Curve Adjustment Factors (Environment Canada)............... C-45

Table C.4.1.2: PM Adjustment Factors (Environment Canada)..................................................... C-46

Table C.4.1.3: OGV Backcast Factors ........................................................................................... C-47

Table C.4.1.4: Moderate Case OGV Growth Rates....................................................................... C-49

Table C.4.1.5: Low & High Case OGV Growth Rates.................................................................... C-50

Table C.4.1.6: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions of Criteria Air Contaminants (metric tonnes) .......................................................... C-52

Table C.4.1.7: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (metric tonnes) ................................................................... C-53


x

Table C.4.2.1: Summary of Harbour Vessel Categories in the Lower Fraser Valley..................... C-54

Table C.4.2.2: US EPA Tier 0 Harbour Vessel Emission Factors (g/kWh).................................... C-54

Table C.4.2.3: 2005 Emission Results for Harbour Vessels in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley................................................................................................ C-56

Table C.4.3.1: Vessel Population for Ferries Operating Within the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley................................................................................................ C-56

Table C.4.3.2: Emission Factor for Ferries .................................................................................... C-57

Table C.4.3.3: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ferries Emission Inventory .......................... C-59

Table C.4.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Fishing Vessels Emission Inventory................................................................................................................. C-60

Table C.4.5.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Marine Vessels Emission Inventory by Vessel Category ................................................................................................ C-60

Table C.5.2.1: Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Input Data - NONROAD2005 Model..................... C-62

Table C.5.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Non-Road Engine Emission Inventory (metric tonnes)........................................................................................ C-63

Table C.5.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Non-Road Engine Emission Inventory by Municipality (metric tonnes) ............................................................... C-63

Table D.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Airshed Emission Inventory by Regional District and Municipality (metric tonnes) .................................................. D-1

Table D.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Airshed Emission Inventory by Regional District and Municipality (Percent of Canadian LFV Emissions) ........................................................................................................ D-2

Table E.1: Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Diesel PM2.5 Emission Inventory (metric tonnes)...........................................................................................................E-1

Table F.1: MEPC Recommendations of April 2008....................................................................F-1

Table F.2: Modelling Assumption ...............................................................................................F-2


x i

Table G.2.2.1: Growth Surrogates for Backcasting and Forecasting Whatcom County Area Sources............................................................................................................ G-2

Table G.2.3.1.1: Growth Surrogates for Forecasting Whatcom County On-Road Sources ............... G-5

Table G.2.3.2.1: Ocean–Going Vessels Forecast Methodology......................................................... G-6

Table G.2.3.2.2: Ocean–Going Vessels Backcast Methodology ........................................................ G-6


x i i

List of Figures Figure 1: Lower Fraser Valley Airshed Study Area ..................................................................... 2

Figure C.1: Methodology for Estimating GHG Emissions from On-Road Vehicles in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley ..................................................................... C-12

Figure D.1: Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area ............................ D-3

Figure D.2: Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area................................. D-3

Figure D.3: Total Particulate Matter Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area ................... D-4

Figure D.4: PM10 Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area................................................. D-4

Figure D.5: PM2.5 Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area ................................................ D-5

Figure D.6: Sulphur Oxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area.................................. D-5

Figure D.8: Ammonia Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area ......................................... D-6

Figure D.9: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area................................ D-7

Figure D.10: Methane Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area........................................... D-7

Figure D.11: Nitrous Oxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area................................... D-8

Figure D.12: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2E) by Municipality and Electoral......................... D-8

Figure F.1: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on NOx Emissions From Ships Calling LFV ......................................................................................................F-3

Figure F.2: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on SOx Emissions From Ships Calling LFV ......................................................................................................F-3

Figure F.3: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on Particulate Emissions From Ships Calling LFV.............................................................................................F-4

Figure F.4: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on Smog Forming Pollutants From Ships Calling LFV.............................................................................................F-4


x i i i

Figure F.5: Forecast NOx Emissions by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations .........................................................................................F-5

Figure F.6: Forecast SOx Emissions by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations .........................................................................................F-6

Figure F.7: Forecast Fine Particulate (PM2.5) Emissions by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations..............................................................F-6

Figure F.8: Forecast Smog-Forming Pollutants by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations .........................................................................................F-7


x i v

List of Acronyms ACOR AirCare ON-ROAD Program AP-42 EPA publication “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Volume I –

Stationary Point and Area Sources” ASM2525 Acceleration Simulation Mode 2525 Test BC British Columbia BCMAL British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands BC MoE British Columbia Ministry of Environment BCMVAQWG British Columbia Marine Vessel Air Quality Work Group CACs common air contaminants: CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, PM, NH3 CARB California Air Resources Board CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEM continuous emission monitoring CH4 methane CLFV Canadian Portion of Lower Fraser Valley study area; refer to definition in Section 2 CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent; refer to definition in Section 3.2 CSBC Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia dscm dry standard cubic metre EIIP Emission Inventory Improvement Program EMME/2 Transportation Model EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERM Emission Reduction Measure FAA United States Federal Aviation Administration FVRD Fraser Valley Regional District FVRD1 Fraser Valley Regional District; portion within the Lower Fraser Valley g gram GHGs greenhouse gases GIS geographic information system GloBEIS3 Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System 3 model GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District (also known as Metro Vancouver) GVTA Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority GVWR gross vehicle weight rating GWP Global Warming Potential - relative measure of heat-trapping effect; methane has a

GWP of 21 compared to carbon dioxide, while nitrous oxide’s GWP is 310. h hour HDBS school buses HDBT transit and urban buses HDDV heavy-duty diesel vehicle


xv

HDGB gasoline buses HDGV heavy-duty gasoline vehicle HDV heavy-duty vehicle hp horsepower ICBC Insurance Corporation of British Columbia IMO International Maritime Organization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I/M vehicle inspection and maintenance program ISAC International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada Inc. kg kilogram kL kilolitre km kilometre kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hour L litre LandGEM Landfill Gas Emissions Model LDDT light-duty diesel truck LDDV light-duty diesel vehicle LDGT light-duty gasoline truck LDGV light-duty gasoline vehicle LDT light-duty truck LDV light-duty vehicle LFV Lower Fraser Valley LMIU Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit LTO landing and take-off cycle LVW loaded vehicle weight m metre m3 cubic metre MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL is

short for marine pollution) MC Motorcycle MEPC Marine Environmental Protection Committee mm millimetre MSW municipal solid waste MV Metro Vancouver (formerly known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District) NAICS North American Industrial Classification System NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research NH3 ammonia NO nitric oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NPRI National Pollutant Release Inventory


xv i

N2O nitrous oxide PM total particulate matter, total suspended particulate PM10 inhalable particulate matter, particles smaller than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 fine particulate matter, particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter ppmv parts per million by volume psi pounds per square inch RTM Regional Transportation Model RVP Reid vapour pressure S Sulphur SECA Sulphur Emission Control Area SOx sulphur oxides SO2 sulphur dioxide SO4 sulphate U.S. United States VkmT Vehicle Kilometre Travelled VOC volatile organic compounds VPA Vancouver Port Authority


1

1. Introduction This document is intended to provide results and detailed technical information on the 2005 emission inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV). An emission inventory provides information on the location, amount, and relative contributions of pollutant emissions, which is a primary tool for developing strategies to improve air quality in a region. Another essential tool is a forecast and backcast of emissions. Emission backcasting involves updating previous emission inventories using current methodologies so that they can be reliably compared with the 2005 inventory. Emission forecasting is the process of estimating future emissions by projecting changes in activity (growth or decline) combined with changes in emission rates or controls. The forecast allows for an assessment of future air emission levels and impacts of emission reduction measures. Together, the 2005 inventory and the forecast and backcast data, can be used to identify where significant progress has been made in reducing emissions under the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Metro Vancouver area, and where additional action is warranted. This information is also essential for the development of an Air Quality Management Strategy for the entire Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) international airshed. The 2005 emission inventory and the forecast and backcast for the Canadian portion of the Airshed were prepared by Metro Vancouver, with the exception of the 2005 ocean-going vessels emissions inventory, where the preparation was led by the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia (2007); and non-road engine sector, which was prepared under contract (RWDI, 2007a). The 2005 Whatcom County emission inventory was also compiled under contract (RWDI, 2007b), with the backcast/forecast portion prepared by Metro Vancouver. As such, this report focuses on the methodology for the Canadian Portion of the Lower Fraser Valley (CLFV) Airshed, which represents the portion of the work carried out by Metro Vancouver staff. Detailed emission results for the CLFV, by source type and municipality, are provided for the year 2005, the base year of the emission inventory. Emissions trends on a more aggregated level were published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007), and not reproduced in this technical report. A brief discussion of the Whatcom County emissions inventory and forecast and backcast methodology is provided in Appendix G.

2. Study Area The 2005 emission inventory and forecast and backcast was compiled for the Lower Fraser Valley area of British Columbia (BC), encompassing virtually the entire Metro Vancouver area (formerly known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District); the south-western portion of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD); and Whatcom County in the State of Washington, which is representative of the United States portion of the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed. This inventory and the forecast and backcast include emissions for the entire Lower Fraser Valley International Airshed. In 2005, the international airshed had a combined population of about 2.6 million. The study area is shown in Figure 1. As noted above, this document provides results and methodology descriptions for the Canadian portion of the Lower Fraser Valley.


2

Figure 1: Lower Fraser Valley Airshed Study Area


3

3. Air Contaminants Inventoried

3.1 Common Air Contaminants and Ammonia The contaminants in the emission inventory and forecast/backcast include the “common air contaminants” (CACs): carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, total particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and sulphur oxides. Ammonia is also included here, recognizing its role in secondary particulate matter formation (i.e. particles formed in the atmosphere from a series of physical and chemical processes between gases).

Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO), a colourless and odourless gas, is formed when carbon material does not burn completely. The main source is transportation, particularly motor vehicles and non-road engines and equipment. CO is a health concern because elevated exposure can reduce the ability of the blood to carry oxygen to the heart, brain, and other tissues, resulting in impaired performance, respiratory failure, and death.

Nitrogen Oxides Nitrogen oxides (NOx) form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, like in an engine or boiler. Under certain weather conditions, NOx can react with other chemicals to form ground-level ozone, acid rain, and secondary particulate matter. NOx can irritate the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections. NOx includes NO and NO2, and the convention is to report NOx on the basis of the molecular weight of NO2.

Total Particulate Matter Total particulate matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets, which are emitted from sources like windblown dust, the burning of fuel, industries such as coal and grain handling, and travel on roads. Total particulate matter is made up of particles of all sizes, including the two most familiar size fractions, namely PM10 and PM2.5.

Inhalable Particulate Matter, PM10 PM10 refers to particles smaller than 10 microns. In comparison, a human hair is about 50 to 100 microns in diameter. PM10 is a mixture of constituents including nitrates, sulphates, and diesel particulate matter exhaust. PM10 may be solid particles or liquid droplets.

Fine Particulate Matter, PM2.5 PM2.5 refers to particles smaller than 2.5 microns. They can be breathed deep into the lungs and contain substances that are particularly harmful to human health. Scientific studies have linked these small particles to premature death, aggravated asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, and chronic bronchitis. As well, PM2.5 scatters light in the atmosphere and reduces visibility.


4

Road Dust Road dust is a type of particulate matter made up of material that has been previously deposited on the travel surface such as mud and dirt track-out, litter, garbage, refuse, leaves, plants, vehicle exhaust, tire debris, brake linings, pavement wear, and fallout from industrial emissions. Traffic or wind resuspends the road dust into the air, followed by the redeposition of some of it back onto the streets.

Primary & Secondary Particulate Matter It is important to distinguish between primary and secondary particulate matter. Primary particles are emitted directly into the air. Secondary particles are formed in the atmosphere from a series of physical and chemical processes between gases. This emission inventory and forecast and backcast give estimates for primary particulate matter only. While the inventory does not attempt to put a figure on secondary particulate matter formation, the primary emissions data is used as an input to current efforts to model its formation.

Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile organic compounds (VOC) can react with NOx in the atmosphere to form ground-level ozone, a key constituent of smog. Some VOCs can also have a potential carcinogenic or toxic effect. VOCs are emitted from vegetation, motor vehicles, chemical manufacturing plants, and a wide variety of industrial, commercial, and consumer solvents.

Sulphur Oxides Sulphur oxides (SOx) are a group of sulphur and oxygen compounds and like NOx are formed when fuel is burned. The major health effects of concern associated with exposure to high levels of SOx include effects on breathing, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and mortality. It can also interact with other compounds in the air to form secondary particulate matter and can lead to acid rain. SOx emissions include SO2 and SO4, but are reported on the basis of the molecular weight of SO2.

Ammonia For a complete understanding of PM2.5 emissions, one should also consider the emissions of ammonia (NH3). NH3, along with SOx, NOx and some VOCs, can react in the atmosphere to form secondary PM2.5. NH3 is a colourless gas with a very sharp odour. It is produced by animals, wastes, and fertilizer application.

3.2 Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapour, to name a few. The principal greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, are included in this emission inventory. GHGs trap the sun’s heat near the Earth’s surface and keep the Earth warm. While the presence of such gases is essential in keeping the Earth warm enough to support life, emissions from human activity have been rising, leading to an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This enhanced effect is believed to lead to a shifting of the world’s climate systems to wider extremes and variability.


5

Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released to the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) and solid waste are burned. In both the 2005 emission inventory and the forecast and backcast, estimates of CO2 emissions are reported following methodology set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A discussion on these greenhouse gas reporting conventions is provided below (at the bottom of this page).

Methane Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of natural gas and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills and the raising of livestock.

Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during burning of solid waste and fossil fuels, particularly in motor vehicles. Other GHGs, namely hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluorides, have not been included in this report, as they are believed to be insignificant in the region, compared to CO2, CH4, and N2O.

Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) and Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (CO2Es) Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are assigned to GHGs as a measure of their relative heat-trapping effect. GWP values allow comparisons of the impacts of emissions and reductions of different gases. Methane has a global warming potential of 21 compared to carbon dioxide, while nitrous oxide’s GWP is 310. Multiplying emissions of these two gases by their respective GWP's allows them to be summed together with carbon dioxide and expressed as a “CO2-equivalent (CO2E)”.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Reporting Conventions Although many local governments and regional districts within British Columbia are compiling greenhouse gas emission inventories, these inventories are not always consistent in methodology. The key features of the LFV GHG inventory include: • IPCC Protocols for Biomass & Biofuels – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) Guidelines consider CO2 emissions from combustion of biomass (such as biological waste, wood fuel and a portion of the municipal solid waste stream) and biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel) GHG neutral as part of the carbon cycle. This inventory adheres to these Guidelines and as a result excludes CO2 emissions from combustion of biomass and biofuels from emission totals but includes CH4 and N2O emissions from biomass and biofuels in emission totals. Emissions associated with the production or transport of biomass or biofuels are captured under their respective categories. For example, agriculture equipment for harvesting ethanol feedstock would be captured under the non-road mobile equipment category (if emissions are directly occurring within the LFV).

• IPCC Protocols for Aviation and Marine – IPCC Guidelines require that GHG emissions from

international navigation and aviation be reported separately from domestic and not be included in the national total. These Guidelines prevent double-counting of emissions from these two inherently international operations. According to IPCC protocols, only emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O associated with wholly domestic trips are included in the emissions totals. GHG emissions associated with international trips are not included in the emission inventory.


6

• Direct Emissions Only – Notwithstanding the IPPC reporting conventions noted above, the LFV GHG inventory accounts for all emissions directly emitted within our geographic scope. Examples of this include fuel combustion in industrial facilities, commercial and residential buildings, as well as vehicles, that occurs within the LFV. Indirect emissions refer to GHG emissions from purchases or imports of electricity, steam, fuel, etc. The GHG emissions that occur in producing that energy or fuel is a consequence of an activity in the LFV, but the emissions may not occur directly within the LFV. Indirect emissions are excluded from the inventory.

4. Sources of Emissions The emission inventory and forecast and backcast covers three main categories of emissions: point, area, and mobile sources.

Point Sources Point sources are industrial facilities or utilities operating under an air discharge permit, or in some cases a regulation issued by Metro Vancouver or the BC Ministry of Environment (BC MoE), or under a Solid Waste Management Plan authorized by BC MoE, or under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Ecology or Northwest Clean Air Agency. In general, these sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources that release pollutants into the atmosphere. Ideally, all stationary sources would be considered point sources. Practically, however, only sources that emit more than a specified level of contaminants or have a significant impact on the surrounding environment are required to apply for an air quality permit.

Area Sources Area sources are smaller, broadly distributed light industrial, commercial, institutional, residential, agricultural and naturally occurring sources that normally do not require an air discharge permit but may be regulated by other mechanisms. Area sources are typically too small, numerous, or difficult to inventory using the methods for the other classes of sources. Examples of area sources include burning (e.g. land clearing, agricultural, residential open burning), heating, solvent evaporation, fuel marketing and municipal solid waste landfills. These area source categories are combined in such a way that emissions can be estimated for an entire category using one methodology.

Mobile Sources Mobile sources include passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, other light and heavy trucks, buses, aircraft, railways, marine vessels, and non-road engines such as agricultural, construction, recreational, and lawn and garden equipment.


7

References Chamber of Shipping of BC, 2007. “2005 - 2006 BC Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions Inventory.” Metro Vancouver. 2007. “2005 Lower Fraser Valley air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast.” http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/inventory_reports.htm RWDI AIR Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists, 2007a, “2005 Nonroad Engine Fleet Characterization in the Lower Fraser Valley.” RWDI AIR Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists, 2007b, “2005 Whatcom County Emission Inventory.”


A -1

Appendix A – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Point Sources Point sources are industrial facilities or utilities operating under an air discharge permit, or in some cases a regulation issued by Metro Vancouver or the BC Ministry of Environment (BC MoE), or under a Solid Waste Management Plan authorized by BC MoE. In general, these sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The 2005 point source inventory is categorized into the following major industrial sectors: • bulk shipping terminals • chemical manufacturing • electric power generation • metal foundries and metal fabrication • municipal solid waste-energy • non-metallic mineral processing (cement and concrete products) • paper and allied products • petroleum products • wood products • other industries (food and beverage, service industries, etc.) Under a cooperative agreement with both BC MoE and FVRD, Metro Vancouver staff prepared the 2005 inventory of point sources for all permitted facilities located in the Canadian Portion of the LFV (CLFV), regardless of which agency administered the permit. This agreement was made in order to ensure consistency of approach across the entire CLFV airshed. Facility-specific information (annual production rates, raw material quantities, fuel consumption, solvent use, storage tanks, loading operations, operating hours, process operating conditions, control equipment and emission reduction or prevention practices) required for emission estimation was obtained directly from the permitted companies, and augmented with data from the permit files of the respective regulatory agencies and the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).

A.1 Point Source Emission Estimation Methodology Based on the data obtained from the questionnaire responses and permit information on file, emission estimates were made using one or a combination of the following methods. In general, the methods are listed in order of decreasing confidence.

Monitoring Data The preferred method for estimating emissions from a given source is to use actual sampling or monitoring data. In order to obtain a reliable estimate of annual emissions, continuous emission monitoring (CEM) is ideal. A small number of CLFV point sources have implemented CEM systems, and this data was used wherever possible, provided that the monitoring was carried out in accordance with approved methods. For the remainder of the point sources, CEM data is not available. The alternative to CEM is to use results from individual source tests, i.e., stack sampling data. Stack tests are discrete samples of the discharge from a process, involving the measurement of discharge parameters (e.g. flow rate, temperature), the insertion of a sampling probe into a stack or vent, and the extraction of a sample for analysis in a laboratory to determine the pollutant concentration or mass discharge rate. The test duration is dependent on the source and/or the contaminant(s) being sampled, but is typically a few hours


A -2

or less in total. The test frequency also varies with the permit; sources may be tested on a quarterly, semi-annual, annual basis, or less frequently. For stack test data to be useful for emission inventory purposes, it is necessary to ascertain whether or not sampling is conducted under representative operating conditions.

Material Balance Calculations Another method of estimating emissions is to use material balance calculations. Pollutant discharge rates are calculated based on knowledge of the amount of material entering a process and the amount consumed, transformed or retained by the process. Examples include estimates of VOC emissions from metal cleaning or degreasing, or the application of surface coatings; where it is assumed that, in the absence of any controls, the amount of VOC entering a process is ultimately emitted to the atmosphere.

Emission Factors An emission factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity (surrogate, or base quantity) associated with the emitting process. Emission factors are usually expressed in terms of the weight of pollutant emitted per unit of a base quantity (e.g. kilograms of NOx emitted per cubic metre of natural gas burned in a boiler). They are generally derived by averaging emission test results from similar sources, or under laboratory simulation conditions. In most cases, emission factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable quality, and are generally assumed to be representative of long-term averages of all facilities in the source category. An emission estimate using an emission factor generally follows the form: ET = BQ x EF x C where: ET = total, annual emissions of a given contaminant BQ = base quantity (e.g. fuel burned, material produced, raw material used) EF = emission factor, as annual emission per unit of base quantity C = emission/pollution control factor The main source of emission factors used for this inventory was the publication, “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Volume I - Stationary Point and Area Sources” (EPA), typically referred to as the “AP-42” document. Data was supplemented with information from “WEBFIRE, Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants” (EPA).

Published Correlations, Equations, Models For some emission sources, there exist accepted emission correlations, equations or models which are the industry standard for estimating emissions. An example is the various correlations developed by the American Petroleum Institute (and incorporated into the EPA Tanks software) to estimate emissions from storage tanks, using known inputs related to the storage tank parameters, storage conditions, and material being stored.

Permit Parameters The BC MoE and Metro Vancouver air emission permits typically specify maximum allowable discharge parameters, including discharge concentration, flow rate, and hours of operation. The product of these three parameters, i.e., concentration x flow x duration (in appropriate units), yields the maximum allowable annual mass emission rate. This amount can be used as an inventory estimate, but the


A -3

majority of sources produce fewer emissions than the maximum authorized by permit. However, there may be some sources which are out of compliance with their permits and produce emissions in excess of the allowable discharges. The authorized discharge specified in the permit was the least preferred method of estimating emissions, and when used, corrections were made wherever possible to reflect the actual hours operated during 2005.

A.2 Quality Control and Assurance As discussed earlier, Metro Vancouver staff carried out the 2005 emission estimates of point sources for all permitted facilities in the CLFV to ensure a consistent methodology in emission calculations. As these estimates were completed, Metro Vancouver staff summarized the results on spreadsheets. Methods to ensure the accuracy of data included: • method comparison - in some cases, multiple emission estimates were prepared for a given source,

using the various methods described above. These estimates were compared to determine which was considered most representative of the actual emissions. Metro Vancouver emission estimates were also compared with NPRI estimates, and reconciled where possible.

• industrial sector comparison - one individual was responsible for all inventory calculations for a given

industrial sector. Moreover, once the sectoral estimates were complete, they were compared to ensure that consistent methods were used.

• emissions review - emission estimates were compared against past inventories, and where significant

differences were found, the estimates were revisited to confirm or revise the estimate. • permittee feedback – emission estimates for a facility were sent to the permittee for comments.

Based on feedback or additional data provided by the permittee, Metro Vancouver staff revisited several emission estimates to either confirm or revise.

A.3 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Point Sources The forecast and backcast of the 2005 emission inventory was performed under different sets of assumptions for three scenarios: the moderate scenario, the high scenario and the low scenario. The moderate scenario was based on the best available information. Depending on the level of uncertainty and the details available during this study, some of the planned emission reduction measures were included in a low scenario, rather than in the moderate scenarios. These scenarios provide low and high “bracketing” around the moderate scenario and allow for an analysis of the impact on emissions from factors such as growth in population and economy. The methodology for these scenarios are discussed in turn below. Emission results for these scenarios are published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007). Emissions backcasting involves revisiting previous emission inventories and updating them for consistency with the 2005 year inventory, where the methodology has changed. For example a new, EPA methodology for calculating fugitive dust emissions associated with the handling and storage of bulk commodities was used in 2005, and emission estimates for 2000, 1995, and 1990 were revised using the updated method. This allows for an equitable analysis of emission trends.


A -4

Moderate Scenario Forecasts can be developed by applying a growth surrogate to the 2005 emission estimates, accounting for any control equipment installed in the future: EY = E2005 x G x C where: EY = emissions for forecast year E2005 = emissions for 2005 G = growth factor C = control factor, accounting for changes in emission factors or control The growth factor accounts for changes (increases or decreases) in the emission-generating activity. Potential growth indicators include, in order of increasing preference: • employment • earnings • value added • product output or GDP (in constant dollars) Control strategy projections are estimates of future year emissions that also include the expected impact of modified controls or additional control regulations. Questionnaires were sent to the operators of the largest fifty point sources, accounting for the bulk of point source emissions in the CLFV. The questionnaire was designed to seek information on: • plans for changing production levels and plant capacity relative to the base year of 2005 • the constraints to change productions and plant capacity and • other relevant information affecting the source emissions, e.g. details of process changes or emission

controls. About 90% of the operators responded to the survey, and the data was used in projecting their 2005 emission estimates to 2030, in five year increments. Facilities indicating they would shut down in the future were projected to have no emissions. For those facilities that did not respond to the survey, and for those smaller point sources that were not sent a survey, projections were based on an industry-specific economic growth surrogate. These include: NRCAN’s Industrial Sector Gross Output for British Columbia (Azarafshar, 2007) • Agriculture • Cement • Chemical • Construction • Iron and Steel • Machinery • Mining • Non-ferrous Metal • Paper • Other Petroleum & Coal Products • Wood


A -5

NRCAN’s Canada’s Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006 for British Columbia (2006): • Machinery GDP • Natural gas end use • Non-manufacturing GDP • Services GDP The NRCAN economic indicators were available for the years 1990-2020, so 2016-2020 values were extrapolated to 2025 and 2030, based on a linear regression. The forecast of NOx emissions from point sources also accounts for the Metro Vancouver proposed Boiler and Heater Regulation. It was estimated that a 79% reduction in NOx would be achieved due to this proposed regulation, affecting 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the existing industrial boilers and heaters for the years 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030, respectively. Any new boilers and heaters installed in the future were assumed to be equipped with low-NOx emitting technology as well.

Low-High Scenarios In 2006/2007, the Federal government proposed the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda (CARA) Regulatory Framework for Industrial Air Emissions. CARA’s estimated greenhouse gas and air pollutant reductions, as of May 2007, were accounted for in the low scenario, partly because the allocation method for the targets in various sectors were not at the same stage of development as those for other regulations, such as the Metro Vancouver proposed Boiler and Heater Regulation. Furthermore, B.C. GDP projections, reflecting slower growth in the region from a sensitivity analysis completed by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist, were factored into the low scenario emissions forecast. In the previous section, it was mentioned that survey data was used in projecting 2005 emission estimates to 2030 (captured under the moderate scenario) for about 40 of the larger point sources in the region. It was assumed that there would be no change in these emission projections for these facilities in the high scenario compared to the moderate scenario. For those facilities that were not sent a survey, B.C. GDP projections, reflecting higher growth in the region from the sensitivity analysis mentioned above, were factored in the high scenario emissions forecast.

A.4 Emission Results for Point Sources Table A.4.1 presents a detailed breakdown of contaminant emissions, listed by the first 3 digits of the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code. Estimated emissions from each facility are shown by municipality in Table A.4.2.


A -6

NAICS Code NAICS Major Group Industry Description CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E111 Crop Production 59 29 6 5 4 2 2 1 12,062 2 1 12,513113 Forestry and Logging 20 1 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 153221 Electric Power Generation 9 16 4 4 4 1 3 1 67,616 1 1 68,028221 Other Electric Power Generation 198 41 1 1 1 11 14 0 22,478 152 0 25,672221 Natural Gas Distribution 32 24 3 3 3 1 1 1 43,179 645 1 57,043311 Food 76 102 210 114 72 2 10 2 108,199 2 1 108,691321 Wood Products 434 207 1,574 731 326 12 916 11 135,292 10 7 137,642322 Paper 151 122 317 240 191 5 28 4 114,932 5 4 116,162323 Printing and Related Support Activities 1 13 16 14 14 0 55 0 16,106 0 0 16,204324 Petroleum Refineries 221 280 126 93 60 575 314 6 442,804 6 4 444,218324 Asphalt and Other Petroleum 135 45 18 9 4 20 12 1 37,253 2 1 37,507325 Chemical 45 141 19 16 13 3 154 3 64,008 1 1 64,397326 Plastics and Rubber Products 8 10 53 46 32 3 990 0 12,706 0 0 12,784327 Non-Metallic Mineral Products 2,798 3,636 1,035 455 145 209 145 7 2,040,378 4 1 2,040,901331 Metal Processing and Founderies 29 37 198 150 120 4 301 2 41,893 1 1 42,154332 Fabricated Metal Products 9 11 35 28 24 0 82 0 13,755 0 0 13,841335 Equipment, Appliance, and Component Products 2 2 4 3 3 0 36 0 2,900 0 0 2,917336 Transportation Equipment 6 7 49 31 15 0 140 0 8,909 0 0 8,957337 Furniture 0 1 28 11 6 0 96 0 693 0 0 697411 Farm Products Distributors 1 1 435 116 18 0 0 0 1,026 0 0 1,032412 Petroleum Products, Wholesale 10 11 1 1 1 0 556 0 13,663 0 0 13,746417 Machinery, Equipment, Wholesale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0418 Miscellaneous Wholesale 1 1 4 3 2 0 20 0 1,662 0 0 1,672488 Transportation, Support Activities 2 3 4 3 3 0 18 0 3,527 0 0 3,548488 Marine Cargo Handling 0 0 629 321 94 0 2 0 0 0 0 0541 Scientific and Technical Services 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 548 0 0 551562 Waste Management and Remediation 31 465 9 9 7 108 40 1 115,800 0 3 116,746811 Other Services 1 1 5 4 3 0 1 0 1,620 0 0 1,635

Total 4,281 5,208 4,785 2,414 1,167 957 3,942 40 3,323,010 835 29 3,349,413

Table A.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Point Source Emission Inventory - By North American Industry Classification System Codes (metric tonnes)


A -7

Table A.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Point Source Emissions Inventory - by Facility and Municipality (metric tonnes)

Permit/ Regulation Company Municipality CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E

GVA0056 Haida Forest Products Ltd. Burnaby 0 0 9 4 2 0 0 0 388 0 0 390GVA0113 General Chemical Canada Ltd. Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0117 Chevron Canada Limited Burnaby 221 280 126 93 60 575 314 6 442,804 6 4 444,218GVA0118 Chevron Canada Limited Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 0 0 0 0 0GVA0129 Western Newsprint Limited Burnaby 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0132 PTPC Corrugated Company Burnaby 0 0 18 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0137 Swiss Water Decaffeinated Coffee Company Inc. Burnaby 2 2 11 9 8 0 0 0 2,943 0 0 2,961GVA0192 Alrich Custom Cabinets Ltd. Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0GVA0261 Shell Canada Products Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0GVA0262 Shell Canada Products Limited Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0GVA0379 Petro-Canada Inc. Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 0 0GVA0472 Beaver Electrical Machinery Ltd. Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 56GVA0548 Norampac Paper Inc., Burnaby Division Burnaby 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 807 0 0 810GVA0572 B.C. Roofing Products Ltd. Burnaby 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1,302 0 0 1,310NP0001 GVRD Waste-to-Energy Facility Burnaby 31 465 9 9 7 108 20 1 115,800 0 3 116,746Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 0 423 0 0 425

Sub-total 255 749 186 136 91 683 784 7 564,523 6 7 566,917

GVA0048 International Forest Products Fraser Mills Division Coquitlam 2 2 8 4 2 0 0 0 2,670 0 0 2,686GVA0058 Warren Materials Inc. Coquitlam 8 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 2,765 0 0 2,782GVA0167 Jack Cewe Ltd. Coquitlam 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1,878 0 0 1,889GVA0451 Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) Inc. Coquitlam 25 19 2 2 2 1 1 1 33,765 3 1 34,106GVA0457 Catalyst Paper Corporation Coquitlam 6 7 17 13 10 0 2 0 8,135 0 0 8,184Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities Coquitlam 0 0 9 5 2 0 0 0 193 0 0 196

Sub-total 43 35 38 23 16 1 8 1 49,407 3 1 49,844

GVA0015 Coastland Wood Industries Delta 107 4 13 7 2 1 17 1 29,844 1 1 30,026GVA0051 CIPA Lumber Co. Ltd. Delta 13 16 105 58 20 0 21 1 18,872 0 0 18,987GVA0082 BPB Canada Inc. Delta 20 23 41 15 5 1 1 1 27,907 1 1 28,077GVA0121 Delta Cedar Products Ltd. Delta 59 22 72 49 29 2 2 0 507 2 1 944GVA0123 Weyerhaeuser Company Limited Northwest Hardwoods Delta Division Delta 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 688 0 0 692GVA0133 R. P. Richmond Industrial Contractors Ltd. Delta 0 0 3 3 2 0 51 0 99 0 0 100GVA0153 Westshore Terminals Ltd. Delta 0 0 166 56 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0175 Lehigh Northwest Cement Limited Delta 922 2,336 406 176 64 184 45 0 1,012,815 0 0 1,012,815GVA0190 Domtar Inc. Delta 28 34 21 16 13 1 14 1 40,319 1 1 40,564GVA0236 Davis Wire Industries Ltd. Delta 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,943 0 0 1,955GVA0237 A-Z Sponge & Foam Products Ltd. Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0GVA0277 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0GVA0278 Weyerhaeuser Company Limited Delta 18 14 73 43 22 1 46 0 12,991 1 0 13,135GVA0307 Inteplast Bags and Films Corporation Delta 0 0 1 1 1 0 314 0 278 0 0 280GVA0333 Canadian Autoparts Toyota Inc Delta 6 6 5 4 4 0 85 0 8,503 0 0 8,548GVA0346 Canada Colors & Chemicals Ltd Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0349 Houweling Nurseries Ltd. Delta 59 29 6 5 4 2 2 1 12,062 2 1 12,513GVA0386 North Star Mills Ltd. Delta 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0GVA0406 Laguna Woodcraft Canada Ltd. Delta 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0GVA0409 Mills Paint Sales Limited Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0GVA0422 Buckeye Canada Inc. Delta 4 5 28 21 17 0 0 0 5,891 0 0 5,927GVA0424 International Forest Products Limited; Acorn Forest Products Division Delta 0 1 47 20 11 0 5 0 643 0 0 647GVA0512 Newalta Corporation Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0GVA0521 Canron Western Constructors Ltd. Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0GVA0531 Primex Fibre Ltd. Delta 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0550 Imprimeries Transcontinale GT Inc. Delta 0 0 3 3 3 0 13 0 540 0 0 543GVA0614 Avcorp Industries Inc., Aerostructures Division Delta 0 0 8 6 5 0 34 0 406 0 0 409GVA0624 Imperial Paving Limited Delta 6 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2,221 0 0 2,226GVA1006 Maxim Power (B.C.) Inc. Delta 198 41 1 1 1 11 14 0 22,478 152 0 25,672GVA1014 Ampacet Canada Company Delta 0 0 9 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities Delta 0 0 6 3 1 0 0 0 408 0 0 410

Sub-total 1,443 2,535 1,024 500 220 203 744 5 1,199,415 159 6 1,204,469


A -8

Table A.4.2 – Continued: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Point Source Emissions Inventory - by Facility and Municipality (metric tonnes)


GVA0445 IPEX INC. Langley City 0 0 7 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Sub-total 0 0 7 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

GVA0432 Chemical Lime Company of Canada Inc. Langley Township 14 16 49 20 8 0 1 1 59,904 0 0 60,023GVA0435 Otter Farm & Home Co-Operative Langley Township 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 514 0 0 517GVA0440 CKF Incorporated Langley Township 0 0 10 8 3 0 49 0 0 0 0 0GVA0443 McAsphalt Industries Limited Langley Township 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,194 0 0 1,201GVA0444 Serpentine Cedar Ltd. Langley Township 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0447 Premier Millwork Inc. Langley Township 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0GVA0454 Britco Pork Inc. Langley Township 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,513 0 0 1,522GVA0466 Tyee Timber Products Ltd. Langley Township 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0477 General Electric Canada Langley Township 0 0 3 3 2 0 2 0 479 0 0 482GVA0496 Pacific Fermentation Industries Ltd. Langley Township 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5GVA0505 Unifirst Canada Ltd. Langley Township 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 74 0 0 75GVA0510 Pliant Packaging of Canada LLC Langley Township 1 2 3 2 2 0 401 0 1,940 0 0 1,952GVA0529 Marine Plastics Ltd Langley Township 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 445 0 0 448GVA0558 Pacific Mako (A Div. of Pacific Bronze Ltd.) Langley Township 0 0 11 9 6 0 1 0 298 0 0 299GVA0606 ECP L.P. Langley Township 1 1 10 9 8 0 5 0 1,081 0 0 1,088Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities Langley Township 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 0 138 0 0 139

Sub-total 19 23 106 61 34 1 503 1 67,586 1 0 67,751

GVA0579 Western Drum Recyclers Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 1 1 1 0 12 0 373 0 0 376GVA0582 B. W. Creative Wood Industries Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 28 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0583 E-One Moli Energy (Canada) Limited Maple Ridge 2 2 0 0 0 0 33 0 2,365 0 0 2,379GVA0584 Associated Cedar Products Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0585 Premium Cedar Products Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0587 Maple Leaf Shake & Shingle Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0589 International Forest Products Limited Maple Ridge 25 9 54 26 12 1 1 0 0 1 1 186GVA0590 International Forest Products Limited Maple Ridge 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0592 PAC-DECK Wood Specialties Ltd. Maple Ridge 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 1,245 0 0 1,253GVA0593 Haney Cedar Products Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0596 Waldun Forest Products Ltd. and Twin Rivers Cedar Products Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 1 9 4 2 0 0 0 704 0 0 708GVA0597 Noble Custom Cut Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0598 Pacific Coast Cedar Products Ltd. Maple Ridge 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities Maple Ridge 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 94 0 0 95

Sub-total 28 13 115 53 24 1 47 0 4,782 1 1 4,997

GVA0081 Neptune Bulk Terminals (Canada) Ltd. North Vancouver City 0 0 11 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0617 James Richardson International Limited North Vancouver City 0 0 63 17 3 0 0 0 136 0 0 137GVA0618 Saskatchewan Wheat Pool North Vancouver City 0 0 103 28 4 0 0 0 242 0 0 243

Sub-total 0 0 177 49 8 0 0 0 378 0 0 380

GVA0007 Superior Plus Inc. North Vancouver District 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0010 Nexen Chemicals Canada Limited Partnership North Vancouver District 41 137 5 4 4 1 3 2 58,718 1 1 59,075GVA0086 Vancouver Wharves Ltd. North Vancouver District 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0188 McKenzie Barge & Marine Ways Ltd. North Vancouver District 0 0 5 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0GVA0242 B.A. Blacktop Limited North Vancouver District 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2,539 0 0 2,555GVA0248 Fibreco Export Inc. North Vancouver District 0 0 445 258 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0254 Newalta Corporation North Vancouver District 2 3 1 1 0 6 0 0 3,405 0 0 3,426GVA0425 Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. North Vancouver District 0 0 25 12 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0GVA0556 International Bio Recovery Corporation North Vancouver District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 151GVA0604 Imperial Oil Limited North Vancouver District 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0GVA0611 Shell Canada Products Limited North Vancouver District 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities North Vancouver District 0 0 17 9 3 0 0 0 309 0 0 310

Sub-total 46 142 503 291 95 7 29 2 65,121 1 1 65,516


A -9



GVA0014 Canadian Forest Products Limited New Westminster 14 17 161 61 23 0 147 1 20,374 0 0 20,498GVA0030 Weyerhauser Company Ltd., New Westminster Division New Westminster 4 5 100 46 22 0 14 0 5,823 0 0 5,858GVA0034 Scott Paper Limited New Westminster 107 68 138 104 84 4 11 2 50,587 3 2 51,428GVA0040 International Forest Products Ltd. Western Whitewood Division New Westminster 7 9 38 22 8 0 17 0 10,271 0 0 10,333GVA0063 Stella Jones Inc. New Westminster 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 2,502 0 0 2,517GVA0065 Smurfit-MBI New Westminster 2 2 6 5 4 0 0 0 2,808 0 0 2,825GVA0078 Winvan Paving Ltd. New Westminster 7 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 3,916 0 0 3,940GVA0115 Labatt Breweries of British Columbia New Westminster 2 3 2 1 1 0 3 0 3,043 0 0 3,062GVA0290 Glacier Northwest Canadian Ltd. New Westminster 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0374 Canada Metal Pacific Ltd New Westminster 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 681 0 0 685GVA0508 Nikolai Manufacturing Inc. New Westminster 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0GVA0554 Kemira Chemicals Canada Inc. New Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 290

Sub-total 146 110 452 242 144 5 193 10 100,293 4 3 101,436

GVA0052 Esco Limited Port Coquitlam 4 7 45 24 20 0 95 0 5,819 0 0 5,854GVA0482 Web Press Graphics Ltd. Port Coquitlam 0 2 4 4 4 0 11 0 1,928 0 0 1,940GVA0518 Indalex Limited Port Coquitlam 5 6 1 1 0 0 143 0 7,406 0 0 7,451

Sub-total 10 15 50 29 24 0 249 0 15,153 0 0 15,245

GVA0004 Reichhold Limited Port Moody 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,240 0 0 2,254GVA0060 Flavelle Sawmill Company Limited Port Moody 0 0 38 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0200 Petro-Canada Products Port Moody 9 11 1 1 1 0 69 0 12,777 0 0 12,855GVA0205 Pacific Coast Terminals Co. Ltd. Port Moody 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0GVA0229 Can-Am Steel Drums Limited Port Moody 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 1,289 0 0 1,297GVA0294 Esso Petroleum Canada Port Moody 1 1 0 0 0 0 41 0 886 0 0 892GVA0330 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Port Moody 9 16 4 4 4 1 3 1 67,616 1 1 68,028

Sub-total 21 31 46 22 13 2 123 2 84,809 2 2 85,325

GVA0003 Richmond Steel Recycling Ltd. Richmond 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0008 Fraser Wharves Ltd. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0GVA0019 Sawarne Lumber Co. Ltd. Richmond 0 0 16 8 4 0 0 0 401 0 0 404GVA0032 Richmond Plywood Corporation Limited Richmond 127 72 241 119 61 5 149 1 15,201 4 3 16,135GVA0036 PTPC Corrugated Company Richmond 3 4 52 39 31 0 1 0 4,987 0 0 5,018GVA0064 Norampac Inc., Richmond Division Richmond 1 1 32 24 19 0 0 0 1,399 0 0 1,407GVA0096 Pan-Abode International Ltd. Richmond 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 412 0 0 415GVA0097 Warren Materials Inc. Richmond 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2,531 0 0 2,537GVA0102 Terminal Forest Products Ltd. Richmond 1 1 35 14 7 0 0 0 1,763 0 0 1,773GVA0142 Metalex Products Ltd. Richmond 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1,686 0 0 1,696GVA0149 Flexstar Packaging Inc. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 248 0 0 250GVA0154 Lafarge Canada Inc. Richmond 1,800 1,230 400 169 42 13 95 5 900,190 0 0 900,190GVA0163 Grimm's Fine Foods Ltd. Richmond 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1,552 0 0 1,562GVA0178 Univar Canada Ltd. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0GVA0184 Tree Island Industries Ltd. Richmond 11 14 59 49 43 2 44 1 16,130 0 0 16,236GVA0255 R. Wales & Son Industrial Rubber Rebuilding Ltd. Richmond 3 5 8 7 6 3 4 0 5,949 0 0 5,985GVA0260 Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. Richmond 0 0 19 7 4 0 30 0 132 0 0 133GVA0322 Ebco Industries Ltd. Richmond 6 7 6 5 4 0 1 0 8,072 0 0 8,121GVA0326 Columbia Foam, Inc. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 170GVA0341 ACR Group Inc. Richmond 1 1 3 2 1 0 5 0 895 0 0 901GVA0365 Ball Packaging Products Canada Inc. Richmond 0 0 8 6 5 0 1 0 325 0 0 327GVA0367 Chamberlain Spring Ltd. Richmond 1 1 6 5 4 0 4 0 1,024 0 0 1,030GVA0371 Technic Inc. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24GVA0389 Canterbury Coffee Corporation Richmond 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 869 0 0 874GVA0404 Trident Millwork & Display Industries Ltd. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0GVA0413 Bacon, Donaldson & Assoc. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0GVA0420 Teldon International Inc. Richmond 0 1 1 1 1 0 7 0 654 0 0 658GVA0426 Air Canada Richmond 2 3 4 3 3 0 18 0 3,527 0 0 3,548GVA0485 Montalco Cabinets Ltd. Richmond 0 0 1 1 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0GVA0500 H-S Tool and Parts Inc. Richmond 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0GVA0528 Ropate Equipment Refinishers Ltd. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0GVA1009 Ebco Metal Finishing L.P. Richmond 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,008 0 0 2,024GVA1015 Sonic Environmental Solutions Inc. Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities Richmond 2 2 25 13 5 0 0 0 2,863 0 0 2,880

Sub-total 1,971 1,349 926 480 246 26 550 9 973,011 5 4 974,296


A -10



GVA0069 Georgia-Pacific Canada Inc. Surrey 14 16 2 2 1 0 1 1 19,708 0 0 19,828GVA0107 Robar Industries Ltd. Surrey 2 2 24 21 19 0 3 0 2,458 0 0 2,473GVA0161 Thompson Foundry Ltd. Surrey 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 109GVA0174 Cloverdale Paint Inc. Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 97 0 0 98GVA0197 Highland Foundry Ltd. Surrey 1 1 25 20 10 0 6 0 1,044 0 0 1,050GVA0212 Titan Steel & Wire Co. Ltd. Surrey 2 3 25 20 17 0 4 0 3,482 0 0 3,503GVA0239 Century Pacific Foundry Ltd. Surrey 1 1 6 4 2 0 4 0 814 0 0 819GVA0240 Maple Leaf Consumer Foods Surrey 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1,797 0 0 1,808GVA0253 Bel-Par Industries Ltd. Surrey 0 0 5 2 1 0 4 0 525 0 0 528GVA0269 Teal Cedar Products Ltd. Surrey 2 3 160 71 26 0 82 0 3,232 0 0 3,252GVA0273 Western Cleanwood Preservers Ltd. Surrey 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 626 0 0 630GVA0311 Imasco Minerals Inc. Surrey 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 547 0 0 550GVA0340 Hal Industries Inc. Surrey 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,224 0 0 1,232GVA0355 OCL Manufacturing Ltd. Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10GVA0363 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0373 Tilbury Laminates Ltd. Surrey 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0375 Astrographic Industries Ltd. Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 125 0 0 126GVA0392 International Forest Products Ltd. Surrey 0 0 9 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0GVA0394 Hudson, Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc. Surrey 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0399 Ewos Canada Ltd. Surrey 2 3 13 11 9 0 0 0 3,122 0 0 3,141GVA0460 Precision Heat Treat Ltd. Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 0 0 437GVA0543 National Silicates Partnership, operating as National Silicates Surrey 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 617 0 0 621GVA0549 McAllister Spring Ltd. Surrey 0 1 10 8 6 0 5 0 1,028 0 0 1,034GVA0574 Sauder Industries Limited Prefinish Wood Products Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 331 0 0 0 0 0GVA0601 Petro-Canada Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0GVA0607 Mostad Publications Ltd. Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 248 0 0 250Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities Surrey 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 74

Sub-total 28 34 295 168 98 3 496 1 41,321 1 1 41,572

GVA0002 Hexion Specialty Chemical Canada Inc. Vancouver 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1,897 0 0 1,909GVA0035 Doman Forest Products Limited, Vancouver Vancouver 0 0 28 11 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0GVA0083 Howe Sound Pulp & Paper General Partner Ltd. (Westcoast Cellufibre D Vancouver 0 0 41 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0141 West Coast Reduction Ltd. Vancouver 19 22 59 38 26 0 1 1 26,883 1 0 27,046GVA0171 Carmanah Design & Manufacturing Inc. Vancouver 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 639 0 0 643GVA0176 Molson Canada 2005 Vancouver 6 7 3 2 2 0 0 0 8,965 0 0 9,020GVA0204 Kraft Canada Inc. Vancouver 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2,213 0 0 2,217GVA0345 Quebecor Printing Inc. Vancouver 0 9 4 4 4 0 17 0 10,926 0 0 10,992GVA0370 Nutreco Canada Inc. Vancouver 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,198 0 0 3,218GVA0380 Columbia Containers Ltd. Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0385 Mitchell Press Limited Vancouver 1 2 3 3 3 0 5 0 1,810 0 0 1,821GVA0470 Sofina Foods Inc. Vancouver 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2,690 0 0 2,706GVA0489 Coastal Containers Ltd. Vancouver 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0519 General Paint Ltd Vancouver 0 0 2 2 1 0 92 0 0 0 0 0GVA0547 Petro-Canada Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0GVA0565 Chevron Canada Limited Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0GVA0571 Rogers Sugar Ltd. Vancouver 28 47 22 18 16 1 3 1 40,652 1 0 40,745GVA0605 Shell Canada Products Limited Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0GVA0615 Cascadia Terminal Vancouver 0 0 173 45 7 0 0 0 219 0 0 220GVA0616 Pacific Elevators Limited Vancouver 0 0 47 12 2 0 0 0 79 0 0 79GVA0619 Alliance Grain Terminals Ltd. Vancouver 0 0 49 13 2 0 0 0 350 0 0 352GVA0620 Imperial Oil Limited Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0621 City of Vancouver Vancouver 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2,185 0 0 2,190GVA1011 Hallmark Poultry Processors Ltd. Vancouver 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Regulation Ready Mix Concrete And Concrete Products Facilities Vancouver 2 2 26 14 5 0 0 0 2,551 0 0 2,567

Sub-total 68 98 463 190 82 2 133 2 105,258 2 1 105,725

GVA0001 University of British Columbia Electoral Area A (UEL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GVA0481 Forintek Canada Corp. Electoral Area A (UEL) 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 548 0 0 551

Sub-total 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 548 0 0 551


A -11



PA2329 Clayburn Industries Limited Abbotsford 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 629 0 0 633PA2336 Abbotsford Gravel Sales Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA2845 Clayburn Industries Limited Abbotsford 23 7 20 12 3 11 1 0 10,918 3 0 10,976PA3530 Lucerne Foods, Division of Canada Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 566 0 0 569PA3862 Richie Smith Feeds Inc. Abbotsford 2 2 24 7 1 0 0 0 2,357 0 0 2,371PA4096 Pacific Pallet Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 37 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA4195 Clearbrook Grain And Milling Abbotsford 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 588 0 0 591PA4288 M.S.A. Terminals Ltd. Abbotsford 0 1 11 2 0 0 0 0 614 0 0 617PA4590 Valley Rite Mix Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 149PA5143 Flex-Lox Pipe Limited Abbotsford 0 0 9 8 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0PA5461 Tristar Brick And Block Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 105PA6817 Sumas Clay Products Limited Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 276 0 0 278PA7233 BMW Shake Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA8265 Ecotex Laundry Services Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30PA10567 Saran Cedar Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA10656 Westree Custom Cedar Products Inc. Abbotsford 0 0 14 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA10660 Quadra Wood Products Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA10880 Astrographic Industries Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 36 0 0 36PA11517 Bath Holdings Inc. Abbotsford 0 0 8 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA13027 Rempel Bros. Concrete Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 83PA13052 Re-Con Building Products Abbotsford 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 10PA13261 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 0 0 178PA13264 Western Canoeing Manufacturing Abbotsford 0 0 6 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0PA13640 Target Products Ltd Abbotsford 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,405 0 0 2,420PA14450 Grandview Blacktop Ltd Abbotsford 19 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1,714 0 0 1,733PA14874 North West Rubber Mats Ltd. Abbotsford 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1,700 0 0 1,710PA14931 BASF Canada Inc. Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA14971 Abbotsford Concrete Products Abbotsford 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA15570 Ross West Properties Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA15749 D&D Pallets Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA15750 Valley Processing Inc. Abbotsford 0 0 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA16047 Mirax Lumber Products Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 9 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA16466 Ross West Properties Ltd. Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA16533 Ember, IOAN Abbotsford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Regulation Asphalt Paving Facilities Abbotsford 61 18 6 4 2 13 1 0 5,633 1 0 5,687

Sub-total 109 34 177 83 39 24 7 0 27,983 4 0 28,178

PA4431 Unifeed Chilliwack 2 2 37 11 1 0 0 0 2,685 0 0 2,701PA5306 Rempel Bros. Concrete Ltd. Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 23PA5402 Valley Rite Mix Ltd. Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 25PA6411 District Of Chilliwack Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA6813 Ivis Wood Industries Ltd. Chilliwack 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA7400 Indian Hardwoods Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA7502 Fraser Valley Duck And Goose Ltd. Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA8109 Masonite International Corporation Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0PA8172 Lyle Forest Products Ltd. Chilliwack 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0PA8174 Canadian Forest Products Chilliwack 45 21 79 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA8266 Visscher Lumber Chilliwack 3 3 66 26 13 0 19 0 4,136 0 0 4,161PA8328 Tri-V Pet Foods Ltd. Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 0 0 285PA11894 Coldstream Collision Chilliwack 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA13008 Candor Interior Specialties Inc. Chilliwack 0 0 1 1 0 0 9 0 497 0 0 500PA13278 Baer Woodworking Ltd. Chilliwack 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA14242 Elk Creek Feed Company Chilliwack 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 314 0 0 316PA16129 Soprema Inc. Chilliwack 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 902 0 0 908PA17588 Taplow Ventures Ltd. Chilliwack 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 831 0 0 836Regulation Asphalt Paving Facilities Chilliwack 14 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1,439 0 0 1,474Regulation Natural Gas Transmission Facility Chilliwack 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,670 362 0 15,298

Sub-total 71 35 200 72 22 1 72 0 18,805 363 0 26,526


A -12



PA6830 Harrison Hot Springs Resort & Spa Ltd. Harrison Hot Springs 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,343 0 0 1,351Sub-total 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,343 0 0 1,351

PA6811 Emil Anderson Construction Co. Ltd. Hope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RA3534 Westcoast Energy Inc. Hope 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,744 280 0 7,638Regulation Natural Gas Transmission Facility Hope 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,744 280 0 7,638

Sub-total 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1,744 280 0 7,638

PA6349 Council Of Forest Industries Of B.C. Kent 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 77Sub-total 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 77

PA1941 Meeker Cedar Products 1967 Ltd. Mission 0 0 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA6512 Great West Cedar Products Mission 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA7018 Mount Baker Forest Products Ltd. Mission 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA7235 Prospective Shake Products Ltd. Mission 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PA10496 Forever in Peace Mission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1PA12527 Valley Rite-Mix Ltd. Mission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 30

Sub-total 0 0 13 5 3 0 0 0 29 0 0 31

PA1938 Stave Lake Cedar Mills Inc. Electoral Areas in FVRD1 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 1,501 0 0 1,510PA16373 Sunshine Valley Development Electoral Areas in FVRD1 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 77

Sub-total 11 2 4 2 1 0 1 0 1,501 1 0 1,587

Canadian LFV Total 4,281 5,208 4,785 2,414 1,167 957 3,942 40 3,323,010 835 29 3,349,413


A -13

References – CLFV Point Sources Azarafshar, Elham, 2007, Natural Resources Canada. Personal Communication EPA. “AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.” http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html EPA. “WEBFIRE Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants.” http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main Metro Vancouver. 2007. “2005 Lower Fraser Valley air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast.” http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/inventory_reports.htm Natural Resources Canada. 2006. “Canada’s Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006.”


B -1

Appendix B – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Area Sources Area sources are smaller, broadly distributed light industrial, commercial, institutional, residential, agricultural and naturally occurring sources that normally do not require an air discharge permit but may be regulated by other mechanisms. Area sources are typically too small, numerous, or impractical to inventory using the methods for the other classes of sources. These area sources are aggregated in such a way that emissions can be estimated for an entire category using one methodology. The area source inventory for 2005 includes the following major categories: • agricultural sources • burning (including agricultural burning) • gasoline marketing • landfills • natural sources • solvent evaporation • heating • miscellaneous area sources Area sources are essentially a catch-all of all other stationary sources not included in the point source category. Their diversity, number and complexity can make them difficult to inventory accurately. At the outset of the 2005 inventory project, the methodologies used for the past inventories were reviewed, and updated as needed for consistency with current area source methodologies used by the EPA, California Air Resources Board (CARB), Environment Canada, and BC MoE. In general, most area source emission estimates were calculated as the product of a base quantity and an emission factor. An emission factor is a representative value which relates the mass emission of a given contaminant to a base quantity associated with the emission source. The principal sources of emission factors are the publications “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources” (EPA), the Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP1) technical reports, and “Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2003” (Environment Canada, 2005). Data was supplemented with information from “WEBFIRE, Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants” (EPA). The following general algorithm is used for estimating emissions of each contaminant: ET = BQ x EF x C where: ET = total, annual emissions of a given contaminant BQ = base quantity (e.g. fuel use, number of fires, number of people) EF = emission factor, as annual emission per unit of base quantity C = emission/pollution control factor

1 EIIP is a jointly sponsored effort of the EPA and State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.


B -2

Area source emissions data are, for the most part, estimated on a CLFV-wide, annual basis. These emission estimates are then disaggregated by city and municipality, using several different methods. Wherever possible, base quantity information is obtained with as much geographical data as possible. An example is the amount of natural gas use by municipality. In the absence of specific spatial data, individual profiles were developed for each area source category, using surrogate parameters expected to reasonably follow the distribution of emissions. Examples include the use of municipal population statistics for the spatial distribution of emissions from consumer products. The individual source categories are explained in detail below, along with a description of the methodologies used to estimate their emissions for 2005.

B.1 Area Source Emission Estimation Methodology

B.1.1 Agricultural Sources

Livestock and Wildlife Enteric Fermentation and Dust Generation Volatile organic compounds and methane are released during the process of enteric fermentation by wildlife and livestock. The collection and management of manure from livestock creates further emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. Livestock also create emissions of particulate matter by generating dust. Emissions were calculated using emission factors from various sources (as outlined below) multiplied by base quantities of number of animals by type as provided in the 2006 Census (StatsCan, 2008). Emission factors and base quantities for the various livestock types are shown in Table B.1.1.1.


B -3

Table B.1.1.1: Emission Factors for Livestock Enteric Fermentation and Dust Generation

Livestock Base Quantity

Emission Factors (kg/head/year2)

Head Part PM PM VOC CH4 Steers 1 yr & over 2,981 6.38 2.13 0.32 Dairy cows 52,176 33.70 134.80 Bulls 1,223 23.50 94.00 Beef Cows 7,642 22.50 90.00 Dairy Heifers 24,227 18.25 73.00 Beef Heifers 1,434 18.75 75.00 Heifers for slaughter 5,765 15.75 63.00 Steers 2,981 14.00 56.00

Cattle

Calves 27,037 10.00 40.00 Boars 296 3.74 1.87 0.37 0.33 1.3 Sows 12.024 2.76 1.38 0.28 0.42 1.7

Pigs

Pigs 88.092 0.76 0.38 0.08 0.21 0.9 Ewes and rams 4.490 1.96 7.8 Sheep Market Lambs 4.211 0.93 3.7 Broilers 12,012,555 36.76 3.68 0.36 1 4.19 Poultry Layers 3,459,637 19.98 3.996 0.396 3 12.49

Turkey 766,940 16.97 1.70 0.166 0.02 0.06 (Both) 4.14 16.55 Paddocks 1,952 2.15 0.72 0.11

Horses

Rings 6,919 1.61 0.54 0.08 (All) 2.85 11.41 Goats 5,056 11.41 Minks 261,948 0

Miscellaneous Animals

Llamas & Alpacas 902 0 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation from livestock (except cattle) were calculated using emission factors developed specifically for B.C. livestock as part of a 1991 study and recommended by consultants (Levelton, 2004) as part of the Analysis of Best Management Practices and Emission Inventory of Agricultural Sources in the LFV. Methane from enteric fermentation in cattle was calculated using emission factors from Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005). Emission factors for particulate produced by livestock were provided by a study completed by the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BC MAL, 2006). Releases of volatile organic compounds were assumed to be equivalent to 25% of the methane emissions from animal enteric fermentation as recommended by consultants (Levelton, 2004).

2 Emission factors for Poultry and Turkeys are in kg/1000head/year


B -4

Livestock and Wildlife Manure Management The management of manure produces methane, ammonia, and nitrous oxide emissions. Similarly to emissions from enteric fermentation, emission factors for manure management from livestock are provided per head of livestock. Thus base quantities from the 2006 Census were used. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions were calculated using the IPCC Tier 2 emission factor methodologies from Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management (IPCC, 2006). Volatile solids and nitrogen excretion rates were also taken from the 2006 IPCC guidelines. Fractions of livestock manure handled by each waste system type were determined by consultants through discussions with provincial officials (Levelton, 2004). Manure conversion factors relied on recommendations from the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL). Emission factors for manure management are shown in Table B.1.1.2. Table B.1.1.2: Emission Factors for Livestock Manure Management

Base Quantity Emission Factor (kg/head/year) Livestock Head NH3 CH4 N2O

Dairy cows 52,176 21.03 46.82 0.97 Dairy Heifers 24,227 10.08 46.82 0.97 Heifers for slaughter 5,765 10.08 26.70 0.55 Calves 27,037 7.91 9.88 0.20 Beef cows 7,642 10.50 1.62 1.57 Bulls 1,223 12.92 2.30 2.59 Steers 2,981 10.32 2.02 1.17

Cattle

Beef Heifers 1,434 10.08 0.34 0.38 Sows 12.024 11.04 8.51 0.35 Pigs Boars 296 5.68 11.51 0.47 Ewes and rams 4.490 2.00 0.49 0.26 Sheep Market lambs 4.211 2.00 0.10 0.10 Broilers 12,012,555 0.21 0.02 0.0061 Poultry Layers 3,459,637 0.37 0.02 0.0056

Turkey 766,940 0.70 0.04 5 0.00 Horses 8,871 8.67 2.05 2.51

Goats 5,056 6.40 0.15 0.19 Mink 261,948 0.58 0.0122 0.0003


Llama 902 1.08 0.34 0.38

Fertilizer, Pesticide and Limestone/Dolomite Application The application of fertilizers and pesticides generate particulate matter, ammonia, and nitrous oxide. The application of limestone and dolomite releases carbon dioxide. Emission factors for particulate matter are in kilograms per tonne of fertilizer applied or per hectare of land affected for pesticides. Land area to which fertilizers or pesticides were applied, in hectares, was taken from the 2006 Census by census region. The land area for fertilizer application was converted to kilograms of nitrogen per region based on information from a study on agricultural nutrient management (Environment Canada, 2000). The amount


B -5

of nitrogen applied was converted to an amount of fertilizer applied by weighting the amount of nitrogen-containing fertilizer sold in BC in 2005 (CFI 2006; CFI, 2007) by the nitrogen content of each fertilizer. The result was an assumption of 0.244 tonnes of nitrogen per tonne of fertilizer, on average in BC for 2005. Emissions of particulate matter from pesticide application were based on emission factors gathered for the previous inventory (GVRD, 2003) and a federal guidebook (Environment Canada, 2000b). Emission factor units were kilogram of PM per hectare of pesticide application, thus were multiplied by the 2006 census data on land area (hectares) to which pesticides (herbicides, fungicides, insecticides) had been applied per census region. The particulate emission factors then applied to the amount of fertilizer and pesticide are shown in Table B.1.1.3. Table B.1.1.3: Particulate Emission Factors for Application of Fertilizers and Pesticides Pollutant Fertilizer Emission Factor

(kg/tonne fertilizer) Pesticide Emission Factor (kg/ha pesticide applied)

PM 2.23 1.67 PM10 1.09 0.82 PM2.5 0.31 0.23 The amount of ammonia volatilized is dependant on the type of fertilizer used. Amounts of fertilizer sold in B.C. were taken from the Canadian Fertilizer Institute (CFI 2006; CFI, 2007) and used to create a weighted average of ammonia volatilization per tonne of fertilizer equal to 34.88 kg ammonia per tonne of fertilizer. The amount of nitrogen volatilized from each type of fertilizer was taken from an inventory of ammonia emissions (Environment Canada, 1995) and assumed converted to ammonia (multiplied by the ratio of molecular weights). Fertilizers also emit nitrous oxide (N2O). Emissions of nitrous oxides from synthetic and organic (manure) fertilizers were calculated using emission equations from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 2006). Emission factors used were: N2Osynthetic = (0.01+0.1*0.01)*44/14 = 0.035 kg/kg of Nitrogen applied N2Oorganic = (0.01+0.2*0.01)*44/28= 0.189 kg/kg of Nitrogen applied Carbon dioxide emissions from the application of limestone and dolomite were calculated using the methodology used in both Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005) and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Tier 1 approach (IPCC, 2006). Carbon dioxide emission factors per amount of limestone or dolomite applied (tonnes) are provided in Table B.1.1.4.


B -6

Table B.1.1.4: Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Application of Limestone and Dolomite Pollutant Limestone Emission Factor

(tonne/tonne of Limestone) Dolomite Emission Factor (tonne/tonne of dolomite)

CO2 0.440 0.477 The previous emission inventory (GVRD, 2003) pro-rated the total lime/dolomite application (tonnes) of lime and dolomite from Washington state to the LFV using total farm area in BC/Washington as surrogates and assuming that 75% of the lime use occurs in the LFV. The 2005 Census of Agriculture provides the total hectares of land to which lime/dolomite was applied, but doesn’t provide the actual amounts applied. This information was not available in 2001. For 2005, the year 2000 base quantity was grown to 2005 based on the increase in crop area in the LFV (4.95%). Then the lime for the LFV was split into the various regions based on the 2005 lime application area (hectares). The total crop area in the LFV was used in 2000 to split the lime application in the LFV into Metro Vancouver and FVRD1. Emission estimates for VOCs from all forms of pesticide application, including agricultural and domestic, are discussed in Section B.1.6, Solvent Evaporation.

Fugitive Dust From Tilling Particulate emissions from agricultural tilling are proportional to the area tilled. In addition, the emissions depend on the silt content of the soil, the speed and type of the tilling, and the number of tills in a year. Emission factors per crop were calculated using an equation from the U.S. EPA’s AP-42. Following recommendations from the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BC MAL, 2006), a factor for moisture content was added to the AP-42 (U.S. EPA 2007) emission factor equation. BC MAL also recommended increasing the silt content of the soil to 30% better reflect the average of EPA findings. The final emission factor equation used was: EFt (kg PM / ha) = 5.38 m k s0.6 The emission factor (EF) is in units of kg/hectare tilled, k is the particle size multiplier (0.21 for PM10, and 0.042 for PM2.5), m is the moisture reduction factor (with values of 0.02 for spring, 0.5 for summer and 0.2 for fall) and s is the silt content (30%) of the surface soil. This equation is valid for silt contents between 1.7% and 88% and for a tilling speed between 8 and 10 km/h. Information on the average particle size distribution was obtained from U.S. EPA (2007). The final emission factors for fugitive dust from tilling operations are shown by crop in Table B.1.1.5 Table B.1.1.5: Particulate Emission Factors for Tilling Operations Per Season

Emission Factor per season (kg/ha) Pollutant Spring Summer Fall

PM 4.1 20.7 4.1 PM10 0.9 4.3 0.9 PM2.5 0.2 0.9 0.2 Particulate emissions, E (tonne), were then estimated using the following equation: E = EF x A x N / 1000


B -7

In the above equation, N is the number of tilling events per year as estimated by BC MAL Specialists (BC MAL, 2006) and A is the total crop area which was provided in the 2006 Census of Agriculture (Statistics Canada, 2006). The numbers of tilling events per year per crop are shown in Table B.1.1.6. Table B.1.1.6: Number of Tilling Events Per Crop Per Season in Metro Vancouver and FVRD

Number of tilling events per seasonCrop spring summer fall

Corn 3 0.5 0.75 Forage/hay 1 0 0.5 Pasture 0.5 0 Alfalfa 1 0 0.5 Raspberries 1.19 0.58 1.97 Blueberries 0.47 0 0 Turf 0 1 1 Cannery peas 5 3 0 Other vegetables 6 1.5 2 Wind Erosion of Soils Estimates of windblown dust emissions from agricultural fields were performed using a wind erosion emission factor equation from the EPA (CARB, 1997). Emission estimates depend on factors such as soil erodibility (I, which varies with soil texture class), climatic factors (C), surface roughness factors (K, the presence of ridges, furrows, or large clods), unsheltered field width (L’) and the types and area of vegetative cover (V’). Local data on soil types, temperature, precipitation, wind velocity and crop area was applied in order to tailor the estimate to the conditions of the CLFV. Using all these factors, an emission factor, EF (kg/hectare), for wind erosion can then be estimated using (EPA 1974): EF = A x I x K x C x L’ x V’ where A is the measured particulate portion (A=0.025 for TSP (Total Suspended Particulate), A=0.0125 for PM10, and A=0.00025 for PM2.5). Annual Climatic “C” factors were derived for 12 regions in the Lower Fraser Valley using 25 year climate normals. The “C” factors were developed for the 2000 Emission Inventory and were not updated for the 2005 EI as small changes in climate normals would produce even smaller effects on the overall wind erosion calculation. Land areas by crop for each of the regions were used as the base quantities along with the emission factors derived as described above. Particulate matter was speciated to PM10 and PM2.5 by assuming fractions of 0.5 and 0.11, respectively. Emission factors were developed for each municipality and each crop type. Averaged emission factors for the entire Canadian Lower Fraser Valley are shown in Table B.1.1.7.


B -8

Table B.1.1.7: Particulate Emission Factors from Wind Erosion by Crop, Averaged for the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley

Emission Factor (t/ha) Crop PM PM10 PM2.5

Oats 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Barley 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Grain corn 0.1079 0.0540 0.0120 Silage corn 0.0717 0.0359 0.0080 Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other tame hay 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Potatoes 0.0406 0.0203 0.0045 Other field crops 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vegetables 0.0678 0.0339 0.0075

Spatial Distribution For all emission sources above, spatial allocation of emissions to regional district and municipal levels was based on Census information from Statistics Canada (2002), which included livestock, crop type, crop land area and agricultural activity distributions.

B.1.2 Burning

Agricultural Burning Agricultural burning consists of organic refuse from field crops, wood and leaves. Emissions depend on the moisture content of the refuse and the amount of organic refuse per land area. The amount of organic refuse burned was estimated as the product of the number of agricultural burning permits issued (this information was obtained from each municipality), the average number of hectares under cultivation per farm operation (obtained from 2001 Census, StatsCan 2002), and the organic refuse per hectare. Emission factors (Table B.1.2.1) were derived from the following sources: AP-42, Section on Open Burning (EPA, 10/92 – Reformatted 1/95), Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005), EIIP – Estimating Ammonia Emissions From Anthropogenic Non Agricultural Sources – Draft Final Report (Apr. 2004). Table B.1.2.1: Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Burning

Base UnitsQuantity CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

Agricultural 33,436 tonnes 58.00 2.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 - 9.00 0.56 - 6.20 1.30Forest Fires 28,196 tonnes 101.00 1.50 17.00 13.00 12.00 0.01 4.27 0.63 - 3.00 1.75Prescribed Burning 1,211 tonnes 111.10 2.00 13.30 10.30 9.40 0.04 9.00 0.63 - 6.20 1.30Incineration 708 tonnes - - 2.33 1.51 1.01 - - - - 0.23 0.16Incineration 10,815 body 0.14 0.31 - - - 0.05 0.01 - - - -Open Burning 6,304 tonnes 56.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 0.50 9.30 0.56 - 6.20 1.30Land Clearing 32,732 tonnes 101.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 0.50 9.00 0.63 - 6.20 1.30Vehicle Fires 177 tonnes 62.50 2.00 50.00 49.13 46.58 - 16.00 - - 5.00 -Structural Fires 2,198 tonnes 30.00 0.70 5.40 5.40 5.40 - 5.50 0.63 405 6.20 1.30

Emission Factor (kg/unit base quantity)


B -9

Forest Fires and Prescribed Burning Emission estimates for forest fires and prescribed burning were prepared in cooperation with BC Ministry of Environment (BC MoE). The main source of information is a report entitled “Biomass Consumption and Smoke Emissions from Contemporary and Prehistoric Wildland Fires in British Columbia” (Taylor and Sherman, 1996). The report documents emission factors for forest fires in B.C. by type of fire. Emission factors for forest fires and prescribed burning in the CLFV are reproduced in Table B.1.2.1. All factors were from the Taylor and Sherman report, with the exception of SOx and VOC, which were developed in cooperation with BC MoE. GHG emission factors were taken from Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005). In order to use these emission factors, base quantity information was obtained from the BC MoE (Lawrence, 2007) on the occurrence, duration, size, date and location of forest fires in the CLFV for 2005. The B.C. Forest data reported the sizes of fires in hectares, so it was necessary to convert area to mass. This was done using average biomass consumption factors (135 tonnes per hectare) from the AP-42 Section on Wildfires and Prescribed Burning (EPA, 1996). In total there were 47 wildfires in the CLFV in 2005, with biomass consumption estimated at 28,200 tonnes with 98.5% coming from the Burns Bog fire in September 2005. Prescribed burning data was received from the BC MoE (Lawrence, 2007) and the biomass consumption was estimated at 1,863 tonnes

Incineration The main incineration sources included human and animal waste crematoria. Animal waste crematoria were contacted directly for information on waste quantities. Human crematoria data was received from the B.C. Statistics, 2005 annual report, Death-related Statistics. The base quantities and emission factors are summarized in Table B.1.2.1. CAC emission factors were obtained from the Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory 2002 (Environment Canada, 2004) with the exception of particulate matter (PM, PM10 & PM2.5) which was taken from AP-42, Chapter 2.3 Medical Waste Incineration. Greenhouse gas emission factors were obtained from Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005).

Open Burning Open burning includes residential backyard burning, brush and yard cleanup burning. While open burning is banned in most member municipalities of Metro Vancouver, some do allow burning on either an annual or seasonal basis. Based on discussions with member municipalities and information from a report entitled “Improved PM Fine Emission Estimation Techniques in the National Emissions Inventory” (EPA, 1999) and data in EIIP Volume III “Open Burning” (2001), the organic refuse loading was estimated to be 106 kg/person /year. This value was used in conjunction with the percentage of rural and urban forestation of the area and the emission factors listed in Table B.1.2.1 to develop emission estimates for open burning by municipality. Greenhouse gas emission factors were obtained from Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005).

Land Clearing The land clearing sector refers to the burning of indigenous debris that is being cleared for the purpose of residential, commercial or industrial construction. Based on discussions with municipalities and a study conducted by the District of Mission (McCullough, 1991), it was estimated that 167 tonnes of debris is burned in a typical permitted land clearing operation. This value was used in conjunction with the number of permits issued, to develop emission estimates from land clearing burning. Emission factors (Table


B -10

B.1.2.1) were obtained from AP-42, Section on Open Burning (EPA, 10/92 – Reformatted 1/95), EIIP Volume III “Open Burning” (2001), Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005), EIIP – Estimating Ammonia Emissions From Anthropogenic Non Agricultural Sources – Draft Final Report (Apr. 2004) and “Biomass Consumption and Smoke Emissions from Contemporary and Prehistoric Wildland Fires in British Columbia” (Taylor and Sherman, 1996).

Vehicle Fires This sector covers air emissions from accidental and deliberately set vehicle fires, including any commercial or private vehicle that is authorized for use on public roads. Data on the number and location of these fires was provided by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (Floro, 2007). It was assumed that 227 kg of components are consumed per vehicle fire (CARB, 1999). In 2005, there were 779 reported vehicle fires in the region, amounting to about 177 tonnes of components consumed in vehicle fires. The vehicle fire emission factors listed in Table B.1.2.1 were obtained from the EIIP document “Area Source Category Method Abstract – Vehicle Fires” (2000).

Structural Fires Emission estimates for structural fires were developed using the methodology described in the EIIP report “Structure Fires” (2001). CAC emission factors shown in Table B.1.2.1 were obtained from this document, nitrous oxide and methane emission factors were taken from Environment Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990 – 2003 – National Inventory Report (Apr. 2005), the ammonia factor from EIIP – Estimating Ammonia Emissions From Anthropogenic Non Agricultural Sources – Draft Final Report (Apr. 2004) and PM10 and PM2.5 speciation from EPA PSD4PM10. A carbon dioxide factor of 405 kg/tonne of material burned was used, which was derived from using the factor of 1620 kg/tonne of material burned (from Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Environment Canada 2005) and an assumption that 75% of the combustible material in a structural fire is wood. This derivation was necessary to account for the fact that any carbon dioxide emissions from wood burning are excluded from the emission inventory. The base quantity is the mass burned per fire. The cities of Richmond (Furlong, 2007), Abbotsford (Helmer, 2007) and Vancouver (Thompson, 2007) were contacted individually in order to obtain the number of fire incidents which had occurred within their boundaries during 2005. Data for the remainder of the municipalities within the CLFV was obtained from the B.C. Office of the Fire Commissioner (Bresciani, 2007). CARB (1994) developed an average value of 1.043 tonnes of material burned per fire, calculated using various assumptions about the combustible contents in a home, the percent loss per fire, and the average size of a home. This value was used to produce an estimate of 2,198 tonnes of material burned in 2,107 structural fires in the CLFV in 2005.

B.1.3 Gasoline Marketing The inventory for the fuel marketing sector includes estimates of VOC emissions from: • loading and storage of fuel (at refineries and marketing terminals) • fuel trucks in transit • service stations (underground tank filling and breathing, vehicle refuelling, spills) The methodologies for the above emission sources are discussed in this section, but note that for those processes covered by a Metro Vancouver permit, their emission estimates are not included here. See Appendix A (Table A.4.2) for a reporting of permitted emission estimates.


B -11

Loading of Trucks and Marine Vessels Emission estimates for the loading of trucks and marine vessels at refineries and marketing terminals were provided by the major oil companies operating in the CLFV. These estimates were reviewed by Metro Vancouver staff to ensure consistency with the AP-42 section on Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids (EPA, 1995); EIIP, “Marine Vessel Loading” (1998); and EIIP, “Gasoline Marketing” (2001). In general, VOC emission estimates from tank truck loading at marketing terminals and refineries, and marine vessels loading were estimated by multiplying EPA emission factors by the corresponding base quantities. Emissions from loading activities at Westridge Terminal were estimated based on loading data provided by the company and applying emission factors as outlined in the AP-42 section on Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids (EPA, 1995).

Storage Tanks Storage tank VOC emissions from fuel marketing sources were estimated based on empirical correlations developed by the American Petroleum Institute, and reproduced in the EPA “TANKS” program. For external floating roof, internal floating roof, and fixed roof tanks associated with refineries, tank farms, and marketing terminals, storage tank emission estimates were provided by the oil companies, in accordance with requirements stipulated in Metro Vancouver air permits or other agreements.

Trucks in Transit VOC emission losses occur while fuel trucks transport their cargo. Emission estimates were based on the methodology provided by the EIIP (“Gasoline Marketing”, 2001). The VOC emission factors for loaded and unloaded trucks in transit were 0.5 and 6.5 mg/L gasoline transported, respectively. The base quantity was the total amount of fuel transported in the CLFV, estimated at approximately 2,200,000,000 litres gasoline (GVTA, 2006).

Marine Vessels in Transit Losses from marine vessels occur while cargo is in transit. Emission estimates were based on methodology outlined in the AP-42 section on Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids (EPA, 1995). The VOC emission factors for vessels in transit were 320, 150, and 0.6 mg VOC/week/litre transported for gasoline, crude oil, and jet fuel respectively. The base quantity of petroleum products transported were provided by the major oil companies operating in the CLFV.

Automobile Service Stations and Bulk Fuel Users This sector includes retail service stations, dedicated fleet refuelling stations, and cardlocks. Only VOC emissions from gasoline transfer are considered, and these occur from the refilling of underground gasoline storage tanks, breathing and emptying losses associated with fuel storage, displacement emissions from refuelling of motor vehicle fuel tanks, and spillage losses. Emission factors for each of these loss components are summarized in Table B.1.3.1.


B -12

Table B.1.3.1: Emission Factors for Automobile Service Stations and Bulk Fuel Users (g VOC/litre)

Refilling Storage Tank Breathing & Emptying

Spillage

Retail Service Stations, Fleet Refuelling Stations, and Cardlocks

0.088 0.12 0.08

With the exception of refuelling, all emission factors are from AP-42 (EPA, “Petroleum Liquids”, 1995) or the EIIP (“Gasoline Marketing”, 2001). For refilling emissions at service stations, fleet stations and cardlocks, a 90% control equipment efficiency has been incorporated, reflecting implementation of Stage I vapour controls at those refuelling facilities in the CLFV. The 90% control efficiency is based on actual testing of Stage I controls in Metro Vancouver during the mid-1990s. All gasoline storage tanks were assumed to be underground. Emission factors are shown in Table B.1.3.1. The base quantity of gasoline throughput was provided by GVTA (2006), amounting to about 2,200,000,000 litres. Refuelling emissions for gasoline powered vehicles were generated from the MOBILE6.2C model. The MOBILE6.2C model is discussed in Section C.1 of this report.

Spatial Distribution For emissions associated with storage tanks and the loading of trucks and marine vessels, spatial distribution was based on the municipality and regional district where the facility was located. Municipal emissions for service stations were based on 2000 data from Kent Marketing (Doyle, 2001), which was provided at a municipal level. The service station municipal emissions were then used to prorate the emissions from trucks in transit to a municipal level.

B.1.4 Landfills There are 16 landfills in the CLFV, and the major landfills that were active and/or continue to generate significant amounts of landfill gas were included in the inventory. Others such as demolition, land clearing and construction landfills, and landfills that were small and/or closed more than 20 years ago were excluded from the inventory due to their relatively small contribution to the landfill emissions. The Cache Creek Landfill, an active landfill that receives a significant portion of Metro Vancouver’s municipal solid waste (MSW), was also excluded from the inventory because it is located outside the CLFV. Methane, carbon dioxide and volatile organic compound emissions generated at each specific landfill site were estimated using the Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM), Version 3.02 (EPA, 2005). Annual waste acceptance rates (tonnes of MSW per year) from the opening of the landfill to the current (or closure) year were provided as an input to the LandGEM model. The AP-42 coefficients recommended for wet landfills (methane generation potential, Lo=100 m3 of CH4/tonne of MSW; methane generation rate, k=0.07/year; and non-methane organic compounds, NMOC=595 ppmv) were used for all landfills located in the CLFV. It was assumed that the landfill gas is composed of 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide, by volume (27% methane and 73% carbon dioxide, by weight). Most of the major landfills had some form of gas collection and flaring/utilization systems installed. Net emissions were estimated by subtracting landfill gas collection rates obtained for each landfill from the landfill gas generation rates estimated by the LandGEM model. According to the IPCC guidelines, CO2


B -13

emissions from the landfills were considered GHG neutral, and were therefore not included in the total GHG emissions. The 2005 inventory also includes estimates of particulate matter (fugitive dust) from landfill operations. The methodology is the same as used previously for the 2000 inventory and is based on an emission factor of 0.193 kg total particulate matter per tonne of material landfilled. PM10 and PM2.5 estimates were developed by applying size speciation profiles from the EPA PSD4PM10 document, which show that 36% and 10% of total particulate are PM10 and PM2.5, respectively.

B.1.5 Natural Sources

Vegetation 2005 biogenic emissions for the CLFV were estimated by prorating the 2000 emissions estimate by the change in vegetative land area between 2006 and 2001, the years for which land-use data was available. The methodology for the 2000 emissions estimate is described below: Biogenic emission estimates for the CLFV were developed by Khan (2002), who ran the Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System 3 (GloBEIS3) model as a pilot study specifically for the CLFV. This study was funded and administered by Environment Canada. The BEIS series of models are the product of collaboration between researchers at the EPA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The GloBEIS3 model was developed at NCAR to allow users to estimate biogenic emissions of volatile organic compounds and soil NOx. Emission rates are a function of land cover and meteorological conditions, which are characterized from user-supplied data using the most updated emissions algorithms. GloBEIS3 is linked with a geographic information system to allow the reporting of emissions for specific areas such as the CLFV. It computes emission estimates for NOx and VOCs, as well as individual biogenic VOC species including isoprenes, other monoterpenes and unidentified hydrocarbons. Data was requested and obtained from Environment Canada on NOx and VOCs species for year 2000, for the CLFV. GloBEIS3 used land cover data for the CLFV, which included land cover for classes such as mixed forest, deciduous forest, water, transitional forest, coniferous forest, alpine, barren lands, glaciers or snow, agriculture, rangelands, developed area, and wetlands. Metro Vancouver and FVRD land cover information was based primarily on data from Metro Vancouver’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Division and meteorological information was provided by Environment Canada. Environment Canada concluded from this pilot study that the model’s capabilities allow for greater detail in the input data. Applying information such as leaf age index, humidity, wind speed, drought index and other variables would improve the accuracy of the results. Land cover data from the Metro Vancouver’s GIS Division was also used to spatially allocate emissions to regional district and municipal levels (GVRD, 2003).”

Marine Aerosol The method for calculating marine aerosol (salt) emissions from both the open sea and along the coastline was documented in “A Method of Predicting the Content of Sea Salt Particles in the Atmosphere” (Ohba, 1990), and relates the amount of marine aerosol to wind speed.


B -14

Sea salt emissions were calculated using the equation: Q = 0.00015 x Uo

3 x water area x time period Shore salt emissions were calculated using the equation: q = 0.025 x Uo

3 x shoreline length x time period where: Q = the amount of aerosol produced in µg/m2 of open sea q = the amount of aerosol produced in µg/m of shoreline U = average wind speed, in metres/second water area is in square metres shoreline length is in metres time period is in seconds The base quantities used were 920 square kilometres of water area and 228 kilometres of shore length. Wind speed data was obtained for five weather stations along the east side of the Straight of Georgia (Vancouver International Airport, Sand Heads, Point Atkinson, West Vancouver and White Rock). Size speciation profiles of 87% PM10 and 15% PM2.5 were then applied to the total particulate emissions to yield fine particulate emission estimates.

B.1.6 Solvent Evaporation Solvent evaporation sources include sources where solvent is used directly for cleaning, or as a necessary part of the formulation of paints, stains, inks, adhesives, or household products. Once applied, the majority of the volatile solvent or solvent-containing material evaporates, resulting in VOC emissions. Much of the data used in developing emission estimates came from two comprehensive inventory reports recently completed by Cheminfo Services Inc. under contract with the Pollution Data Division of Environment Canada. These reports included, “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada for the Year 2004” (May 2006) and “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada – Inventory Improvement and Trends Compilation” (March 2007). Both reports highlight national and provincial VOC emissions by major application areas and were developed in part through consultation with major solvent suppliers and users. Methodology for individual solvent evaporation sources are discussed below.

Consumer Products Consumer products are any chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers and include personal care, household, and automotive products such as aerosol products, household cleaners, toiletries, rubbing compounds, windshield washer fluid, and polishes and waxes. Emission estimates for consumer products were based on Environment Canada’s 2005 CAC Emissions for British Columbia (March 2007 website) which estimated 12,838 tonnes (excluding pesticides and dry cleaning emissions) of VOC from the use of consumer products. This estimate was then prorated to the CLFV on the basis of a population yielding an estimate of 7,276 tonnes VOC.

Dry Cleaning While the majority of dry cleaning in the CLFV is done using perchloroethylene, this solvent is not defined as a VOC because of its negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. As such, the 2005 emission estimate is significantly lower than the previous 2000 inventory which had included perchloroethylene as a VOC solvent. VOC emissions from dry cleaning generally result from the use of specialty hydrocarbon solvents. Emission estimates were based on Environment Canada’s 2005 CAC


B -15

Emissions for British Columbia (March 2007 website) which lists VOCs from dry cleaning in British Columbia as 24 tonnes. VOCs from dry cleaning in the CLFV was estimated to be 14 tonnes, based on the ratio of population in the CLFV compared to British Columbia. Emissions were spatially allocated by municipality based on population.

Glues, Adhesives and Sealants Data on emissions from glues, adhesives and sealants was obtained from the Cheminfo Services report, “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada – Inventory Improvement and Trends Compilation” (March 2007) which estimated Canadian VOCs from adhesives to be 14,000 tonnes. The national estimate was prorated to the CLFV on the basis of population. In order to avoid double counting of emissions from glues, adhesives and sealants used in point source facilities, approximately 1.2 tonnes of VOC was subtracted from the CLFV estimate, yielding a net area source estimate of about 1,045 tonnes.

Metal Degreasing Metal degreasing involves the use of solvents to clean parts and equipment prior to processes such as painting, plating, inspection, assembly etc. To derive a CLFV degreasing emission estimate for 2005, data obtained from the Cheminfo Services report, “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada for the Year 2004” (May 2006) was used. The British Columbia estimate was adjusted to a 2005 CLFV estimate based on employment figures in the manufacturing sector. This produced an estimate of about 860 tonnes of VOCs from degreasing, but it was necessary to subtract from this approximately 40 tonnes of VOCs attributed to degreasing operations in the point source sector, yielding a net area source estimate of about 820 tonnes for the CLFV.

Surface Coatings As in earlier emission inventories, the surface coating category was divided into the three subcategories: architectural, automotive refinishing and general light industrial/maintenance coatings. Information on 2005 British Columbia sales volumes for architectural surface coatings was obtained from the British Columbia Product Care Association (Kurschner, 2006) which estimated a base quantity of approximately 34 million litres of architectural coatings. The B.C. volume was prorated to the CLFV on the basis of population, yielding an estimate of 19.3 million litres of architectural coatings. An average VOC content of 170 grams/litre was used, (based on research completed in 2002 by Environment Canada and Cheminfo Services) and applied against the CLFV volume estimate in calculating 3,281 tonnes VOC from architectural coatings. Using information contained within the Cheminfo Services report, “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada for the Year 2004” (May 2006), it was estimated that Canadian VOC emissions from automotive refinishing (excluding vehicle manufacturing) and industrial/maintenance coatings accounted for approximately 8% and 49% respectively of all VOC emissions from the surface coating category. By applying these percentages to the 8,711 tonnes of VOC from surface coatings reported in Environment Canada’s 2005 CAC Emissions for British Columbia (March 2007 website), 717 tonnes of VOC from automotive refinishing and 4,302 tonnes VOC from industrial/maintenance coatings were estimated. The British Columbia estimates were than prorated to the CLFV on the basis of population yielding 406 tonnes VOC from automotive refinishing and 1,854 tonnes VOC from industrial/maintenance coatings. In order to avoid double counting with the point source inventory, it was necessary to subtract approximately 584 tonnes of VOC attributed to industrial coatings.


B -16

Pesticides VOC emissions result from the evaporation of solvents used in the formulation of pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, and domestic uses. The assumption is that all solvents applied with pesticides eventually volatilize and are emitted to the atmosphere. Emissions from this category are based on pesticide data contained within the Cheminfo Services report, “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada for the Year 2004” (May 2006). The 2005 CLFV estimate, 230 tonnes, was derived from using the Cheminfo Services 2004 figure for British Columbia and prorated to the CLFV on the basis of population. The report also includes estimates of particulate emissions from pesticide application, but these are included in the agricultural sector of the area source inventory in Section B.1.1.

Printing Inks Emission estimates from the printing inks sector is based on information contained within the report completed by Cheminfo Services, “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada – Inventory Improvement and Trends Compilation” (March 2007). The British Columbia estimate was prorated to CLFV emissions based on employment in the manufacturing sector. The estimates include not only printing ink formulations, but also the associated process solvents, including diluents, fountain solutions and cleaners. The resulting emission estimate was for all commercial/industrial printing facilities in the CLFV, so it was necessary to subtract the amount of emissions estimated for the largest printing facilities, which operate under air discharge permits and are therefore included in the point source inventory. The estimated 912 tonnes of VOC emissions attributed to printing operations in the point source sector subtracted from the CLFV estimate, generated a net area source estimate of about 1,049 tonnes VOC.

Other Commercial and Industrial Solvents This is a new source category for the 2005 emission inventory and includes all solvents not otherwise categorized which are used in the commercial and industrial sector. This would include solvents used for general purpose cleaning and those solvents contained in cleaning formulations that are used in a commercial or industrial setting. To derive a CLFV emission estimate for 2005, data obtained from Environment Canada’s 2005 CAC Emissions for British Columbia (March 2007 website) was used. The 2005 British Columbia estimate was prorated to the CLFV on the basis of population resulting in an estimate of 6,358 tonnes of VOC from other commercial and industrial solvents. In order to avoid double counting, it was necessary to subtract from this estimate 2,053 tonnes of VOC attributed to adhesive, degreasing and cutback asphalt use which had previously been inventoried. This yielded a net CLFV area source estimate of approximately 4,305 tonnes VOC which were then spatially allocated by municipality based on population.

B.1.7 Heating

Natural Gas Emissions from the residential/commercial/institutional/light industrial combustion of natural gas are primarily dependent on the quantity of fuel consumed. Table B.1.7.1 below shows emission factors for natural gas heating in residential and commercial/institutional/light industrial applications. Emission factors for the common air contaminants are from EPA (EPA, “Natural Gas Combustion”, 1998; EIIP, 2004), while greenhouse gas emission factors are from Environment Canada (2006). SOx factors are corrected for the 17 mg/dscm sulphur content of natural gas in B.C (Way, 2006). NOx emissions factors for commercial/institutional/light industrial sources were based on a weighted average, reflecting the different burner ratings for these boilers.


B -17

Terasen Gas (Duffy, 2006) provided data on natural gas consumption by residential and commercial/institutional/industrial accounts, with breakdowns by municipality. Total 2005 consumption was estimated at 1,307 million m3 for residential sources. In order to avoid double counting of emissions from industrial sources in the point source facilities, natural gas use from point sources was subtracted from the Terasen commercial/industrial use, yielding a net area source use of about 1,329 million m3 for commercial/institutional/light industrial sources.

Fuel Oil Fuel oil emission factors are also summarized in Table B.1.7.1. Common air contaminant emission factors are from AP-42 (EPA, “Fuel Oil Combustion”, 1998) and EIIP (2004). Greenhouse gas factors are from Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Environment Canada, 2005). Data on fuel oil consumption in B.C., amounting to 23 million litres for residential use and 155 million litres for commercial use, were obtained from Statistics Canada’s “Report on Energy Supply - Demand in Canada 2005”. About 12% of the B.C. residential fuel oil was assumed to be used in the CLFV, amounting to about 2.8 million litres. Commercial fuel oil use in CLFV, amounting to about 87.8 million litres, was based on the provincial amount, prorated by population. Table B.1.7.1: Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Heating

Basequantity (unit) CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

Natural Gasresidential 1,307 106 m3 640 1,504 121.6 121.6 121.6 35.6 88.0 321 1,891,000 37 35

1,329 106 m3 1344 2,496 121.6 121.6 121.6 35.6 88.0 7.84 1,891,000 37 35

Light Fuel Oilresidential 2,800 m3 0.60 2.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.086 0.120 2830 0.03 0.006

87,800 m3 0.60 2.40 0.40 0.29 0.26 0.62 0.041 0.096 2830 0.03 0.031

Wood residential

fireplace 27,710 tonnes 77.7 1.4 19.3 18.5 18.4 0.2 6.5 0.126 0 15.0 0.16

conventional stoves 5,845 tonnes 115.4 1.4 14.4 13.6 13.6 0.2 21.3 0.126 0 15.0 0.16

advanced tech. stove 2,119 tonnes 70.4 1.4 5.1 4.8 4.8 0.2 7.0 0.126 0 6.9 0.16

central furnaces 3,942 tonnes 68.5 1.4 14.1 13.3 13.3 0.2 21.3 0.126 0 15.0 0.16

pellet stoves 348 tonnes 8.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.2 1.5 0.126 0 6.9 0.16

commercial/institutional/ light industrial

commercial/institutional

emission factor (kg/unit of base quantity)

Wood Emission factors for residential wood combustion are also shown in Table B.1.7.1. Emission factors are from Environment Canada’s “Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory 2002 Guidebook”, while greenhouse gas emission factors are from Environment Canada (2005). Wood is typically used as a supplementary fuel in the CLFV, rather than as a primary source of heat. The amount of wood burned was estimated based on statistics from an Ipsos Reid Residential Wood Burning survey commissioned by Metro Vancouver (Ipsos Reid, 2002). In accordance with IPCC guidelines, carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of wood are excluded from the emission inventory, as the combustion of biomass is considered GHG neutral as part of the carbon cycle.

Electricity In this study, emissions from the purchase and import of electricity are excluded from the inventory. The emissions that occur in producing that energy is a consequence of an activity in the CLFV, but the emissions may not occur directly within the CLFV. Emissions from electricity generated by the local Burrard Thermal Plant are captured under the point source category for that facility.


B -18

B.1.8 Miscellaneous Area Sources

Bakeries Bakery emissions were estimated based on data provided in the Cheminfo report “Survey of Commercial Baking Establishments in British Columbia.” (September, 2007). This report stated that 560.99 tonnes of VOC’s were emitted from bakeries in B.C. Of this total there were four bakeries in Metro Vancouver that reported 239 tonnes of VOC’s to the NPRI in 2005. The remaining VOC emissions were allocated to municipalities in the CLFV based on population. CO2 emission estimates were not estimated as Environment Canada methodology states that it remains in the bread.

Construction and Demolition For the 2005 emission inventory, fugitive dust emissions from construction and demolition were updated using a methodology outlined in a study prepared by SNC Lavalin (2005) for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The method accounts for the number of housing starts or value of construction, building-to-area conversion factors, duration of construction, soil moisture, silt content, and mitigation practices. The emission factors can be adjusted to account for local conditions: Adjusted emission factor = Unadjusted emission factor x (24/PE) x (S/9) x (1 – C) where: PE = Thornthwaite’s precipitation-evaporation index, used to correct the emission factor for local soil moisture = 220 for the Province of BC (SNCL, 2005) S = Silt Content, used to correct the emission factor for local soil texture C = Mitigation efficiency, used to correct for controls such as watering = 50% for watering A silt content of 30% was assumed for the CLFV, based on the report “A Review of Agricultural Air Emissions Estimates for the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia” (Poon, 2006). It was also assumed that fugitive dust emissions did not occur on days with precipitation greater than 0.2 mm rain, about 137 days in 2005, based on data from Metro Vancouver monitoring stations. For the rest of the year, it was assumed that on average, construction workers watered the site 25% of the time to suppress dust emissions. Base quantities and adjusted emission factors are summarized in Table B.1.8.1.


B -19

Table B.1.8.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Construction

Conversion Adjusted EFItem Number Unit Factor Duration (tonnes PM10

ha/unit (months) /ha-month)

Single-detached without basement 3,902 dwellings 0.067 4.2 0.014Single-detached with basement1 2,155 dwellings 0.067 4.2 0.005Duplex/Row 4,466 dwellings 0.067 4.2 0.014Apartment 10,627 dwellings 0.020 12 0.049Commercial 680 $ million 0.550 11 0.085Industrial 382 $ million 0.550 11 0.085Institutional 581 $ million 0.270 11 0.085Miscellaneous Buildings 114 $ million 0.550 11 0.085Roads 114 km 3.8 9 0.214

1For single-detached dwellings with basements, emission factors for excavation are as follows:Vol. Earth Adjusted EF

Number Unit Moved (m3)/ (tonnes PM10

dwelling /1000 m3)

Single-detached with basement 2,155 dwellings 344 0.014

Single detached, duplex, row and apartment starts and value of industrial, commercial, and institutional construction were obtained from Metro Vancouver Regional Development Division (2007) and BC Statistics construction and housing data (2007). 36% of new homes were assumed to have a basement in B.C. (NRC, 1994). Length of new roads constructed was estimated by taking the difference in road length between March 2005 and February 2006, as determined from the GIS road network for the region (Metro Vancouver GIS, 2007). The assumption that PM2.5 is 20% of PM10 was used to derive PM2.5 emissions and that PM10 is 30% of PM emissions was used to derive PM emissions (SNCL, 2005).

Cutback Asphalt There are three general types of asphalt (asphalt cement, cutback asphalt and asphalt emulsions), and of these, the major source of VOC emissions is cutback, which is supplied and applied in a liquefied form using volatile solvents as a thinner. The methodology described in the EIIP document, “Asphalt Paving” (2001) was followed to estimate emissions. Emissions are dependent on the quantities of cutback asphalt and diluent used. For the CLFV in 2005, this was estimated to be 459 tonnes of medium cure cutback asphalt, with an emission factor of 321 kg VOC/tonne cutback asphalt.

Tobacco Smoke The emission factors for tobacco smoke are presented in Table B.1.8.2. Emission factors were compiled from an EPA report (1992) for all particulates, and information from Health Canada (Kaiserman, 1996) for CO2 and NOx. The factors are a composite of mainstream (smoker) and sidestream (second-hand) smoke. It was assumed a smoker typically consumes 90% of the cigarette (Hildemann, et al., 1991) and not the whole cigarette (Hildemann, et al., 1991), so the tobacco smoke inventory was multiplied by 0.90 to obtain an adjusted inventory.


B -20

Table B.1.8.2: Base Quantity and Emission Factors for Tobacco Smoke

Number Cigarettes

Emission Factor (kg/1000 cigarettes)

CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5

1,506,358,660 0.055 0.0016 0.0715 0.0715 0.0715

Meat Cooking - Frying and Charbroiling Methodology for emissions from the frying and charbroiling of meat was taken from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (November, 2006). The combustion of fuel used to prepare the food is covered by other methodologies such as natural gas combustion and liquid propane gas combustion. The emission factors for meat cooking are presented in the Table B.1.8.3. Table B.1.8.3: Base Quantities and Emission Factors for Meat Cooking

Meat Cooked Emission Factor (kg/tonne of meat) (tonnes) PM PM10 PM2.5 VOC

Charbroiled 5,078 27 27 27 2.72 Fried 51,343 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.18 Base quantity data was derived from Statistics Canada – Cat. No. 21-020-XIE page 27 Canada Food Statistics. A total of 46.76 kg/capita of beef, pork, mutton, lamb, veal, chicken and fish was estimated for the CLFV. Of the meat consumed, only 50% was assumed to be fried or charbroiled: 46% of the total meat cooked was fried, 3% of the meat was charbroiled regular meat and 1% was charbroiled lean meat. The remaining 50% was assumed to be prepared by methods with negligible emissions.

Refrigerants Large industrial and commercial installations use ammonia as a refrigerant. Based on data from suppliers (Chan, 2007), about 50 tonnes of refrigerant was used in the CLFV in 2005. It was assumed that this was used to replenish the refrigerant or ammonia leaked and emitted to the atmosphere.

Natural Gas Distribution Fugitive emissions for natural gas distribution and transmission were provided by Terasen Gas (Neville, 2007). The estimates were based on population estimates, industry-accepted emission factors, and engineering judgement, not direct measurements. Where specific activity factors could not be obtained, emissions were assumed to be a proportion of the total Terasen Gas Inc. emissions inventory, as submitted to Statistics Canada.

Other Miscellaneous Area Sources Base quantity and miscellaneous ammonia emission factors for human respiration and perspiration, domestic animals, ducks and geese are shown in Table B.1.8.4. Emission factors were obtained from Battye et al. (1994).


B -21

Table B.1.8.4: Miscellaneous Ammonia Emission Factors

Population Emission Factor(kg/capita/year)

Human Respiration-Smokers 292,361 0.0041-Nonsmokers 2,120,854 0.0054

Human Perspiration 2,413,215 0.250

Domestic Animals-Cats 556,896 0.830-Dogs 371,264 2.500

Ducks 200,000 0.117Geese 100,000 0.890

B.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Area Sources

Moderate Scenario Emissions backcasting involves revisiting previous emission inventories and updating them for consistency with the 2005 year inventory. Most significant were the updated methodology for calculating fugitive dust from the construction and demolition sector, and updated data for the solvent evaporation sector used in estimating 2005 emissions. Emission estimates for 2000, 1995, and 1990 were revised to reflect the updated methods and data for these sectors, allowing an equitable analysis of emission trends. Forecasts can be developed by applying a growth surrogate to the 2005 emission estimates, accounting for any control equipment installed in the future: EY = E2005 x G x C where: EY = emissions for forecast year E2005 = emissions for 2005 G = growth factor C = control factor, accounting for changes in emission factors or control Control strategy projections are estimates of future year emissions that also include the expected impact of modified controls or additional control regulations. The growth factor accounts for changes (increases or decreases) in the emission-generating activity. For area sources, growth factors used were population forecasts (Metro Vancouver, 2007; B.C.Statistics, 2007), growth factors based on historical trends (e.g. forest fires), and the following economic indicators: NRCAN’s Industrial Sector Gross Output for British Columbia (Azarafshar, 2007) • Agriculture • Construction • Wood NRCAN’s Canada’s Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006 for British Columbia (2006): • Manufacturing GDP • Motor Gasoline Demand by End-Use • Residential Natural Gas Demand By End-Use • Commercial Natural Gas Demand By End-Use


B -22

• Total Natural Gas Demand By End-Use • Residential Distillate Oil Demand By End-Use • Commercial Distillate Oil Demand By End-Use NRCAN’s Canada’s Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006 for Canada (2006): • Residential Energy Consumption by Fuel - Wood Metro Vancouver • projections for refuse landfilled in the CLFV (used as an inputs to the LandGEM model) The NRCAN economic indicators were available for the years 1990-2020, so 2016-2020 values were extrapolated to 2025 and 2030, based on linear regression. The forecast of NOx emissions from commercial/institutional/light industrial heating sources includes emission reductions due to the Metro Vancouver proposed Boiler and Heater Regulation. It was estimated that a 34% reduction in NOx would be achieved due to this proposed regulation, affecting 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the existing commercial/institutional/light industrial boilers and heaters for the years 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030, respectively. For residential sources, it was assumed that the NOx reduction would not be as significant, amounting to only 1% of heaters at the same implementation rate as above. Any new boiler and heater installed in the future were assumed to be equipped with low-NOx emitting technology as well. The forecast of VOC emissions from the solvent sector accounts for the proposed federal regulations for volatile organic compounds in consumer and commercial products. It was assumed that there would be a 30% reduction in VOC emissions from the consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings sector, and a 40% reduction in VOC emissions from automotive refinishing coatings sector, by 2010 (Environment Canada, 2007). The forecast of VOC emissions from refuelling at service stations were based on the MOBILE6.2C model, which accounts for onboard refuelling vapour recovery controls in motor vehicles phased in beginning in 1998.

Low-High Scenarios B.C. GDP projections, reflecting a range in growth in the region from a sensitivity analysis completed by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist, were factored into the low and high scenario emissions forecasts. In some cases where emissions were not dependent on economic activity (e.g. forest fires), historical data (minimum and maximums) was used to provide a high and low “bracketing” around the moderate scenario. The 2007 B.C. Throne Speech announced development of a new, unified B.C. Green Building Code by early 2008. This Code will contain energy efficiency requirements for both new and existing residential and commercial buildings. Although the Code still remains to be developed, a document released in 2005, entitled Energy Efficient Buildings: A Plan for B.C., contains reduction targets which may reflect the desired outcome of the new Code. Consultation with staff from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources confirmed that these targets are an appropriate proxy for the outcome of the Code itself. The impacts of this policy have been incorporated into the low scenario, ranging from 2-9% GHG reduction for the 2010-2030 period.


B -23

Emission results for these forecast scenarios are published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007).

B.3 Emission Results for Area Sources Results of the 2005 CLFV emission inventory for area sources are summarized in Table B.3.1, showing detailed listings of contaminant emissions for each area source sub-category. Table B.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Area Source Emission Inventory by Sector (metric tonnes)

Sector CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E

AgriculturalWind Erosion 1,099 550 122Fugitive Dust from Tilling 771 162 32Fertilizer Application 50 24 7 781 4,612 232 76,562Pesticides Applied 78 38 11Cattle 19 6 1 2,831 1,755 15,344 102 353,811Wildlife 3 10 220Pigs 102 51 10 24 734 471 13 13,955Sheep 13 17 53 2 1,620Poultry 524 59 6 35 4,286 523 93 39,902Horses 15 5 1 37 77 165 22 10,354Miscellaneous Animals 14 185 62 0 1,429Subtotal 2,657 896 190 2,956 7,835 4,612 16,629 465 497,855

BurningAgricultural 1,939 67 368 368 368 301 19 207 43 17,828Forest Fires 2,848 42 479 367 338 0 120 18 85 49 17,072Prescribed Burning 135 2 16 12 11 0 11 1 8 2 646Incineration 2 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 39Residential Open Burning 353 13 38 25 25 3 59 4 39 8 3,361Landclearing 3,306 65 196 131 131 16 295 21 203 43 17,453Vehicle Fires 11 0 9 9 8 3 1 19Structural Fires 66 2 12 12 12 12 1 890 14 3 2,062Subtotal 8,659 195 1,120 925 894 20 800 63 890 556 148 58,479

Gasoline MarketingTruck Loading 5Trucks in Transit 16Railcar LoadingBarge and Ship Loading 9 2 32Marine Vessels in Transit 14External Floating Roof Tanks 6 0 6Internal Floating Roof Tanks 21 0 5Fixed Roof Tanks 8Automobile Service Stations 1,910Bulk/Cardlock/Air/Marine Refueling 133Subtotal 2,121 2 43

LandfillsMunicipal & Industrial 164 59 16 108 120 19,009 399,189Subtotal 164 59 16 108 120 19,009 399,189

Natural SourcesTrees, Crops & Vegetation 538 14,241Marine Aerosol - Sea and Shore Salt 94 82 14Subtotal 538 94 82 14 14,241

Solvent EvaporationConsumer Products 7,276Dry Cleaning 14Glues, Adhesives and Sealants 1,045Metal Degreasing 820Architectural Surface Coating 3,281Automotive Refinish 406Industrial Coatings 1,854Pesticides 230Printing Inks 1,049Other Commercial and Industrial Solvents 4,305Subtotal 20,280

HeatingResidential - N.G. 837 1,968 159 159 159 47 115 420 2,474,549 48 46 2,489,764Residential - Fuel Oil 2 6 1 1 0 2 0 0 7,882 0 0 7,889Residential - Wood 3,267 51 690 659 656 8 406 5 583 6 14,228Commercial/Institutional/Light Industrial - N.G. 1,787 3,319 162 162 162 47 117 10 2,514,290 49 47 2,529,749Commercial/Institutional - Fuel Oil 53 211 35 25 23 54 4 8 248,614 2 3 249,506Subtotal 5,946 5,555 1,046 1,005 1,000 158 642 444 5,245,335 683 102 5,291,136

Miscellaneous Area SourcesBakeries 466Construction and Demolition 6,011 1,803 361Cutback Asphalt 148Domestic Animals 1,390Ducks 112Human Perspiration 603Human Respiration 13Refrigerants 50Tobacco Smoke 83 2 108 108 108Meat Cooking 260 260 260 23Natural Gas Distribution 2,789 58,571Subtotal 83 2 6,379 2,171 729 636 2,169 2,789 58,571

Total 14,687 6,290 11,460 5,138 2,842 179 41,785 10,631 5,250,837 39,668 714 6,305,274


B -24

Table B.3.2 shows 2005 area source emissions by municipality and electoral area within the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley. Table B.3.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Area Source Emission Inventory by Municipality (metric tonnes)

CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2EMetro VancouverAnmore 5 5 2 1 1 0 74 2 3,209 2 0 3,290Belcarra 3 1 1 1 1 0 15 1 1,285 1 0 1,323Bowen Island 477 21 34 22 22 3 88 14 11,133 42 7 14,042Burnaby 451 516 584 248 133 15 2,099 213 468,816 337 10 478,850Coquitlam 214 183 198 100 67 6 1,319 167 187,620 2,098 5 233,214Delta 3,768 451 1,256 749 564 9 1,695 315 340,047 7,832 90 532,436Langley City 64 71 365 120 35 2 345 28 66,012 90 1 68,298Langley Township 1,322 311 612 260 133 13 1,879 1,012 255,090 1,868 67 315,210Lions Bay 7 7 34 13 3 0 15 2 6,433 3 0 6,549Maple Ridge 692 237 309 134 78 8 1,135 162 193,955 763 16 215,039New Westminster 77 44 178 71 34 3 568 56 50,165 75 1 52,054North Van. City 117 143 77 41 28 4 440 49 130,462 65 3 132,614North Van. Dist. 166 153 101 62 48 5 1,132 99 149,037 1,044 3 171,879Pitt Meadows 604 70 284 162 120 1 437 98 42,410 369 24 57,647Port Coquitlam 105 100 127 57 33 3 578 81 98,976 81 3 101,536Port Moody 82 110 161 59 25 2 304 30 94,934 88 2 97,347Richmond 542 419 660 308 160 12 1,881 223 387,391 3,428 14 463,786Surrey 1,028 721 2,350 866 371 20 4,336 1,049 714,741 4,208 59 821,509Vancouver 1,283 1,499 1,084 529 338 42 5,584 585 1,342,199 734 26 1,365,662West Vancouver 103 111 111 56 32 3 593 53 113,745 68 2 115,846White Rock 46 39 65 28 15 1 179 20 37,166 25 1 37,913Electoral Area A (UBC) 19 90 81 30 9 1 1,697 68 26,231 62 2 28,283Other Electoral Area 0 1 12 10 2 0 3 3 692 3 0 783Metro Vancouver Marine Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0Metro Vancouver Total 11,176 5,303 8,686 3,926 2,251 152 26,409 4,329 4,721,750 23,286 337 5,315,111

FVRD1Abbotsford 1,036 354 1,611 651 254 11 2,907 3,908 296,748 5,892 171 473,493Chilliwack 1,074 188 724 351 200 7 2,177 1,615 146,984 6,239 122 315,693Harrison Hot Springs 9 1 2 2 2 0 49 2 1,034 2 0 1,097Hope 188 19 22 16 15 1 185 11 13,654 232 2 19,229Kent 41 31 50 18 9 0 740 222 12,191 1,205 26 45,461Mission 967 87 172 96 75 6 787 71 58,089 942 14 82,094FVRD1 Electoral Areas 196 307 194 78 36 0 8,529 474 386 1,869 43 53,100FVRD1 Total 3,511 987 2,775 1,212 591 27 15,375 6,302 529,087 16,382 378 990,166

CLFV Total 14,687 6,290 11,461 5,138 2,842 179 41,784 10,631 5,250,838 39,668 714 6,305,277


B -25

References – CLFV Area Sources Battye, R. et al. 1994. “Development and Selection of Ammonia Emission Factors.” EPA Contract Number 68-D3-0034. BC MAL, 2006, Poon, David; Robbins, Mark; Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, “A Review of Agricultural Air Emission Estimates for the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia”, August 31, 2006. BC Statistics. 2007. Summary of Smoking Rates for BC December 2005 through November 2006. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/ssa/reports/tobacco/smokingstats_20052006.pdf BC Statistics. 2007. Construction and Housing Statistics. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/econ_stat.asp Breault, A. 2007. Canadian Wildlife Service. Personal Communication. Bresciani, J. 2007. B.C. Office of the Fire Commissioner. Personal Communication. CARB 1994. Emission Inventory Procedural Manual, Vol. III: Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions. California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board. CARB 1997. California Air Resources Board, “Windblown Dust - Agricultural Lands, Section 7.12 in Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions.” Chan, T. 2007 Brenntag Canada. Personal Communication. CFI 2006, Canadian Fertilizer Institute, “Canadian Retail Sales Report: Canadian Fertilizer Information System - Retail Sales Statistics Fertilizer Year ended June 30th, 2005,” December 2006, http://www.cfi.ca/Publications/Statistical_Documents.asp CFI 2007, Canadian Fertilizer Institute, “Canadian Retail Sales Report: Canadian Fertilizer Information System - Retail Sales Statistics Fertilizer Year ended June 30th, 2006,” May 2007, http://www.cfi.ca/Publications/Statistical_Documents.asp Cheminfo Services Inc. 2007. Survey of Commercial Baking Establishments in British Columbia. Cheminfo Services Inc. 2006. “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada for the Year 2004.” Cheminfo Services Inc. 2007. “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Use of Solvents in Canada – Inventory Improvement and Trends Compilation.” EIIP. 2001. “Asphalt Paving.” Prepared by Eastern Research Group Inc. for the Emission Inventory Improvement Program. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume03/iii17_apr2001.pdf EIIP. 2001. “Open Burning.” Prepared by Eastern Research Group Inc. for the Emission Inventory Improvement Program. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume03/iii16_apr2001.pdf


B -26

EIIP. 2004. “Estimating Ammonia Emissions From Anthropogenic Nonagricultural Sources – Draft Final Report.” Prepared for the Emission Inventory Improvement Program www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume03/eiip_areasourcesnh3.pdf EIIP. 2001. “Structure Fires.” Prepared by Eastern Research Group Inc. for the Emission Inventory Improvement Program. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume03/iii18_apr2001.pdf EPA. 10/92 (Reformatted 1/95). “AP-42 Open Burning.” http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s05.pdf EPA. “AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.” http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html EPA. “WEBFIRE Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants.” http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main EPA, 1974. “Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources”, EPA 450/3-74-037, June 1974. Environment Canada. 1995, “Inventory of Ammonia Emissions from Canadian Agriculture.” Environment Canada. 2000a. "Issues, Trends and Concerns about Agricultural Nutrient Management in the Lower Fraser Valley." Prepared by Schreier et al. for Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2000b, “1995 Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory Guidebook.” Environment Canada. 2005. “Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2003.” Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2003 (available in PDF) Environment Canada. 2006. “Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory 2002 Guidebook.” Environment Canada. 2007. “2005 CAC Emissions for British Columbia.” http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdp/cac/Emissions1990-2015/EmissionsSummaries/2005_BC_e.cfm Environment Canada. 2007. Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer and Commercial Products Website. http://www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/voc/en/index.cfm Floro, S. 2007. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Personal Communication. Furlong, B. 2007. City of Richmond. Personal Communication. GVRD, 2003, Greater Vancouver Regional District, “2000 Emission Inventory for the Canadian Portion of the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed: Detailed Listing of Results and Methodology,” November 2003. Helmer, M. 2007. City of Abbotsford. Personal Communication. IPCC, 2006, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”, http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html Ipsos Reid. 2001. “Paws and Claws Pet Ownership Study.”


B -27

Jeanson, M. 2007. Environment Canada. Personal Communication. Kurschner, M. 2007. Product Care Association. Personal Communication. Lawrence, J. 2007. BC Ministry of Environment. Personal Communication. Le, D. 2007. Environment Canada. Personal Communication. Levelton, 2004. Levelton Consultants Ltd, in association with Golder Associates Ltd., “Analysis of Best Management Practice and Emission Inventory of Agricultural Sources in the Lower Fraser Valley”, December 2004, prepared for Fraser Valley Regional District and Environment Canada. Metro Vancouver. 2007. “2005 Lower Fraser Valley air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast.” http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/inventory_reports.htm Metro Vancouver. 2007. Geographic Information Systems. Metro Vancouver. “Key Facts”. http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/keyfacts/agri.htm Metro Vancouver. 2007. Regional Development Division. Natural Resources Canada. 1994. “Survey of Houses Built in Canada in 1994.” Neville, I. 2007. Terasen Gas. Personal Communication. Raizenne, M. 2007. Environment Canada. Personal Communication. SNC Lavalin. 2005. “CAC Fugitive Emissions from the Canadian Construction and Demolition Sector”, prepared for the CCME. Smid, Darlene. 2006. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. Personal Communication Statistics Canada, 2002, “2001 Census of Agriculture”, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95F0301XIE/index.htm Statistics Canada, 2008, “2006 Census of Agriculture”, http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/index.htm Stebbin, J. California Air Resources Board. Personal Communication. Taylor, S.W. and K.L. Sherman, Canadian Forest Service. 1996. “Biomass Consumption and Smoke Emissions from Contemporary and Prehistoric Wildland Fires in British Columbia.” (FRDA Report 249). www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Frr.htm Thompson, C. 2007. City of Vancouver. Personal Communication.


C -1

Appendix C – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Mobile Sources The 2005 mobile source emission inventory covers on-road motor vehicles, aircraft, locomotives, marine vessels and non-road vehicles and equipment. The latter sector includes non-road engines such as lawn and garden, construction and agricultural vehicles and equipment. The inventory for each of these sub-sectors is addressed in turn below.

C.1 On-Road Motor Vehicles

C.1.1 On-Road Motor Vehicles Emission Estimation Methodology Emissions from on-road vehicles were calculated for the most part within the MOBILE 6.2C (M6.2C) model for common air contaminants and outside the M6.2C model for greenhouse gases. This section explains how these emissions were calculated. Detailed input data tables are provided at the end of this chapter for reference.

Common Air Contaminants Emissions of common air contaminants were estimated by multiplying vehicle kilometres accumulated by emission factors calculated using a version of the EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 model modified to apply to Canada.

Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKmT) Metro Vancouver received data from the South Coast British Columbia Transit Authority (also referred to as “TransLink” or “SCBCTA”) on the total kilometres driven in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) region, broken out by four categories of vehicles: (1) Passenger Vehicles, (2) Light Utility Trucks, (3) Heavy-Duty Trucks, and (4) Urban Transit Buses. Data was provided for 2003 and 2021 and was developed by TransLink using EMME/2 transportation model. VKmT for 2003 was grown to 2005 by assuming an annual growth rate of 1.75%. Data on actual vehicle-kilometres travelled in 2005 were provided for transit buses. VKmT for the forecast years were developed based on a straight-line extrapolation from these two data points (2005 and 2021). Finally, the four VKmT amounts (per vehicle category) were split into each of 31 MOBILE 6.2 vehicle categories, based on vehicle population, age distribution, and mileage accumulation rates. The following sections describe how this was applied to generate the 2005 VKmT table shown in Table C.1.1. Table C.1.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley (CLFV) VKmT Extrapolated from 2003 CLFV VKmT Provided by TransLink (in TransLink's Groupings)

TransLink Grouping VKmT Description Auto 18,097,752,369 Includes LDV, LDT1-4, MC Light Truck 404,208,738 Includes HDV2B-5 Heavy Truck 348,838,236 Includes HDV6-8B, School buses, Gas buses Buses 63,187,675 Includes Diesel Transit Buses TOTAL 18,913,987,019


C -2

Table C.1.2: 2005 VKmT for the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley by M6.2C categories

Fuel M6.2 Category VKmT in 2005 LDV 9,984,283,261 LDT1 2,269,379,072 LDT2 4,262,261,651 LDT3 612,284,418 LDT4 663,708,269 HDV2B 105,897,351 HDV3 74,998,092 HDV4 4,557,295 HDV5 3,787,338 HDV6 576,562 HDV7 526,974 HDV8A 348,356 HDV8B 175,831 School Bus 2,415,592 Transit Bus 3,968,027

GASOLINE

MC 116,584,503 LDV 105,977,262 LDT1 13,466,358 LDT2 13,242,737 LDT3 9,693,098 LDT4 46,871,741 HDV2B 61,531,827 HDV3 114,023,270 HDV4 14,400,496 HDV5 25,013,069 HDV6 7,891,583 HDV7 17,834,056 HDV8A 39,776,936 HDV8B 273,074,013 HD 2,250,308

DIESEL

HD 63,187,675 TOTAL ALL 18,913,987,019

Development of Vehicle Emission Factors MOBILE is an EPA model for estimating pollution from highway vehicles. MOBILE calculates emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM, PM10, PM2.5) and ammonia from passenger cars, motorcycles, light- and heavy-duty trucks. The model accounts for the emission impacts of factors such as changes in vehicle emission standards, changes in vehicle populations and activity, and variation in local conditions such as temperature, humidity and fuel quality. First developed in 1978, MOBILE has been regularly updated to reflect our growing understanding of vehicle emissions, and to cover new emissions regulations and modeling needs. MOBILE 6.2 is the most recent iteration of this model, and was adapted to Canadian conditions and labelled MOBILE 6.2C. MOBILE is the primary tool used to estimate vehicular emissions in North America. The May 2005 version of MOBILE 6.2C was used to calculate emission factors.


C -3

Vehicle Population Data ICBC provided registration data for vehicles belonging to accounts with addresses in the CLFV for June 2005. It was assumed that the number of companies operating vehicles outside of the area is roughly the same as the number of companies with vehicles registered outside of the area but operating in the CLFV. Vehicles were grouped into the 16 vehicle class categories as defined by the M6.2C model based on the vehicle type, body style, net weight, and licensed gross vehicle weight. The distribution of vehicle ages (from 0 to 25+ model years) in each of 16 vehicle class categories was used to create a “regdist.d” input file for the M6.2C model (see Table C.1.3). Table C.1.3: MOBILE 6.2C Category Code and Description

M6.2C category Description LDV Light-duty Vehicles (passenger cars) LDT1 Light-duty Trucks 1 (0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 0-3,750 lbs LVW) LDT2 Light-duty Trucks 2 (0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 3,751-5,750 lbs LVW) LDT3 Light-duty Trucks 3 (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 0-3,750 lbs LVW) LDT4 Light-duty Trucks 4 (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 3,751-5,750 lbs LVW) HDV2B Class 2b Heavy-duty Trucks (8,501 - 10,000 lbs GVWR) HDV3 Class 3 Heavy-duty Trucks (10,001 - 14,000 lbs GVWR) HDV4 Class 4 Heavy-duty Trucks (14,001 – 16,000 lbs GVWR) HDV5 Class 5 Heavy-duty Trucks (16,001 - 19,500 lbs GVWR) HDV6 Class 6 Heavy-duty Trucks (19,501 – 26,000 lbs GVWR) HDV7 Class 7 Heavy-duty Trucks (26,001 – 33,000 lbs GVWR) HDV8A Class 8a Heavy-duty Trucks (33,001 – 60,000 lbs GVWR) HDV8B Class 8b Heavy-duty Trucks (> 60,000 lbs GVWR) HDBS School buses HDBT Transit and Urban buses MC Motorcycles (all)

Vehicle Age Distribution The age distribution of vehicles (as determined by model year) in each Mobile 6.2C vehicle category is required as input to the model. The total number of vehicles in each of the M6.2C categories is shown in Table C.1.4. The vehicle registration information provided by ICBC was used to create the age distribution of registered vehicles by aggregated M6.2C categories as required as an input to the model.


C-4

Table C.1.4: ICBC Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Registered and Licensed to Operate in Territories D,E,H, and Z as of June 30, 2005

Model Year

LDV LDT1 LDT2 LDT3 LDT4 HDV2B HDV3 HDV4 HDV5 HDV6 HDV7 HDV8A HDV8B HDBS (2005

value=58)

HDBT (2005

value=160)

MC

2005 &

newer

44,151 11,300 19,747 1,221 3,550 1,640 1,687 130 251 146 325 271 2,168 58 160 2,375

2004 47,245 8,745 22,201 1,656 5,279 2,484 1,917 164 221 115 201 263 1,555 121 112 3,019

2003 52,662 11,019 23,909 2,567 4,807 2,802 1,850 179 241 111 171 220 1,060 122 145 3,003

2002 54,345 9,976 23,530 2,572 3,167 2,214 1,004 150 209 104 272 188 626 151 98 2,260

2001 43,160 7,526 18,295 2,119 3,108 2,054 978 161 245 99 243 252 1,126 132 210 1,839

2000 42,422 6,021 20,627 2,326 2,381 1,615 924 121 151 121 224 214 1,437 157 240 1,576

1999 34,996 5,536 17,950 1,995 2,354 1,483 871 137 155 150 268 266 1,300 127 227 1,156

1998 44,151 6,457 19,089 2,357 2,368 1,100 726 57 112 128 221 364 1,191 196 194 948

1997 37,167 7,697 17,369 2,501 2,365 1,215 877 104 119 87 186 233 831 88 115 807

1996 29,636 3,259 13,568 1,682 1,729 962 800 54 93 55 135 199 765 103 186 736

1995 37,412 6,922 11,970 2,305 1,908 1,169 1,240 125 87 71 257 295 871 95 160 404

1994 32,753 7,091 10,581 2,284 1,943 915 1,041 96 121 84 182 247 703 120 56 432

1993 34,550 7,716 11,191 1,762 1,466 764 942 82 87 64 137 204 376 83 57 420

1992 38,733 8,287 8,843 1,747 1,334 631 838 50 101 62 168 185 292 102 109 373

1991 35,649 8,405 7,483 1,628 843 519 840 35 104 74 162 187 240 104 183 344

1990 35,692 7,935 5,084 2,316 1,042 375 1,037 55 107 70 234 338 441 87 138 376

1989 27,450 7,036 3,324 1,971 812 278 1,026 37 90 62 153 198 336 77 94 373

1988 21,331 5,678 2,443 1,463 705 223 969 44 57 42 145 195 294 36 58 423

1987 16,652 4,887 1,585 825 333 163 581 11 25 49 113 164 154 21 37 385

1986 13,945 3,718 1,096 765 392 199 601 15 24 29 85 146 159 27 26 486

1985 8,216 2,174 717 538 244 76 444 12 9 25 66 87 107 16 31 704

1984 6,059 1,404 613 402 225 68 350 7 20 24 26 61 57 12 15 725

1983 3,255 709 423 257 165 24 232 5 3 6 11 18 13 3 12 731

1982 2,496 571 359 242 111 28 227 2 6 9 22 31 16 8 15 863

1981

and

older

24,850 2,333 2,998 3,530 1,846 190 2,747 65 112 190 243 494 276 22 71 2,954

Total 768,978 152,402 264,995 43,031 44,477 23,191 24,749 1,898 2,750 1,977 4,250 5,320 16,394 2,068 2,749 27,712


C-5

Table C.1.5: Vehicle Population Distribution by Aggregated MOBILE 6.2 Classes

Aggregated Vehicle Class Vehicle

Age

Model Year

LDV LDT12 LDT34 HDV2B-3 HDV4-7 HDV8A-B HDBS HDBT MC

1 2005 & 2006

5.79% 7.44% 5.45% 6.94% 7.83% 11.23% 2.80% 5.82% 8.57%

2 2004 6.20% 7.41% 7.92% 9.18% 6.45% 8.37% 5.85% 4.07% 10.89% 3 2003 6.91% 8.37% 8.43% 9.70% 6.46% 5.89% 5.90% 5.27% 10.84% 4 2002 7.13% 8.03% 6.56% 6.71% 6.76% 3.75% 7.30% 3.56% 8.16% 5 2001 5.66% 6.19% 5.97% 6.32% 6.88% 6.35% 6.38% 7.64% 6.64% 6 2000 5.57% 6.38% 5.38% 5.30% 5.67% 7.60% 7.59% 8.73% 5.69% 7 1999 4.59% 5.63% 4.97% 4.91% 6.53% 7.21% 6.14% 8.26% 4.17% 8 1998 4.88% 6.12% 5.40% 3.81% 4.76% 7.16% 9.48% 7.06% 3.42% 9 1997 4.88% 6.01% 5.56% 4.36% 4.56% 4.90% 4.26% 4.18% 2.91% 10 1996 3.89% 4.03% 3.90% 3.68% 3.10% 4.44% 4.98% 6.77% 2.66% 11 1995 4.91% 4.53% 4.81% 5.03% 4.97% 5.37% 4.59% 5.82% 1.46% 12 1994 4.30% 4.23% 4.83% 4.08% 4.44% 4.38% 5.80% 2.04% 1.56% 13 1993 4.53% 4.53% 3.69% 3.56% 3.40% 2.67% 4.01% 2.07% 1.52% 14 1992 5.08% 4.10% 3.52% 3.06% 3.50% 2.20% 4.93% 3.97% 1.35% 15 1991 4.68% 3.81% 2.82% 2.83% 3.45% 1.97% 5.03% 6.66% 1.24% 16 1990 4.68% 3.12% 3.84% 2.95% 4.29% 3.59% 4.21% 5.02% 1.36% 17 1989 3.60% 2.48% 3.18% 2.72% 3.14% 2.46% 3.72% 3.42% 1.35% 18 1988 2.80% 1.95% 2.48% 2.49% 2.65% 2.25% 1.74% 2.11% 1.53% 19 1987 2.19% 1.55% 1.32% 1.55% 1.82% 1.46% 1.02% 1.35% 1.39% 20 1986 1.83% 1.15% 1.32% 1.67% 1.41% 1.40% 1.31% 0.95% 1.75% 21 1985 1.08% 0.69% 0.89% 1.08% 1.03% 0.89% 0.77% 1.13% 2.54% 22 1984 0.80% 0.48% 0.72% 0.87% 0.71% 0.54% 0.58% 0.55% 2.62% 23 1983 0.43% 0.27% 0.48% 0.53% 0.23% 0.14% 0.15% 0.44% 2.64% 24 1982 0.33% 0.22% 0.40% 0.53% 0.36% 0.22% 0.39% 0.55% 3.11% 25 1981 - 3.26% 1.28% 6.14% 6.13% 5.61% 3.55% 1.06% 2.58% 10.66%

Diesel Fractions The diesel fraction represents the percent of diesel vehicles in a vehicle category for any vehicle age. Specifying diesel fractions allows M6.2C to perform separate calculations for gas and diesel subcategories, which have distinctly different emission rates. Urban and transit buses are assumed to be all diesel-fuelled, and motorcycles are assumed to be all gasoline-fuelled so these two categories do not require a diesel fraction. That leaves 14 composite vehicle categories for which users can specify a diesel fraction. Based on the ICBC data, diesel fractions were determined for the 14 composite vehicle categories as listed in Table C.1.6.


C-6

Table C.1.6: Diesel Vehicle Population Distribution by MOBILE 6.2 Classes

Mobile 6.2C Vehicle Category Model Year LDV LDT1 LDT2 LDT3 LDT4 HDV2B HDV3 HDV4 HDV5 HDV6 HDV7 HDV8A HDV8B HDBS 2005

(& newer)

1.94% 1.04% 0.50% 0.33% 1.80% 29.63% 82.45% 91.54% 90.44% 92.47% 96.00% 98.15% 99.63% 56.90%

2004 1.91% 1.66% 0.12% 0.48% 1.84% 31.92% 79.03% 78.05% 89.14% 96.52% 98.51% 98.86% 99.81% 68.60% 2003 1.30% 1.59% 0.03% 0.19% 2.02% 40.79% 80.00% 72.63% 85.48% 93.69% 97.08% 98.64% 99.72% 52.46% 2002 1.10% 0.03% 0.01% 0.27% 3.95% 39.30% 64.44% 55.33% 85.17% 94.23% 98.16% 97.34% 100.00% 53.64% 2001 1.54% 0.07% 0.01% 0.38% 3.70% 41.09% 62.37% 61.49% 80.82% 87.88% 96.71% 97.62% 99.56% 53.03% 2000 1.06% 0.18% 0.01% 0.13% 3.57% 28.73% 46.32% 63.64% 68.21% 90.91% 99.11% 97.66% 99.58% 56.05% 1999 0.56% 0.04% 0.04% 0.45% 4.04% 41.00% 50.98% 68.61% 80.65% 86.67% 98.13% 96.99% 99.85% 64.57% 1998 0.41% 0.02% 0.03% 0.30% 5.03% 37.27% 42.42% 66.67% 81.25% 94.53% 96.38% 98.08% 99.66% 71.43% 1997 0.48% 0.26% 0.20% 0.76% 8.75% 42.30% 50.29% 70.19% 78.99% 91.95% 96.77% 98.28% 100.00% 44.32% 1996 0.31% 0.68% 0.10% 0.77% 13.48% 41.79% 48.00% 46.30% 70.97% 94.55% 92.59% 96.48% 100.00% 38.83% 1995 0.28% 0.22% 0.16% 0.87% 14.83% 43.97% 41.61% 60.80% 66.67% 87.32% 94.16% 97.29% 99.31% 36.84% 1994 0.34% 0.03% 0.34% 1.01% 15.39% 41.64% 38.52% 55.21% 79.34% 85.71% 93.96% 97.57% 99.29% 27.50% 1993 0.46% 0.18% 0.23% 5.28% 23.60% 42.15% 36.94% 68.29% 80.46% 98.44% 97.81% 96.08% 98.94% 40.96% 1992 0.44% 0.02% 0.21% 4.41% 23.76% 28.37% 29.59% 48.00% 75.25% 93.55% 91.67% 98.92% 98.63% 39.22% 1991 0.72% 0.05% 0.27% 6.33% 16.37% 26.78% 25.95% 42.86% 73.08% 86.49% 90.74% 97.33% 99.58% 41.35% 1990 0.48% 0.03% 0.59% 2.76% 14.11% 24.00% 21.41% 50.91% 71.96% 88.57% 94.87% 97.93% 99.09% 34.48% 1989 0.37% 0.14% 1.11% 3.45% 11.58% 19.06% 19.98% 48.65% 61.11% 77.42% 91.50% 95.45% 99.40% 37.66% 1988 0.25% 0.11% 1.39% 1.50% 10.92% 26.91% 17.34% 38.64% 52.63% 64.29% 92.41% 95.38% 99.32% 19.44% 1987 1.27% 0.96% 7.95% 2.55% 13.21% 39.26% 22.55% 45.45% 72.00% 73.47% 87.61% 96.95% 99.35% 33.33% 1986 2.39% 1.37% 11.77% 6.80% 31.89% 44.22% 27.62% 40.00% 62.50% 48.28% 89.41% 93.15% 98.11% 14.81% 1985 3.43% 2.94% 14.64% 9.11% 30.74% 35.53% 22.75% 16.67% 33.33% 52.00% 83.33% 93.10% 100.00% 25.00% 1984 4.98% 3.77% 15.17% 11.19% 25.78% 45.59% 16.86% 28.57% 70.00% 62.50% 80.77% 96.72% 100.00% 8.33% 1983 6.14% 3.81% 15.13% 8.95% 18.79% 41.67% 16.81% 40.00% 0.00% 33.33% 72.73% 83.33% 100.00% 0.00% 1982 8.93% 8.41% 19.22% 6.61% 7.21% 14.29% 10.57% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 77.27% 90.32% 93.75% 0.00% 1981 - 2.27% 2.06% 2.27% 0.42% 0.65% 2.63% 1.09% 4.62% 8.93% 16.32% 34.16% 81.58% 97.46% 45.45%


C-7

Annual Mileage Accumulation Rates The mileage accumulation rates represent the total annual travel per vehicle of a given age and category. For light duty vehicles (cars and trucks), accurate data was available based on AirCare’s analysis of odometer readings collected at local vehicle inspection and maintenance facilities. Mileage accumulation data from AirCare was used for the MOBILE6.2C categories LDV, LDT1, LDT2, LDT3, LDT4, and HDV2B by vehicle model year. Since AirCare data was unavailable for the other vehicle classes, MOBILE6.2 default values were used instead. However, upon comparison with regional vehicle kilometres travelled (VKmT) data provided by TransLink; it became apparent that MOBILE 6.2 defaults were too high. This is primarily because while many trucking companies have head offices within the CLFV region and therefore register their trucks locally, only a small portion of their total trucking kilometres actually occurs within our region. Since MOBILE 6.2 is built for analysis at a larger geographic level, higher mileage is incorporated into the default mileage accumulation rate. While these “extra” miles are not accumulated in the CLFV, it is expected that heavy-duty vehicles do accumulate additional miles outside of the region which will effect engine deterioration. Thus, default mileage accumulation from MOBILE 6.2 was used in the MOBILE6.2C modeling to calculate emission factors for criteria air contaminants from the all of the heavy-duty vehicle categories with the exception of HDV2B. Mileage accumulation rates were adjusted downwards to match TransLink regional VKmT totals for the calculations of greenhouse gases and total vehicle kilometres travelled (see Table C.1.7). Table C.1.7: Annual Mileage Accumulation Rates by Vehicle Category (miles)

Model Year LDV LDT1 & LDT2 LDT3 & LDT4 HDV2B 2005 and newer 11,179 13,507 13,507 16,269

2004 10,914 13,101 13,101 15,574 2003 10,655 12,707 12,707 14,909 2002 10,403 12,325 12,325 14,272 2001 10,156 11,955 11,955 13,662 2000 9,916 11,595 11,595 13,079 1999 9,680 11,246 11,246 12,520 1998 9,451 10,908 10,908 11,985 1997 9,227 10,580 10,580 11,473 1996 9,008 10,262 10,262 10,983 1995 8,795 9,954 9,954 10,514 1994 8,586 9,654 9,654 10,064 1993 8,383 9,364 9,364 9,635 1992 8,184 9,082 9,082 9,223 1991 7,765 8,832 8,832 8,829 1990 7,581 8,386 8,386 8,452 1989 7,328 8,023 8,023 8,091 1988 7,166 7,793 7,793 7,745 1987 6,947 7,803 7,803 7,414 1986 6,853 7,344 7,344 7,097 1985 6,917 7,354 7,354 6,794


C-8

Model Year LDV LDT1 & LDT2 LDT3 & LDT4 HDV2B 1984 6,624 7,227 7,227 6,504 1983 6,537 7,179 7,179 6,226 1982 6,783 6,693 6,693 5,960

1981 and older 6,286 6,492 6,492 5,706

Fractions of Vehicle Kilometres Traveled MOBILE 6.2C allows the user to supply vehicle travel data specific to the geographical location modelled. Users can allocate VKmT to specific vehicle types, thereby weighting together the emissions of the various vehicle types into the average emissions for grouping of vehicle classes. Number of vehicles in each M6.2C category were multiplied by the assumed mileage accumulation for each model year, these were summed to produce the expected total vehicle kilometres travelled per the 16 M6.2C vehicle categories (not fuel specific). Total vehicle kilometres travelled by each of the 4 aggregate categories as provided by TransLink was used to adjust the total VKmT downward as the mileage accumulation for heavy-duty vehicles included miles accumulated outside the region. The resulting fractions of vehicle kilometres travelled as entered in the M6.2C model is shown in Table C.1.8. Table C.1. 8: Fraction of VkmT Accumulated by Vehicle Type

Vehicle Type VKmT Fraction Vehicle Type VKmT Fraction LDV 0.532 HDV5 0.001 LDT1 0.124 HDV6 0.001 LDT2 0.224 HDV7 0.001 LDT3 0.037 HDV8A 0.002 LDT4 0.033 HDV8B 0.015 HDV2B 0.009 HDBS 0.001 HDV3 0.010 HDBT 0.003 HDV4 0.001 MC 0.006

Fuel Quality and Meteorological Data Emissions of NOx, VOC, and SOx are affected by fuel quality and or meteorological conditions. Fuel volatility as indicated by Reid Vapour Pressure (RVP) effects VOC emissions. Sulphur content in fuel effects the resulting SOx emissions. Ambient humidity and temperature can effect NOx and diurnal VOC emissions, respectively. M6.2C has several input parameters that can be adjusted to model varying fuel quality and meteorological conditions. The model uses the input parameters of cloud cover, peak sun, sunrise and sunset times to account for the use of vehicle air conditioners and the subsequent emissions. Six distinct seasons were defined for modeling purposes. Each season has similar temperature ranges and RVPs over the time period defined. Federal regulations on sulphur content in fuels and provincial regulations on Reid Vapour Pressure require the provincial Ministry of Environment (BC MoE) to track these fuel parameters in fuel sold in the region throughout the year. BC MoE (Rensing) provided records of the RVP and fuel sulphur levels and volumes provided over a range of time periods in 2005. Meteorological information was provided from Metro Vancouver’s ambient air quality stations. The final input parameters and seasons are defined in Table C.1.9. Ambient temperature and relative humidity were input into M6.2C as hourly averages and are shown in Table C.1.10 and Table C.1.11.


C -9

Table C.1.9: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Seasonal Fuel Reid Vapour Pressure and Meteorological Data

Season Factor Dates Reid Vapour Pressure (psi) Cloud Cover Peak Sun Sunrise/Sunset Winter 0.58 Jan 1 – Apr 15, Sep 15 – Dec 31 13.2 0.72 11 am - 1 pm 7 am – 6 pm Spring 1 0.13 Apr 15 – May 31 10.5 0.71 11 am - 1 pm 6 am – 9 pm Spring 2 0.13 Jun 1- Jul 15 10.5 0.79 10 am - 1 pm 5 am – 9 pm Summer 1 0.08 Jul 16 - Aug 14 9.0 0.27 11 am – 2 pm 6 am – 9 pm Summer 2 0.04 Aug 15 - 31 9.0 0.59 11 am - 2 pm 6 am – 8 pm Fall 0.04 Aug 31 - Sep 15 10.2 0.64 11 am - 1 pm 7 am – 8 pm

Table C.1.10: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ambient Hourly Temperatures (oF)

Temp (°F) Hour Season 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Fall 56.6 55.9 55.4 54.8 54.3 54.0 54.5 56.3 58.7 61.0 62.7 64.3 65.7 66.6 67.2 67.2 66.7 65.6 63.5 61.7 60.3 59.1 58.0 57.1

Spring 1 54.5 53.9 53.4 52.9 52.7 53.2 54.6 56.1 57.8 59.2 60.7 62.0 63.1 63.9 64.6 64.9 64.6 64.0 62.9 60.8 58.8 57.4 56.3 55.5

Spring 2 57.2 56.5 56.0 55.6 55.3 55.8 57.1 58.4 59.7 60.9 62.3 63.3 64.3 65.0 65.3 65.6 65.5 65.0 64.3 63.0 61.3 59.9 58.9 58.0

Summer 1 61.7 60.6 59.7 58.9 58.3 58.9 61.4 63.7 65.9 68.0 70.1 71.8 73.3 74.8 75.9 76.5 76.4 75.8 74.3 71.4 68.6 66.6 64.9 63.4

Summer 2 60.2 59.4 58.9 58.4 57.9 57.8 59.2 61.2 63.5 65.7 67.5 69.1 70.6 71.7 72.3 72.7 72.3 71.2 69.2 66.6 64.8 63.2 61.9 60.8

Winter 42.9 42.5 42.2 41.9 41.7 41.6 41.7 42.2 43.4 44.9 46.4 47.7 48.8 49.5 49.9 49.8 49.1 48.1 46.9 45.9 45.1 44.4 43.9 43.4

Table C.1.11: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ambient Hourly Relative Humidity (%)

Hour Season 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Fall 83.0 84.5 85.3 86.2 87.3 88.3 88.0 84.9 78.5 72.6 68.7 64.3 60.8 58.0 56.6 56.4 57.9 61.0 67.1 71.1 74.2 76.6 78.8 80.5

Spring 1 81.9 82.9 83.6 84.6 84.9 84.0 81.6 77.6 73.7 70.2 67.0 64.3 62.0 60.4 59.0 58.5 59.6 60.3 62.9 68.3 73.3 76.8 79.0 80.4

Spring 2 83.3 84.8 85.9 87.1 87.6 86.5 83.5 80.3 76.8 73.9 70.1 67.5 65.1 63.3 61.8 61.1 61.1 62.7 64.8 68.0 72.8 76.8 79.4 81.7

Summer 1 78.6 81.4 83.3 85.1 86.3 84.8 79.7 74.3 69.5 65.2 61.5 58.2 55.2 52.2 49.9 48.3 47.9 48.3 51.1 57.4 63.2 67.7 71.4 74.9

Summer 2 83.2 85.2 86.1 86.8 87.3 87.4 84.3 79.9 74.5 69.7 65.8 62.4 59.3 56.6 55.1 53.9 53.9 57.0 62.3 67.3 71.6 75.9 79.8 81.9

Winter 83.4 84.1 84.3 84.8 85.1 85.3 85.1 83.9 81.4 78.1 75.0 72.4 70.3 69.0 68.2 68.6 70.5 73.0 75.8 78.2 79.8 81.0 82.0 82.8


C -10

Final Emission Factors Emission factors for the common air contaminants, expressed in units of g/VKmT are listed in Table C.1.12. Emission factors are listed per aggregated vehicle categories. Table C.1.12: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Factors for Common Air Contaminants (g/VkmT)

LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC CO 10.018 10.835 19.765 12.646 0.700 0.894 1.582 10.641 NOx 0.656 0.719 1.196 2.983 0.492 0.924 6.789 0.914 PM 0.015 0.016 0.025 0.056 0.080 0.139 0.181 0.023 PM10 0.015 0.016 0.025 0.056 0.080 0.139 0.181 0.023 PM2.5 0.007 0.007 0.014 0.040 0.067 0.121 0.153 0.013 SOX 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.025 0.042 0.109 0.002 VOC 0.889 0.733 1.411 1.005 0.198 0.492 0.270 2.356 NH3 0.061 0.062 0.059 0.028 0.004 0.004 0.017 0.007

AirCare and Inspection and Maintenance Programs The AirCare Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program has been in operation in the Lower Mainland since September 1992 (see http://www.aircare.ca/). In 2005, light-duty vehicles 5,000 kg and under, registered in an area which approximates Metro Vancouver and FVRD1 were subject to testing. Vehicles with model years 1991 and older are tested with the Acceleration Simulation Mode 2525 Test (ASM2525) and an Idle test. These vehicles are required to be tested annually. 1992 and newer vehicles (except diesels) are tested biannually using the IM240 test. Eligible 1998 and newer light-duty vehicles receive a scan of the vehicle's built-in On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) monitoring system to ensure there are no defects with any of the vehicle's emissions control systems. Diesel vehicles (other than 1998 and newer light-duty vehicles) are tested using the D147 transient opacity test. Most vehicles also receive a functional inspection of the gas cap and are visually inspected to ensure that the most important emission control devices have not been tampered with. In 2005, vehicles of model year 2003 or newer were exempt from AirCare testing. The current AirCare program is expected to operate until 2011. MOBILE 6.2C can model up to seven I/M programs concurrently. Users can enter the parameters such as vehicles required to be tested, expected compliance, waiver, failure, and emission rates. Parameters input to MOBILE 6.2C to estimate the effect of the AirCare program are shown in Table C.1.13.


C -11

Table C.1.13: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley MOBILE 6.2C Input Parameters to Model AirCare Inspection and Maintenance Program

Program # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years Applicable 1993-1995 1996-2000 2001-2006 2007-2011 2001-2011 2001-2011 2001-2011

Test Type ASM2525 ASM2525 IM240 IM240 AMS2525 Gas Cap Evap OBD Model Years 1941-2000 1941-2000 1992-2006 1992-2030 1941-1991 1972-1995 1998-2030

Annual/Biennial Annual Annual Biennial Biennial Annual Annual Pre-1981 fail rate 27% 27% n/a n/a 36%

Compliance 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% Waiver - pre 1981 10.2% 10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% Waiver - post 1981 10.2% 10.2% 6.6% 0.0% 4.7%

Cutpoint file ctpt2005.d ctpt2005.d Grace Years 2 7 2

Greenhouse Gases from On-Road Vehicles Although the M6.2C model has the ability to estimate CO2 emissions, it is unable to model N2O and CH4 emissions. As the latter two greenhouse gases (GHGs) are dependent upon the vehicle age mix, Metro Vancouver opted to estimate all GHG emissions outside of the M6.2C model. The methodology for modeling GHG emissions relies on much of the same information discussed in previous sections and is shown in Figure C.1. This section will discuss each of these elements and how they were used in estimating on-road vehicle GHGs in 2005, backcast and forecasts.


C -12

Figure C.1: Methodology for Estimating GHG Emissions from On-Road Vehicles in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley

Actual Fuel Consumed Unlike emission of CACs, which are influenced by a vehicle’s drive cycle, GHG emissions are directly related to the amount of fuel combusted; therefore, actual fuel consumed by on-road vehicles within the region is the best information with which to estimate greenhouse gases. The best available data to approximate fuel consumed is fuel sold within the region. Actual fuel sales data was provided by the South Coast BC Transit Authority (SCBCTA). This data is collected from SCBCTA Fuel Tax Revenues and provides the total volume of diesel and gasoline sold for the Metro Vancouver region for all years going as far back as 1985. As FVRD fuel sales are not included in the data from SCBCTA, an additional 16.4% of MV fuel volume was added to account for FVRD fuel amounts.


C -13

However, not all gasoline and diesel sold within the region is either (1) used within the boundaries of the region, or (2) used in on-road vehicles. Some adjustments were made to correct for these two issues where data was available.

Diesel Sales Anecdotally there is reason to believe that the amount of diesel fuel sold in the FVRD is greater than the amount actually consumed, as long-haul trucks may tend to refuel in the valley, in order to avoid SCBCTA fuel taxes, prior to setting off into the interior. However, at this time, there is insufficient data to support adjusting diesel sales to account for this. Although non-road equipment may use “marked” or “coloured” fuel, which is subject to lower taxes than on-road grade fuel, there may be reason to believe that a significant number of non-road equipment operators choose to use on-road grade fuel for reasons including convenience, availability, and environmental leadership. At the present, however, there is insufficient data to determine the extent of this use.

Gasoline Sales The assumption is that most vehicles refuelling within the LFV will use most of that fuel within the region. There may be some use that crosses regional boundaries, but those uses are expected to be minor and offset by vehicles bringing fuel purchased outside the region into the region. An adjustment was made to account for use of gasoline for small non-road spark ignition engines (such as lawn and garden equipment). According to estimates using the NONROAD model, in 2005 these small non-road engines used 37,826,970 litres in the Metro Vancouver region, and 6,250,718 litres in the FVRD, which is 2% of total gasoline sales. Total fuel sold within the CLFV was therefore adjusted downwards by 2% in each year (previous inventories did not include these adjustments).

Adjusted Total Fuel Consumption Following adjustment, we obtain an on-road motor vehicle fuel consumption volume of 2,166,242,181 litres of gasoline and 354,725,439 litres of diesel. This results in total on-road fuel consumption of 2,520,967,621 litres in 2005. However, as noted earlier, emissions of N2O and CH4 are dependent upon vehicle type and technology, which is dependent upon vehicle model year. Therefore, total gasoline and diesel volumes needed to be allocated to different vehicle categories and model years. This allocation was developed using the same VKmT data developed for CAC MOBILE 6.2C modeling combined with average vehicle fuel consumption rates, or fuel economy. Combining VKmT with fuel consumption rates generated an expected fuel consumption volume, which could then be compared with actual volume of fuel sold. In general expected gasoline consumption matched actual gasoline sales very well, whereas actual diesel sales were significantly higher than expected diesel consumption. The difference between actual and expected was defined as a “fuel adjustment factor” (Table C.1.14), which could be applied to expected consumption to bring it to match actual sales. This is especially important for future years, where no actual sales data is available and therefore estimates rely wholly on expected fuel sales. Table C.1.14: Fuel Adjustment Factors YEAR Diesel Gasoline 1990 1.28 0.84 1995 1.26 1.02


C -14

2000 1.47 1.05 2005 1.44 1.05 2010 1.44 1.05 2015 1.44 1.05 2020 1.44 1.05 2025 1.44 1.05 2030 1.44 1.05

Vehicle Fuel Consumption Rates The fuel consumption rate (FCR) refers to the average amount of fuel consumed by a vehicle of a particular model year and classification per distance traveled. In Canada, FCR is typically expressed in litres of fuel consumed per 100 kilometres traveled. In order to estimate total fuel consumed for the 2005 estimate, backcast and forecast, fuel consumption rates were required for model years 1960 through 2030. For most years and classes, Environment Canada average fuel consumption rates were used. Most of these are consistent with values used by the U.S. EPA in their on-road MOBILE 6.2 model.


C -15

Table C.1.15: Fuel Consumption Rates (L/100 km), Model Years 1960-2030, Under Three Scenarios

HDDV HDGV MC MDDV MDGVModel Year ALL ALL LOW MOD HIGH LOW MOD HIGH LOW MOD LOW MOD HIGH LOW MOD HIGH LOW MOD HIGH ALL ALL ALL

1960 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51961 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51962 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51963 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51964 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51965 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51966 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51967 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51968 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51969 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51970 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51971 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51972 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51973 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51974 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51975 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51976 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51977 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51978 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51979 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51980 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51981 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51982 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51983 39.3 55.6 4.7 21.1 21.51984 39.3 55.6 4.7 20.9 21.51985 39.3 43.5 4.7 20.6 21.51986 39.3 43.5 4.7 20.4 21.51987 39.3 43.5 4.7 20.1 21.51988 39.3 43.5 4.7 19.9 21.51989 39.3 43.5 4.7 19.7 21.51990 39.3 43.5 4.7 19.4 21.51991 39.3 43.5 4.7 19.2 21.51992 39.3 43.5 4.7 19.0 21.51993 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.8 21.51994 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.6 21.51995 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.3 21.51996 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.51997 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.51998 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.51999 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52000 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52001 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52002 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52003 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52004 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52005 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52006 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52007 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52008 39.3 43.5 4.7 18.2 21.52009 39.3 43.5 8.5 8.5 10.6 11.6 11.6 13.8 8.5 8.5 12.7 11.6 11.6 12.8 8.5 8.5 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52010 39.3 43.5 8.0 8.0 10.6 11.1 11.1 13.8 8.0 8.0 12.7 11.1 11.1 12.8 8.0 8.0 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52011 39.3 43.5 7.1 7.1 10.6 10.3 10.3 13.8 7.1 7.1 12.7 10.3 10.3 12.8 7.1 7.1 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52012 39.3 43.5 6.2 6.2 10.6 9.5 9.5 13.8 6.2 6.2 12.7 9.5 9.5 12.8 6.2 6.2 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52013 39.3 43.5 6.0 6.0 10.6 9.4 9.4 13.8 6.0 6.0 12.7 9.4 9.4 12.8 6.0 6.0 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52014 39.3 43.5 5.9 5.9 10.6 9.3 9.3 13.8 5.9 5.9 12.7 9.3 9.3 12.8 5.9 5.9 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52015 39.3 43.5 5.6 5.6 10.6 8.9 8.9 13.8 5.6 5.6 12.7 8.9 8.9 12.8 5.6 5.6 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52016 39.3 43.5 5.4 5.4 10.6 8.8 8.8 13.8 5.4 5.4 12.7 8.8 8.8 12.8 5.4 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52017 39.3 43.5 5.2 5.4 10.6 8.4 8.8 13.8 5.2 5.4 12.7 8.4 8.8 12.8 5.2 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52018 39.3 43.5 4.9 5.4 10.6 8.0 8.8 13.8 4.9 5.4 12.7 8.0 8.8 12.8 4.9 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52019 39.3 43.5 4.7 5.4 10.6 7.6 8.8 13.8 4.7 5.4 12.7 7.6 8.8 12.8 4.7 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52020 39.3 43.5 4.5 5.4 10.6 7.2 8.8 13.8 4.5 4.7 4.5 5.4 12.7 7.2 8.8 12.8 4.5 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52021 39.3 43.5 4.3 5.4 10.6 6.9 8.8 13.8 4.3 4.7 4.3 5.4 12.7 6.9 8.8 12.8 4.3 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52022 39.3 43.5 4.0 5.4 10.6 6.6 8.8 13.8 4.0 4.7 4.0 5.4 12.7 6.6 8.8 12.8 4.0 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52023 39.3 43.5 3.9 5.4 10.6 6.2 8.8 13.8 3.9 4.7 3.9 5.4 12.7 6.2 8.8 12.8 3.9 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52024 39.3 43.5 3.7 5.4 10.6 5.9 8.8 13.8 3.7 4.7 3.7 5.4 12.7 5.9 8.8 12.8 3.7 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52025 39.3 43.5 3.5 5.4 10.6 5.7 8.8 13.8 3.5 4.7 3.5 5.4 12.7 5.7 8.8 12.8 3.5 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52026 39.3 43.5 3.3 5.4 10.6 5.4 8.8 13.8 3.3 4.7 3.3 5.4 12.7 5.4 8.8 12.8 3.3 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52027 39.3 43.5 3.2 5.4 10.6 5.1 8.8 13.8 3.2 4.7 3.2 5.4 12.7 5.1 8.8 12.8 3.2 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52028 39.3 43.5 3.0 5.4 10.6 4.9 8.8 13.8 3.0 4.7 3.0 5.4 12.7 4.9 8.8 12.8 3.0 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52029 39.3 43.5 2.9 5.4 10.6 4.7 8.8 13.8 2.9 4.7 2.9 5.4 12.7 4.7 8.8 12.8 2.9 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.52030 39.3 43.5 2.7 5.4 10.6 4.4 8.8 13.8 2.7 4.7 2.7 5.4 12.7 4.4 8.8 12.8 2.7 5.4 9.6 4.7 18.2 21.5

9.6

9.59.49.69.6

9.89.79.69.5

9.79.79.69.8

10.09.89.89.7

9.69.89.99.8

10.510.29.99.8

11.811.010.610.6

15.815.113.913.7

17.417.417.417.4

17.417.417.417.4

12.812.8

17.417.417.417.417.417.417.417.4

13.213.313.012.8

13.413.313.413.4

13.413.213.413.2

13.013.213.113.3

12.813.013.213.3

13.213.513.412.9

18.814.913.813.5

20.319.317.718.2

20.320.320.320.3

20.320.320.320.3

20.320.320.320.3

12.712.712.712.7

12.712.712.712.7

12.512.412.612.6

12.312.412.612.4

12.312.412.112.4

12.612.011.912.2

13.112.912.412.6

16.616.917.614.0

19.619.619.618.1

19.619.619.619.6

4.7

19.619.619.619.619.619.619.619.619.6

4.74.74.74.7

4.74.74.74.7

4.74.74.74.7

4.84.74.74.7

5.04.84.74.7

5.95.75.44.7

5.25.25.95.8

5.25.15.15.2

6.76.15.55.5

7.27.27.26.3

7.27.27.27.2

7.27.27.27.2

7.27.27.27.2

13.813.8

LDDV

7.27.27.27.27.27.27.2

13.813.813.813.8

13.813.813.813.8

13.813.813.813.8

13.813.813.813.8

13.115.114.813.8

12.412.212.912.5

15.913.810.512.4

15.815.815.815.8

15.815.815.815.8

15.815.815.815.8

10.610.6

15.815.815.815.815.815.815.8

10.610.610.610.6

10.610.610.610.6

10.610.610.610.6

10.610.610.610.6

10.111.611.410.6

9.59.49.99.6

12.210.68.19.5

12.112.112.112.1

12.112.112.112.1

12.112.112.112.1

12.112.112.112.1

LDGV

12.112.112.1

20.320.320.3

LDDT1 LDDT2-4 LDGT1 LDGT2-4


C -16

GHG Emission Factors Greenhouse gas emission factors were chosen for consistency with Environment Canada’s National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990-2005. These fuel-based factors are listed in Table C.1.16. Table C.1.16: Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for On-Road Vehicles (kg/L)

EMISSION FACTORS (ENVIRONMENT CANADA) (kg/L) CO2 CH4 N2O LDGV - Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles

- Tier 2 2.36 0.000124 0.000156 - Tier 1 2.36 0.000124 0.000156 - Tier 0 2.36 0.00032 0.00066 - Oxidation Catalyst 2.36 0.000515 0.0002 LDGT - Light Duty Gasoline Trucks 1 - Tier 2 2.36 0.000128 0.000251 - Tier 1 2.36 0.000128 0.000251 - Tier 0 2.36 0.000213 0.00066 - Oxidation Catalyst 2.36 0.000429 0.0002 LDGT - Light Duty Gasoline Trucks 2-4 - Tier 2 2.36 0.000128 0.000251 - Tier 1 2.36 0.000128 0.000251 - Tier 0 2.36 0.000213 0.00066 - Oxidation Catalyst 2.36 0.000429 0.0002 MDGV - Medium Duty Gasoline Trucks - 3 Way Catalyst 2.36 0.000068 0.000198 - Non-Catalytic Controlled 2.36 0.0002875 0.0000468 - Uncontrolled 2.36 0.000486 0.0000839 HDGV - Heavy Duty Gasoline Trucks - 3 Way Catalyst 2.36 0.000068 0.000198 - Non-Catalytic Controlled 2.36 0.0002875 0.0000468 - Uncontrolled 2.36 0.000486 0.0000839 MC - Motorcycles - Non-Catalytic Controlled 2.36 0.001404 0.00004536 - Uncontrolled 2.36 0.002314 0.00004806 LDDV - Light Duty Diesel Vehicles - Tier 2 2.73 0.000051 0.0002175 - Advanced Control 2.73 0.000051 0.0002175 - Moderate Control 2.73 0.000068 0.000209 - Uncontrolled 2.73 0.000102 0.000163 LDDT - Light Duty Diesel Trucks 1 - Tier 2 2.73 0.000068 0.0002175 - Advanced Control 2.73 0.000068 0.0002175 - Moderate Control 2.73 0.000068 0.000209 - Uncontrolled 2.73 0.000085 0.000163 LDDT - Light Duty Diesel Trucks 2-4


C -17

EMISSION FACTORS (ENVIRONMENT CANADA) (kg/L) CO2 CH4 N2O - Tier 2 2.73 0.000068 0.0002175 - Advanced Control 2.73 0.000068 0.0002175 - Moderate Control 2.73 0.000068 0.000209 - Uncontrolled 2.73 0.000085 0.000163 MDDV - Medium Duty Diesel Vehicles - Advanced Control 2.73 0.000119 0.000082 - Moderate Control 2.73 0.000136 0.000082 - Uncontrolled 2.73 0.000153 0.000075 HDDV - Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles - Advanced Control 2.73 0.000119 0.000082 - Moderate Control 2.73 0.000136 0.000082 - Uncontrolled 2.73 0.000153 0.000075 Natural Gas Vehicles 1.89 0.0088 0.00006 Propane Vehicles 1,510 0.6425 0.028

Propane and Natural Gas-Fuelled Vehicles For the 2000 emission inventory, propane and compressed natural gas consumption data was obtained. Total fuel consumption was divided by the number of registered propane and natural gas vehicles (excluding dual-fuelled vehicles) to obtain the average annual fuel consumption per vehicle. Propane vehicles consumed on average 3,771 litres per year, while natural gas vehicles consumed on average 12,402,135 litres per year. In 2005, ICBC data registration data reported 6,381 propane vehicles and 480 CNG vehicles, a drop of 37% and 15%, respectively. Assuming that fuel consumption rates have not changed, we obtained total fuel consumption levels of 24,060,131 litres of propane and 5,953,024,911 litres of natural gas. Total fuel consumption was then multiplied by the emission factors in Table C.1.16 to derive greenhouse gas emissions from propane and natural gas fuel vehicles.

Road Dust Vehicular traffic can create and stir up particles on paved and unpaved roadways. Particles may be deposited through numerous meteorological and human activities including traffic itself. MOBILE 6.2C estimates particulate emissions related to vehicle braking and tire wear. Total road dust emitted is calculated using vehicle-kilometre data and emission factors developed by the EPA methodology. The EPA methodology for estimating particulate emissions from paved roads was used along with locally measured parameters. The equation used to determine the local emission factors for PM, PM10, and PM2.5 from road dust is:


C -18

Road Dust Emission Factor = [k * (sL/2)0.65 * (W/3)1.5 - C] * [1- P / 4N ] where: k = particle size multiplier = 0.66 for PM2.5 = 4.6 for PM10 = 24 for PM sL = road surface silt loading (g/vkt); average of all road types in CLV = 0.11 g/m2 W = mean vehicle weight (tons) = 1.9 tons C = emission factor of 1980's vehicle fleet exhaust = 0.1005 g/vkt for PM2.5 = 0.1317 g/vkt for PM210 = 0.1317 g/vkt for PM P = number of days with at least 0.254 mm of precipitation = 137 in 2005 N = number of days in averaging period = 365 days for 1 year The particle size multiplier (k), and the emission factor for 1980’s vehicle exhaust (C) were provided by the EPA methodology. The road surface silt loading average for the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley resulted from a sampling program completed over the spring 2000 to summer 2001. The average vehicle weight was calculated from the net weights of passenger cars and licensed gross weights of commercial vehicles licensed to operate in the region. The number of wet days was taken from an average of precipitation data from Metro Vancouver’s ambient air quality and meteorological sampling stations, located throughout the region. The resulting emission factors for the years modelled are shown below. The emission factors for forecast and backcast years vary slightly as a result of varying precipitation data. Table C.1.17: Emission Factors for Road Dust from On-Road Vehicles

Emission Factors(g/vkt) 1990 1995 2005 2000 2010-2030

PM2.5 0.0364 0.0365 0.0366 0.0362 0.0364 PM10 0.2338 0.2345 0.2356 0.2327 0.2341 PM 1.2198 1.2235 1.2291 1.2142 1.2216

C.1.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for On-Road Motor Vehicles

Backcast Assumptions 1990-2000 Emissions The following table lists the methods and assumptions used to backcast CAC and GHG emissions from on-road motor vehicles. The remainder of this section describes each method in more detail.


C -19

Table C.1.2.1: Backcast Assumptions

Backcast Method On-Road CACs Historic VKmT On-Road GHGs Historic Fuel Sales for 1990-2000

Historic VKmT Due to an improvement in TransLink’s methodology for determining total VKmT in 2003, there was a need to revisit VKmT data previously provided by TransLink for 1990, 1995 and 2000. This information was required in order to backcast GHG emissions. After discussions with TransLink modellers, it was determined that the total VKmT for those years was reliable, but that the distribution across TransLink’s four vehicle categories required adjustment. These adjustments were made in accordance with the VKmT distribution in 2003. Table C.1.2.2: Adjusted Historic VKmT Based on TransLink – Provided Total VKmT and 2003 Distribution Across Classes

1990 1995 2000 Auto 13,821,815,861 16,040,005,340 17,379,438,867 Light Truck 308,706,774 358,249,477 388,165,387 Heavy Truck 266,418,601 309,174,701 334,992,582 Bus 48,258,391 56,003,123 60,679,708 TOTAL 14,445,199,627 16,763,432,640 18,163,276,545 Total VKmT were then distributed across the 31 M6.2C vehicle classes (see Table C.1.2.3).


C -20

Table C.1.2.3: 1990-2000 VKmT for the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley by M6.2C Categories

Fuel M6.2 Category VKmT in 1990 VKmT in 1995 VKmT in 2000

LDV 7,982,903,366 9,264,036,933 10,037,637,777 LDT1 1,501,491,910 1,742,458,335 1,887,963,718 LDT2 2,615,540,080 3,035,294,151 3,288,758,827 LDT3 741,231,828 860,188,169 932,018,873 LDT4 722,445,372 838,386,775 908,396,936

HDV2B 93,725,921 108,767,495 117,850,212 HDV3 90,759,104 105,324,548 114,119,759 HDV4 4,863,924 5,644,510 6,115,859 HDV5 4,461,393 5,177,378 5,609,719 HDV6 942,001 1,093,177 1,184,464 HDV7 909,689 1,055,681 1,143,836

HDV8A 564,206 654,753 709,428 HDV8B 176,470 204,791 221,892

School Bus 2,264,631 2,628,069 2,847,528 Transit Bus 5,444,929 6,318,757 6,846,410

GASOLINE

MC 104,997,097 121,847,520 132,022,496 LDV 63,836,164 74,080,890 80,267,074 LDT1 20,298,989 23,556,665 25,523,783 LDT2 24,386,033 28,299,618 30,662,800 LDT3 8,508,292 9,873,742 10,698,257 LDT4 36,176,730 41,982,541 45,488,326

HDV2B 14,149,701 16,420,511 17,791,719 HDV3 17,516,934 20,328,133 22,025,650 HDV4 29,965,792 34,774,843 37,678,744 HDV5 53,264,004 61,812,060 66,973,726 HDV6 15,124,039 17,551,215 19,016,843 HDV7 36,759,554 42,658,898 46,221,164

HDV8A 48,201,959 55,937,634 60,608,751 HDV8B 154,486,662 179,279,403 194,250,273

HD 1,544,461 1,792,323 1,941,992

DIESEL

HD 48,258,391 56,003,123 60,679,708 TOTAL ALL 14,445,199,627 16,763,432,640 18,163,276,545

Historic Fuel Sales for 1990-2000 As noted in the “Actual Fuel Consumed” section (page C-12), the SCBCTA collects information on the total volume of diesel and gasoline sold for the Metro Vancouver region for all years going as far back as 1985. These values are shown in Table C.1.2.4.


C -21

Table C.1.2.4: Litres of Fuel Sold within the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Region

Year Gasoline Diesel Total 2005 2,164,856,820 354,725,439 2,519,582,260 2000 2,133,117,506 326,662,318 2,459,779,824 1995 1,965,637,733 260,157,999 2,225,795,732 1990 1,549,140,852 228,898,340 1,778,039,192 As with 2005 results, these volumes were distributed across vehicle categories and ages in order to estimate N2O and CH4 emissions. An assumption was made that the distribution of fuel use across the vehicle category-model years in 2005 is representative of the distribution in all backcast years (although the model years were adjusted to account for technology changes).

Forecast Assumptions 2010-2030 Emissions Three forecast scenarios were developed to capture uncertainties in both growth rates and policy measure implementation. These scenarios, and their associated methods and assumptions are shown in Table C.1.2.5. Table C.1.2.5: Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Forecast Assumptions LOW MODERATE HIGH

Vehicle Population Surrogate: Population growth (slow) – Entire vehicle population grows at same rate as population; relied on People 2031 forecast for Metro Vancouver.

Surrogate: Population and economic growth (mod) – Heavy duty vehicles grown by BC economic growth rate; light duty vehicles grown by Metro Vancouver Population Projections by Local Health Areas (see: http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/keyfacts/popproj.htm) apportioned by vehicle ownership rate in each region.

Surrogate: Population and economic growth (high) – Heavy duty vehicles grown by BC GDP Growth (at Market Prices, 1997 chained $); light duty vehicles grown by Statistics Canada population forecast for BC, from 2003, adjusted.

Total VKmT Adjusted from moderate based on slower population growth

TransLink VKmT Adjusted from moderate based on faster population growth

Fuel Consumption Rate / Tailpipe Standards

CARB tailpipe stds (2009-2016) + sustained 5% per year improvement (2017-2030)

CARB tailpipe stds (2009-2016)

Business-as-usual (no change from today)

Renewable Fuels (beginning 2010)

5% ethanol in gasoline 5% biodiesel in diesel

Renewable Fuels (beginning 2020)



No renewable fuels


C -22

LOW MODERATE HIGH

Inspection / Maintenance (Light-Duty)

AirCare ASM, IM240 and OBD in 2015 AirCare OBD in 2020-2030

AirCare (through 2011)

Inspection / Maintenance (Heavy-Duty)

AirCare On-Road in 2010 – 2030, Assume reductions as achieved in California

AirCare On-Road for in 2010, 2015, assume reductions as achieved in LFV

No AirCare On-Road

Retrofit Regulations (Heavy-Duty)

BC regulations (e.g. DOCs for selected HDDVs)

Vehicle Population Vehicle population growth relied on population and economic growth surrogates from various sources. The high scenario relied more heavily on economy growth rates, whereas the low growth rate relied on a slower population growth projection. The moderate case incorporated spatial allocation into the projection. Table C.1.2.6: Growth Surrogates for Vehicle Populations in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley

Decadal or 5-yr % growth 2010 2020 2030 Low (People 2031 forecast for Metro Vancouver) 6.6% 6.2% 4.5% High (based on StatsCan forecast for BC, from 2003; adjusted) 21.5% 16.5% 12.9%

Total VKmT As noted earlier, total VKmT data was provided by TransLink for 2003 and 2021. A straight-line extrapolation projected VKmT to 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 for the moderate case. For the low and high scenarios, forecast VKmT was developed by combining low and high vehicle populations and moderate mileage accumulation rates.


C -23

Fuel Consumption Rate/Tailpipe Standards For future model years, three sets of fuel consumption rates were developed to reflect each scenario. Moderate Scenario - California tailpipe standards were incorporated as an adjustment to the fuel consumption rate (for the moderate scenario forecast). This standard affects all light duty vehicle categories beginning in model year 2009 through model year 2016 (see Box 3-1). All model years after 2016 are held constant at 2016 levels. Low Scenario – Build upon the moderate case by assuming that for model years 2017-2030, that government continues to pressure the auto industry to increase stringency levels at a 5% per year improvement rate. This scenario will capture the presence of hybrid, plug-in hybrid and other innovative technologies, which auto-makers will use to comply with these corporate fleet average requirements. High Scenario – Assumes “business-as-usual” fuel consumption rates whereby 2005 standards are continued through 2030.

Box 3-1: California Tailpipe Standards Tailpipe emission standards are an effective way of reducing GHG emissions by encouraging manufacturers to sell more fuel-efficient vehicles. Manufacturers can sell higher emission vehicles, but will have to also sell enough low-emission vehicles to ensure the average for their fleet meets the standard. In May 2008, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act was passed into the Legislative session. The Act sets vehicle GHG emission standards for automaker fleets equivalent to those laid out in California's 2004 regulation. These standards, approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in September 2004, apply to vehicles built in model years 2009 through 2016. They establish CO2-equivalent fleet average emission requirements for (1) passenger cars and small trucks/SUVs, (2) large trucks/SUVs, including medium-duty passenger vehicles. Although emission standards are in grams per mile, they are expressed below in fuel economy equivalents (L/100 km), based on the understanding that in order to reduce CO2 emissions, a reduction in fuel consumption will be required.

GHG Std (CO2e in g/km)

CAFE-Equivalent Std (L/100 km)

Model Year

LDVs / LDT1

LDT2-4 LDVs / LDT1

LDT2-4

2009 200 272 8.5 11.6 2010 187 260 7.9 11.1 2011 166 242 7.1 10.3 2012 144 224 6.2 9.5 2013 141 220 6.0 9.4 2014 138 217 5.9 9.3 2015 132 211 5.6 9.0 2016 127 205 5.4 8.8

Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/cc_newfs.pdf http://www.climateactionsecretariat.gov.bc.ca/ clas/mediaroom/fact/tailpipe.html


C -24

See Table C.1.15 for a complete list of fuel consumption rates by model year, vehicle class and forecast scenario.

Renewable Fuels In December 2006, a Notice of Intent was published in the Canada Gazette announcing a requirement of 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. At that time, the government also signalled its intention to develop a similar requirement of five per cent renewable content for on-road diesel by 2012. The BC Energy Plan, outlines a more stringent biodiesel standard in 2010 than the Federal requirement, and therefore supersedes Federal requirements. The Province also announced plans to require a low carbon fuel standard which will reduce GHG emissions by an additional 10% in 2020. Reductions in CAC emissions resulting from increased ethanol content in gasoline fuels were estimated using the MOBILE6.2C model. The model allows the user to set the ethanol content in gasoline by using the Oxygenated fuels command. It was assumed that no RVP waiver will accompany the renewable fuels requirement and that the ethanol content will not have any appreciable effect on NOx emissions. Reductions in CAC emissions resulting from biodiesel introduction into diesel products could not be estimated within the MOBILE6.2C model, instead assumed reduction rates were applied to the pollutants affected. Expected emission reductions were estimated using a linear interpretation of reduction percent versus biodiesel concentration of results presented by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory3. The expected emission reductions for 5% and 15% biodiesel are shown in Table C.1.2.7. Table C.1.2.7: Expected Emission Reductions (in percentage) from Biodiesel Blends Pollutant 5% Biodiesel 15% Biodiesel

CO 4.28% 12.83% NOx 0.15% 0.45% PM 4.10% 12.30% VOC 2.90% 8.70%

Inspection and Maintenance Programs In 2005, the AirCare light-duty vehicle program was in operation, but the previously operating AirCare Onroad (ACOR) program had been suspended. The AirCare program is expected to be fully funded and continuing all current tests until 2011.

3 NREL October 2006, “Effects of Biodiesel Blends on Vehicle Emissions”, R.L. McCormick, A. Williams, J. Ireland, M. Brimhall, and R.R. Hayes, NREL/MP-540-40554


C -25

AirCare The current AirCare program is expected to operate until 2011. Thus for forecasting of vehicle emissions, the current AirCare program was only modeled in 2010 for the moderate scenario. As the program is funded and expected to operate it was also included in the high scenario forecast for 2010 only. In the low scenario, AirCare was assumed to be granted an extension and continue ASM, and IM240 testing until 2015, and OBD testing until 2030. Input parameters to MOBILE 6.2C to estimate the effect of the AirCare program in the future were assumed to be the same as used in 2005 and are shown in Table C.1.13.

AirCare On-Road (ACOR) Program The AirCare On-road (ACOR) Program, which tested heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses emitting black smoke, operated on a limited basis from 1996 until 2002, when funding for the program was suspended. A review of the effectiveness of the program was completed in 2002. An expanded ACOR program is expected to begin operation before 2010. The new program will test cars and light trucks, as well as heavy trucks that emit excessive smoke. The ACOR program was assumed to be in operation in 2010 and 2015 in the moderate forecast scenario. The high scenario assumes that the program does not return and the low scenario assumes that the program will continue until 2030. Expected reductions in emissions of NOx, VOC, PM, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated by the AirCare Program Technical Review - Phase I (Levelton et al, 20044). The moderate case was assumed to achieve emission reductions estimated to be achieved by the current LFV program in 2010 and the low scenario was assumed to achieve reductions matching the California Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection Program in 2010. The assumed emission reductions are shown in Table C.1.2.8. Table C.1.2.8: Emission Reductions Assumed Achievable by AirCare On-Road (ACOR) Program in Forecast Years

Emission Reductions (%) Scenario Years Applicable NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 VOC

Moderate Scenario 2010, 2015 0.50% 2.30% 2.30% 0.00% 1.70% Low Scenario 2010 - 2030 3.50% 18.00% 18.00% 18.00% 13.10%

Retrofit Regulations In June 2007, BC Ministry of Environment announced a mandatory diesel retrofit regulation for heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The regulation will require the installation of diesel oxidation catalysts on heavy-duty vehicles model year 1989 to 1993 by 2009. The new regulation was applied to all three forecast scenarios (high, moderate and low) for the years 2010 and 2015. It was assumed that the effect of diesel oxidation catalysts in 1989 to 1993 model year vehicles still in the fleet in 2020 and later would be negligible. It was assumed that a diesel oxidation catalyst would provide emission reductions of VOC by 50%, CO by 40% and PM by 30%. Using the assumed emission reductions from diesel oxidation catalysts in conjunction with the fleet vehicle forecast, provided an overall fleet reduction for the heavy-

4 “AirCare Program Technical Review – Phase I”, Levelton, de la torre Klausmeier Consulting Inc., Eastern Research Group Inc., October 2004


C -26

duty vehicles in each 2010 and 2015. The expected emission reductions resulting from the diesel retrofit regulation are shown in Table C.1.2.9 Table C.1.2.9: Emission Reductions for Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Fleet in Forecast Years Resulting from Retrofit Regulation

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fleet Emission Reduction (%) Year Applicable CO PM VOC

2010 5.2% 8.4% 7.2% 2015 6.9% 4.1% 6.8%

Spatial Allocation Method Total vehicle kilometres travelled were provided by TransLink for each of the 4 vehicle types by 14 distinct metropolitan regions. The 14 regions often matched the municipal boundaries, but smaller municipalities were grouped together. Further spatial allocation to all municipalities was completed using VKmT divisions as provided in the 1996 SCBCTA RTM base year data. Table C.1.2.10: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Spatial Distribution of Light Duty

Vehicle Emissions

Light-duty vehicles Heavy-duty vehicles % %

Metro Vancouver Anmore 0.0% 0.0% Belcarra 0.0% 0.0% Bowen Island 0.5% 0.4% Burnaby 9.9% 7.8% Coquitlam 5.1% 4.8% Delta 6.8% 6.6% Langley City 0.4% 0.3% Langley Township 6.7% 9.5% Lions Bay 0.0% 0.0% Maple Ridge 2.1% 2.4% New Westminster 2.0% 1.9% North Vancouver City 1.2% 0.5% North Vancouver District 2.3% 1.0% Pitt Meadows 1.2% 1.3% Port Coquitlam 1.8% 1.5% Port Moody 1.0% 0.7% Richmond 8.9% 8.5% Surrey 16.8% 18.4% Vancouver 16.6% 11.3% West Vancouver 1.9% 0.8% White Rock 0.2% 0.2% A. UBC Endowment Lands 0.7% 0.2% Other Electoral Area 0.3% 0.1%

SUBTOTAL METRO VANCOUVER 86.1% 78.4%


C -27

Light-duty vehicles Heavy-duty vehicles % %

FVRD1 Abbotsford 8.3% 13.0% Chilliwack 3.3% 6.1% Harrison Hot springs 0.1% 0.2% Hope 0.0% 0.1% Kent 0.4% 0.7% Mission 1.7% 1.5% FVRD1 electoral Areas 0.1% 0.2%

SUBTOTAL FVRD1 13.9% 21.6% TOTAL LFV 100% 100%

C.1.3 Emission Results for On-Road Motor Vehicles

Emission Results by Vehicle Type Common air contaminant emissions were calculated as a product of the emission factors generated from MOBILE6.2C expressed in units of grams per vehicle kilometres travelled. Because the amount of natural gas and propane vehicles was small, CAC emissions from these vehicles were not calculated. Emissions from on-road motor vehicles in the CLFV in 2005 are presented in Table C.1.3.1.


C -28

Table C.1.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley On-Road Motor Vehicle Fleet Emissions (metric tonnes)

LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MCCO 100,024 70,768 25,220 2,494 74 74 979 1,241NOx 6,546 4,699 1,526 588 52 77 4,202 107PM 154 102 32 11 9 12 112 3PM10 154 102 32 11 9 12 112 3PM2.5 69 47 18 8 7 10 95 1SOx 37 31 8 2 3 3 68 0VOC 8,871 4,789 1,801 198 21 41 167 275NH3 607 405 75 6 0 0 10 1CO2 2,409,509 705,010 1,822,878 205,652 21,352 42,850 904,198 13,595CH4 203 49 115 79 0 1 40 9N2O 311 114 246 11 2 3 27 0CO2E 2,510,182 741,379 1,901,553 210,721 21,972 43,801 913,408 13,784 Table C.1.3.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Light Duty Vehicle Emissions by Municipality (metric tonnes)

CO NOx PM SOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E NH3 Metro Vancouver

Anmore 80.2 5.3 0.1 0.0 6.4 0.1 0.1 2,038 0.2 0.3 2,127 0.4 Belcarra 22.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 577 0.0 0.1 602 0.1 Bowen Island 932.3 61.4 1.5 0.4 74.6 1.5 0.7 23,686 1.8 3.2 24,714 5.1 Burnaby 19,474.9 1,283.1 30.7 8.0 1,558.5 30.7 15.0 494,781 37.2 66.7 516,250 107.4 Coquitlam 10,090.0 664.8 15.9 4.2 807.5 15.9 7.8 256,347 19.3 34.6 267,471 55.7 Delta 13,500.4 889.5 21.3 5.6 1,080.4 21.3 10.4 342,992 25.8 46.3 357,875 74.5 Langley City 765.0 50.4 1.2 0.3 61.2 1.2 0.6 19,435 1.5 2.6 20,278 4.2 Langley Township 13,136.5 865.5 20.7 5.4 1,051.3 20.7 10.1 333,746 25.1 45.0 348,228 72.5 Lions Bay 42.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.0 1,067 0.1 0.1 1,113 0.2 Maple Ridge 4,164.1 274.4 6.6 1.7 333.2 6.6 3.2 105,793 8.0 14.3 110,383 23.0 New Westminster 3,917.9 258.1 6.2 1.6 313.5 6.2 3.0 99,539 7.5 13.4 103,859 21.6 North Vancouver City 2,307.7 152.0 3.6 1.0 184.7 3.6 1.8 58,630 4.4 7.9 61,174 12.7 North Vancouver District 4,494.5 296.1 7.1 1.9 359.7 7.1 3.5 114,187 8.6 15.4 119,142 24.8


C -29

CO NOx PM SOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E NH3 Pitt Meadows 2,282.6 150.4 3.6 0.9 182.7 3.6 1.8 57,991 4.4 7.8 60,507 12.6 Port Coquitlam 3,485.5 229.6 5.5 1.4 278.9 5.5 2.7 88,552 6.7 11.9 92,395 19.2 Port Moody 1,937.2 127.6 3.1 0.8 155.0 3.1 1.5 49,215 3.7 6.6 51,351 10.7 Richmond 17,541.9 1,155.8 27.6 7.2 1,403.8 27.6 13.5 445,671 33.5 60.1 465,009 96.8 Surrey 33,151.5 2,184.2 52.2 13.7 2,653.0 52.2 25.6 842,249 63.4 113.6 878,796 182.9 Vancouver 32,740.3 2,157.1 51.6 13.5 2,620.1 51.6 25.2 831,802 62.6 112.2 867,895 180.6 West Vancouver 3,680.9 242.5 5.8 1.5 294.6 5.8 2.8 93,517 7.0 12.6 97,575 20.3 White Rock 346.0 22.8 0.5 0.1 27.7 0.5 0.3 8,792 0.7 1.2 9,173 1.9 A. UBC Endowment Lands 1,363.0 89.8 2.1 0.6 109.1 2.1 1.1 34,628 2.6 4.7 36,131 7.5 Other Electoral Areas 499.4 32.9 0.8 0.2 40.0 0.8 0.4 12,687 1.0 1.7 13,238 2.8 SUBTOTAL MV 169,957 11,198 268 70 13,601 268 131 4,317,924 325 582 4,505,287 937

FVRD1 Abbotsford 16,415.5 1,081.6 25.9 6.8 1,313.7 25.9 12.7 417,052 31.4 56.2 435,148 90.5 Chilliwack 6,540.6 430.9 10.3 2.7 523.4 10.3 5.0 166,171 12.5 22.4 173,381 36.1 Harrison Hot Springs 195.7 12.9 0.3 0.1 15.7 0.3 0.2 4,971 0.4 0.7 5,187 1.1 Hope 51.5 3.4 0.1 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.0 1,309 0.1 0.2 1,366 0.3 Kent 782.7 51.6 1.2 0.3 62.6 1.2 0.6 19,884 1.5 2.7 20,747 4.3 Mission 3,326.1 219.1 5.2 1.4 266.2 5.2 2.6 84,503 6.4 11.4 88,170 18.3 FVRD1 Electoral Areas 133.0 8.8 0.2 0.1 10.6 0.2 0.1 3,380 0.3 0.5 3,527 0.7

SUBTOTAL FVRD1 27,445 1,808 43 11 2,196 43 21 697,271 52 94 727,526 151

TOTAL CLFV 197,402 13,006 311 81 15,797 311 152 5,015,195 377 676 5,232,813 1,089

Table C.1.3.3: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions by Municipality (metric tonnes)

CO NOx Part SOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E NH3 Metro Vancouver

Anmore 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 252 0.0 0.0 256 0.0 Belcarra 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 170 0.0 0.0 172 0.0 Bowen Island 13.8 19.0 0.5 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.4 4,398 0.5 0.1 4,455 0.1 Burnaby 271.9 375.0 9.6 5.4 28.6 9.6 8.0 86,882 9.4 2.9 87,993 1.2 Coquitlam 166.3 229.3 5.9 3.3 17.5 5.9 4.9 53,126 5.7 1.8 53,805 0.8


C -30

CO NOx Part SOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E NH3 Delta 229.7 316.8 8.1 4.6 24.1 8.1 6.8 73,386 7.9 2.5 74,325 1.1 Langley City 9.6 13.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.3 3,072 0.3 0.1 3,112 0.0 Langley Township 331.7 457.4 11.8 6.6 34.9 11.8 9.8 105,975 11.4 3.6 107,330 1.5 Lions Bay 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 294 0.0 0.0 297 0.0 Maple Ridge 82.8 114.2 2.9 1.7 8.7 2.9 2.4 26,469 2.9 0.9 26,808 0.4 New Westminster 66.5 91.8 2.4 1.3 7.0 2.4 2.0 21,261 2.3 0.7 21,533 0.3 North Vancouver City 18.9 26.0 0.7 0.4 2.0 0.7 0.6 6,027 0.6 0.2 6,104 0.1 North Vancouver District 35.5 49.0 1.3 0.7 3.7 1.3 1.0 11,345 1.2 0.4 11,490 0.2 Pitt Meadows 45.1 62.2 1.6 0.9 4.7 1.6 1.3 14,403 1.6 0.5 14,587 0.2 Port Coquitlam 52.0 71.7 1.8 1.0 5.5 1.8 1.5 16,604 1.8 0.6 16,816 0.2 Port Moody 23.3 32.1 0.8 0.5 2.4 0.8 0.7 7,435 0.8 0.3 7,530 0.1 Richmond 296.3 408.5 10.5 5.9 31.1 10.5 8.8 94,653 10.2 3.2 95,863 1.4 Surrey 639.9 882.5 22.7 12.8 67.3 22.7 18.9 204,456 22.0 6.9 207,071 2.9 Vancouver 392.3 540.9 13.9 7.9 41.2 13.9 11.6 125,323 13.5 4.3 126,925 1.8 West Vancouver 26.6 36.7 0.9 0.5 2.8 0.9 0.8 8,505 0.9 0.3 8,614 0.1 White Rock 7.8 10.8 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 2,505 0.3 0.1 2,537 0.0 A. UBC Endowment Lands 8.0 11.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 2,566 0.3 0.1 2,599 0.0 Other 3.9 5.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1,261 0.1 0.0 1,277 0.0

SUBTOTAL MV 2,724 3,757 97 55 286 97 80 870,369 94 30 881,498 12

FVRD1 Abbotsford 449.9 620.4 16.0 9.0 47.3 16.0 13.3 143,733 15.5 4.9 145,571 2.1 Chilliwack 210.6 290.5 7.5 4.2 22.1 7.5 6.2 67,292 7.3 2.3 68,153 1.0 Harrison Hot Springs 5.8 8.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 1,843 0.2 0.1 1,867 0.0 Hope 2.7 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 868 0.1 0.0 880 0.0 Kent 23.1 31.8 0.8 0.5 2.4 0.8 0.7 7,372 0.8 0.3 7,467 0.1 Mission 51.6 71.2 1.8 1.0 5.4 1.8 1.5 16,492 1.8 0.6 16,702 0.2 FVRD1 Electoral Areas 5.9 8.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 1,881 0.2 0.1 1,905 0.0

SUBTOTAL FVRD1 750 1,034 27 15 79 27 22 239,482 26 8 242,544 3

TOTAL CLFV 3,474 4,790 123 70 365 123 103 1,109,850 120 38 1,124,042 16


C -31

C.2 Aircraft Aircraft emissions were determined for the following airports in the CLFV: • Abbotsford • Boundary Bay • Langley • Pitt Meadows • Vancouver Harbour • Vancouver International • Boston Bar

C.2.1 Aircraft Emission Estimation Methodology

Landing and Takeoff Cycle The base quantity used for estimation of aircraft emissions is the number of landing and takeoff (LTO) cycles. Data for the regional airports (Abbotsford, Boundary Bay, Langley, Pitt Meadows, and Vancouver Harbour) were obtained from the Aviation Statistics Centre of Transport Canada (2005), while data for the Vancouver International Airport was obtained from the Vancouver International Airport Authority (Trask, 2006). For Vancouver International Airport, LTO information was obtained for specific aircraft engines as per United States Federal Aviation Administration aircraft designations. However, this level of detail was not available for the other airports in the study area. For the regional airports, LTO data was obtained for the following more general aircraft categories listed below. The specific aircraft selected to represent the more general category is based on types of aircraft used by aircraft operators in the CLFV: • Commercial Jet • Commercial Piston • General Piston • Helicopter • Military Jet • Turboprops The base quantities used to calculate air emissions from this source are listed in Table C.2.1.1. To simplify the reporting of emissions for aircraft LTOs at Vancouver International Airport, the data for individual aircraft designations are reported as a total aggregate below. However, the detailed aircraft-engine data was used in estimating emissions for Vancouver International Airport.


C -32

Table C.2.1.1: 2005 Aircraft Base Quantities (LTO)

Aircraft Category Airport Helicopter Turboprop Commercial

Piston General Piston

Commercial Jet

Military Jets

Total

Abbotsford 5,759 2,015 28,557 36,386 3,043 839 76,599 Boundary Bay 1,396 118 37,731 54,680 28 8 93,961 Langley 3,154 23 12,217 23,261 14 817 39,486 Pitt Meadows 1,097 410 17,886 28,054 12 1,753 49,211 Vancouver Harbour 6,345 13,413 9,158 157 3 19 29,095 Vancouver International

7,488 57,092 9,070 18,779 68,653 20 161,099

Boston Bar 408 0 0 0 0 0 408 Total 25,647 73,069 114,618 161,316 71,753 3,455 449,858

Emission Factors Emission factors for aircraft (by engine type) at the Vancouver International Airport were derived from the FAA Emissions and Dispersion and Modeling System (EDMS 2007) software. EDMS software generated emission factors and quantities for releases of CO, VOC, NOx, PM and SOx. Emission Factors in kg per LTO for NH3 and greenhouse gases were taken from 2005 Environment Canada’s National Emission Inventory. Total numbers of LTOs at the Vancouver International Airport were grouped by aircraft type into 26 categories. Each category was assigned a representative aircraft type by the Airport Authority in accordance with types used in the Airport Authority’s noise management program. Emission Factors from EDMS for the movements at the Vancouver International Airport are shown in Table C.2.1.2. Landing and Take-off cycles at regional airports were assigned to one of the six aforementioned general aircraft categories. For each of these categories, a representative aircraft was selected and modeled using the EDMS. The resulting emission factors were applied outside of the model to calculate the total emissions at each airport by general aircraft category. Emission factors for releases of CO, VOC, NOx, PM and SOx were generated by the EDMS software and factors for NH3 and greenhouse gases were taken from 2005 Environment Canada’s National Emission Inventory. Fuel consumption rates by representative general aircraft types were provided by the EDMS and used to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions.


C -33

Table C.2.1.2: Engine-Specific Emission Factors for Vancouver International Airport

CAC Emission Factors (kg/LTO) GHG (kg/kL)

AIRCRAFT 2005 Number of LTOs

CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 PM25 NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

B747-400 2292 66.34 26.86 30.08 4.08 0.49 0.49 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 B747-100/300 78 20.97 5.30 97.58 6.03 0.61 0.61 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 MD11 164 21.18 3.05 21.21 2.80 0.12 0.12 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 A340 2611 29.05 8.56 43.16 3.03 0.51 0.51 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 B777, A330 1418 35.14 14.28 38.08 2.63 0.21 0.21 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 L1011 1 155.48 193.57 10.19 2.85 1.14 1.14 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 B767, A310 7468 31.50 12.54 25.32 2.36 0.30 0.30 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 B757 2370 9.38 0.47 10.96 1.52 0.03 0.03 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 B727 2068 10.49 9.88 7.70 1.72 0.19 0.19 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 A320, A319 20107 6.83 1.18 10.82 1.14 0.26 0.26 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 MD80 2410 6.96 3.83 9.49 1.26 0.15 0.15 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 B737-300/800 5569 14.95 1.79 6.49 1.02 0.08 0.08 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 B737-200 12036 10.49 9.88 7.69 1.72 0.19 0.19 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 DC-9 6 27.99 14.87 5.65 1.55 0.25 0.25 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 CL-65 RJ 4762 7.88 1.35 1.59 0.39 0.09 0.09 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 BUSJET STG3 4390 12.00 2.95 6.69 1.04 0.22 0.22 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 BUSJET STG2 906 37.61 72.34 5.74 1.04 0.33 0.33 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23 F18 20 9.48 4.52 4.84 0.54 0.02 0.02 0.0045 2,550 0.08 0.23 DASH-8 29822 1.11 0.13 0.40 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.0012 2,550 0.08 0.23 Do328, SH360 3858 1.11 0.13 0.40 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.0012 2,550 0.08 0.23 3-4 ENG TPROP 106 1.11 0.13 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.0012 2,550 0.08 0.23 1-2 ENG TPROP 23307 1.11 0.13 0.40 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.0012 2,550 0.08 0.23 2-3 ENG PIST 9070 22.84 0.79 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.0000 2,330 2.20 0.23 1 ENG PIST 2355 3.49 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0000 2,330 2.20 0.23 FLOAT 16424 3.92 0.84 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.0000 2,330 2.20 0.23 HELI 7488 5.11 5.78 0.47 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.0004 2,550 0.08 0.23


C -34

Emission factors for generic aircraft categories used for the regional airports are listed in Table C.2.1.3. Table C.2.1.3: Generic Aircraft Emission Factors

Generic Emission Factors (kg/LTO)

GHG Emission Factors (kg/kL)

Aircraft Category

Fuel Use Rate

(kL/LTO)

CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

Helicopter 0.1505 5.11 0.48 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.12 5.78 0.0004 2,550 0.08 0.23 Turboprop 0.1640 3.59 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.0012 2,550 0.08 0.23 Commercial Piston

0.0426 38.62 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 1.52 0.0000 2,330 2.20 0.23

General Piston 0.0712 3.93 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.84 0.0000 2,330 2.20 0.23 Commercial Jet

1.0383 9.34 11.10 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.86 1.86 0.0043 2,550 0.08 0.23

Military Jet 0.4797 9.25 4.79 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.38 4.41 0.0045 2,550 0.08 0.23

C.2.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Aircraft Emissions The forecast and backcast of the 2005 emission inventory was performed under different sets of assumptions for three scenarios: the moderate scenario, the high scenario and the low scenario. The moderate scenario was based on the best available information. Depending on the level of uncertainty and what details were available during this study, some of the planned emission reduction measures were included in a low scenario, rather than in the moderate scenarios. These scenarios provide low and high “bracketing” around the moderate scenario and allow for an analysis of the impact on emissions from factors such as growth in population and economy. The methodology for these scenarios is discussed in turn below. Emission results for these scenarios are published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007).

Moderate Scenario Emissions backcasting involves revisiting previous emission inventories and updating them for consistency with the 2005 year inventory, where the methodology has changed. This allows for an equitable analysis of emission trends. In the case of the aircraft sector, no changes in methodology occurred from the previous 2000 inventory; hence, no changes were made to the emission estimates for 2000, 1995 and 1990. Forecasts can be developed by applying a growth surrogate to the 2005 emission estimates, accounting for any control equipment installed in the future: EY = E2005 x G x C where: EY = emissions for forecast year E2005 = emissions for 2005 G = growth factor C = control factor, accounting for changes in emission factors, emission control technology or regulations


C -35

For the moderate scenario, no emission control factors were applied to future years. The growth factor used for YVR was based on growth projections developed by the Vancouver International Airport Authority (VIAA) during its Master Planning process (VIAA 2006). The growth factors for the regional airports were based on fuel forecast of aviation gasoline used in piston engines and aviation turbo fuel (jet fuel) used turboprops, helicopters and jet engines (NRCAN 2006).

Low-High Scenarios Lower and higher than anticipated Metro Vancouver population projections (as compared to the medium scenario Metro Vancouver population projections) were provided by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist, and factored into the low and high scenario emissions forecast. Metro Vancouver population correlated better to air travel than the GDP.

C.2.3 Spatial Allocation for Aircraft Emissions In general, aircraft emissions from the Abbotsford, Boundary Bay, Langley, Pitt Meadows, and Vancouver Harbour airports were assigned to the municipality and any adjacent waters in which the airport was located. The methodology for spatially apportioning emissions associated with aircraft at the Vancouver International Airport, located in the City of Richmond, was derived using the five phases of the LTO cycle: Ground based • Taxi and idle-out • Take-off • Taxi and Idle-in Aloft based • Climb-out • Approach Of these, the first three activities (taxi and idle-out, take-off, taxi and idle-in) were “ground based” activities occurring in the City of Richmond. The last two activities (climb-out and approach) were considered to be “aloft” activities. “Aloft” emissions are allocated to the municipality in which the airport is situated, and to the surrounding water areas and municipalities on the basis of the area covered by the flight path to the cut-off altitude of 910 m. For the purposes of the inventory, three kilometres was assumed to be the average distance required for the aircraft to reach 910 metres. To simplify the inventory process, an equal split was assumed between “ground based” and “aloft” emissions. Table C.2.3.1 summarizes aircraft emissions by municipality.


C -36

Table C.2.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Aircraft Emission Inventory by Municipality (metric tonnes)

Total Aircraft Emissions (tonnes) CO NOx PM SOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 IPCC

CO2 IPCC CH4

IPCC N2O

NH3

Metro Vancouver Anmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belcarra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bowen Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burnaby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delta 1,571 12 5 0 104 5 5 12,574 11 1 0 Langley City 101 2 0 0 10 0 0 1,254 1 0 0 Langley Township 486 9 2 1 50 2 2 6,060 4 1 0 Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Ridge 90 2 0 0 7 0 0 998 1 0 0 New Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Vancouver City 361 232 4 21 136 4 4 36,016 1 3 0 North Vancouver District

295 189 4 17 111 4 4 29,367 1 3 0

Pitt Meadows 677 12 2 1 53 2 2 7,545 5 1 0 Port Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Richmond 280 8 1 2 33 1 1 5,791 1 1 0 Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vancouver 105 44 1 4 30 1 1 7,493 0 1 0 West Vancouver 168 108 2 10 63 2 2 16,723 1 2 0 White Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A. UBC Endowment Lands

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0

Other Electoral Area 25 0 0 0 2 0 0 276 0 0 0 Marine Areas 797 352 7 32 227 7 7 57,508 3 5 0

SUBTOTAL MV 4,958 970 28 87 826 28 28 181,656 29 17 0 FVRD1 Abbotsford 1,319 50 5 4 117 5 5 20,007 9 2 0 Chilliwack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harrison Hot springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FVRD1 electoral Areas

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL FVRD1 1,319 50 5 4 117 5 5 20,007 9 2 0

TOTAL CLFV 6,277 1,019 33 91 943 33 32 202,749 37 19 0


C -37

C.2.4 Emission Results for Aircrafts Emission results for the 2005 aircraft emission inventory are summarized in Tables C.2.4.1 and C.2.4.2. The greenhouse gas emissions presented in this report include domestic emissions5 consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1997) convention and referred to as IPCC CO2 and Actual CO2 which includes both the Domestic and International components. The domestic/international apportionment for Vancouver International Airport flights was done using the detailed information on movements provided by the Airport Authority. The domestic/international apportionment for greenhouse gas emissions from all other regional airports was based on the movements reported as domestic or international by the Statistics Canada Aircraft Movement annual report (Transport Canada 2005). Table C.2.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Aircraft Emission Inventory

by Airport

Emissions (metric tonnes) Airport CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 IPCC

CO2 Actual

CO2 CH4 N2O

Abbotsford (FVRD1)

1,319 50 5 5 5 4 117 0 20,773 21,007 9 2

Boundary Bay 1,680 12 5 5 5 0 111 0 13,446 13,485 12 1 Langley 587 10 2 2 2 1 60 0 7,314 7,329 5 1 Pitt Meadows 824 15 3 3 2 1 65 0 9,184 9,196 6 1 Vancouver Harbour

435 13 1 1 1 3 51 0 8,990 9,011 1 1

Vancouver International

1,431 919 17 17 17 82 539 0 142,722 266,679 4 13

Total Emission 6,277 1,019 33 33 32 91 943 0 202,429 326,706 37 19 Table C.2.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Aircraft Emission Inventory

by Aircraft Type

Emissions (metric tonnes) Aircraft Category CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 IPCC

CO2 Actual

CO2 CH4 N2O

Helicopter 129 12 1 1 1 3 146 0 9,626 9,669 0 1 Turboprop 120 34 0 0 0 7 8 0 18,355 21,105 1 2 Commercial Piston

4,284 2 13 13 12 0 168 0 10,945 11,014 10 1

General Piston 632 31 3 3 3 0 133 0 26,253 26,377 22 3 Commercial Jet 1,079 923 16 16 16 79 473 0 133,044 254,315 4 12 Military Jet 32 17 0 0 0 1 15 0 4,206 4,226 0 0 Total Emission 6,277 1,019 33 33 32 91 943 0 202,429 326,706 37 19

5 Domestic emissions refer to emissions resulting from flights that depart and arrive within Canada. International emissions result from flight arrivals/departures to or from the United States or other international countries.


C -38

C.3 Railways The railway portion of the emission inventory includes exhaust emissions from freight and passenger operations of seven railway companies operating in the region: Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Railway, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Southern Railway of B.C., VIA Rail, Great Canadian Railtour Company, and West Coast Express. Particulate emissions from the transportation of coal were also included in the emission inventory.

C.3.1 Railway Emission Estimation Methodology

Fuel Consumption Fuel consumption was the base quantity to estimate emissions from the railway sector. Fuel statistics for the CLFV were obtained from the Environment Canada Report (Dec 2006). The gross tonne-kilometres6 (GTK) presented in the report were multiplied by a factor of 3.153 litres/1,000 GTK for freight operations to estimate fuel consumption. The report provided the fuel consumption (in litres) for passenger rail companies (VIA, West Coast Express, and Great Canadian Railtour Company). GTK and fuel consumption were reported for the entire Lower Fraser Valley. Fuel consumption by railway company was divided into fuel consumed in Metro Vancouver and FVRD1 using length of mainline track. Fuel consumption was further split between yard and main line fuel use by the ratio of fuel used nationally in yard switching to the total fuel used nationally by company. National fuel use by rail company was provided in the Statistics Canada document (2007). Estimated fuel consumption in each the main line and yard is shown by company in Table C.3.1.1. The base quantity for fugitive coal dust emissions was 25,234,000 tonnes coal transported (Environment Canada, “Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2005”, 2006). Table C.3.1.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Rail Fuel Consumption by Rail Company

Fuel Consumption (Litres) Company Line Yard

Canadian National 21,651,305 932,720 Canadian Pacific Railway 34,010,617 843,469 Burlington Northern Santa Fe 2,028,570 181,683 Southern Railway of B.C. 1,062,033 95,118 VIA Rail 3,570,540 15,060 Westcoast Express 1,115,296 4,704 Great Canadian Railtour Company 1,553,448 6,552

Total 64,991,810 2,079,305

Emission Factors Emission factors for common air contaminants and greenhouse gases from railcar diesel fuel combustion were obtained from Environment Canada. (“Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2005” Dec 2006 – EPS 2/TS/20). The emission factor supplied for total particulate matter was further speciated into factors for PM10 and PM2.5 based on CARB, CEIDARS, July 2000. Railway emission factors are listed in Table C.3.1.2. 6 The term “gross tonne-kilometres” refers to the aggregate of the tonne-kilometres handled.


C -39

Table C.3.1.2: Emission Factors for Railways by Activity

Emission Factors [kg/kL] Pollutant Line Yard Passenger

CO 7.17 12.77 9.24 NOx 50.48 71.55 68.34 PM 1.83 1.72 1.36 PM10 1.79 1.68 1.33 PM2.5 1.77 1.66 1.32 SOx 1.46 1.46 1.46 VOC 3.01 4.11 2.34 NH3 0.01 0.01 0.01 CO2 2,730.00 2,730.00 2,730.00 CH4 0.15 0.15 0.15 N2O 1.10 1.10 1.10 The methodology for calculating fugitive losses of dust from the rail transportation of coal was based on a study commissioned by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (Cope et al., 2001), which recommended different emission and speciation factors than used in past inventories. The equation below was used to calculate fugitive coal dust emissions in the CLFV during the rail transportation of coal from the mines in Alberta and the B.C. Interior to the Port of Vancouver and Roberts Bank. EF (kg/tonne) = 0.1*(0.62*D)0.6 x (365-P)/365 x (Segment Distance/D) x (100–Control Efficiency)/100 where: D = total rail distance (km) = 1100 kilometre P = number of precipitation days greater than 3 mm rainfall or 10 mm snow = 100 days Segment Distance = distance travelled in a province or region = 100 kilometre Control Efficiency = coal dust control efficiency = 99% Resulting emission factors for fugitive dust losses from the rail transportation of coal are shown in Table C.3.1.3. Table C.3.1.3: Fugitive Dust Emission Factors for Rail Transport of Coal

Emission Factor [kg/tonne] Pollutant Line Yard

PM 0.0033 0.0033 PM10 0.0017 0.0017 PM2.5 0.0007 0.0007

C.3.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Railway Emissions The forecast and backcast of the 2005 emission inventory was performed under different sets of assumptions for three scenarios: the moderate scenario, the high scenario and the low scenario. The moderate scenario was based on the best available information. Depending on the level of uncertainty and what details were available during this study, some of the planned emission reduction measures were included in a low scenario, rather than in the moderate scenarios. These scenarios provide low and high “bracketing” around the moderate scenario and allow for an analysis of the impact on emissions from factors such as growth in population and economy. The methodology for these


C -40

scenarios is discussed in turn below. Emission results for these scenarios are published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007).

Moderate Scenario Emissions backcasting involves revisiting previous emission inventories and updating them for consistency with the 2005 year inventory, where the methodology has changed. This allows for an equitable analysis of emission trends. In the case of the railway sector, no changes in methodology occurred from the previous 2000 inventory; hence, no changes were made to the emission estimates for 2000, 1995 and 1990. Forecasts can be developed by applying a growth surrogate to the 2005 emission estimates, accounting for any control equipment installed in the future: EY = E2005 x G x C where: EY = emissions for forecast year E2005 = emissions for 2005 G = growth factor C = control factor, accounting for changes in emission factors, emission control technology or regulation For the moderate scenario, the projected emission control factors were based on future fleet characteristics of US locomotives, since no information was available on the future locomotives fleet of Canadian railways operating nationally or in the Lower Fraser Valley. The growth factor used for projecting locomotive diesel emissions was based on growth projections of national rail fuel demand developed by National Resources Canada7 and the growth projection for estimating fugitive coal dust was determined by projected quantities of coal transported by railway (WESTAC, 2006).

Low-High Scenarios Lower and higher than anticipated national economic forecasts in the industrial non-manufacturing sector (as compared to the medium scenario fuel and coal demand projections) were provided by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist, and factored into the low and high scenario emissions forecast. Environment Canada has announced its intent to regulate the railway industry by harmonizing with US EPA’s regulations on locomotive emission standard for new and existing locomotives in 2011. The low scenario incorporates the potential future reductions in emissions from the harmonization regulation.

C.3.3 Spatial Allocation The Metro Vancouver Information Technology Department provided data on rail track length in the CLFV. As shown in Table C.3.3.1, emissions were assigned spatially to the municipalities in the CLFV based on the track length in each municipality.

7 Canada's Emission Outlook: Reference case 2006, Natural Resources Canada, Analysis and Modeling Division


C -41

Table C.3.3.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Railway Emission Inventory by Municipality

Emissions (metric tonnes) Municipality CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 IPCC CO2 Actual

CO2 CH4 N2O

Metro Vancouver Anmore 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 61 0 0 Belcarra 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 97 0 0 Bowen Island 4 31 2 1 1 1 2 0 1,607 1,607 0 1 Burnaby 26 179 10 8 7 5 10 0 9,367 9,367 1 4 Coquitlam 26 183 10 8 7 5 11 0 9,571 9,571 1 4 Delta 55 387 22 17 15 11 22 0 20,190 20,190 1 8 Langley City 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 348 348 0 0 Langley Township 15 105 6 5 4 3 6 0 5,496 5,496 0 2 Lions Bay 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 145 0 0 Maple Ridge 10 68 4 3 3 2 4 0 3,550 3,550 0 1 New Westminster 12 81 5 4 3 2 5 0 4,224 4,224 0 2 North Van. City 10 71 4 3 3 2 4 0 3,711 3,711 0 1 North Van. Dist. 14 96 5 4 4 3 5 0 4,991 4,991 0 2 Pitt Meadows 3 24 1 1 1 1 1 0 1,245 1,245 0 1 Port Coquitlam 19 129 7 6 5 4 7 0 6,756 6,756 0 3 Port Moody 3 23 1 1 1 1 1 0 1,192 1,192 0 0 Richmond 44 311 18 14 12 9 18 0 16,207 16,207 1 7 Surrey 52 364 21 16 14 10 21 0 19,012 19,012 1 8 Vancouver 34 235 13 11 9 7 13 0 12,258 12,258 1 5 West Vancouver 11 79 4 4 3 2 5 0 4,103 4,103 0 2 White Rock 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 343 343 0 0 Electoral Area A (UBC) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 53 0 0 Other Electoral Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MV Total 341 2,386 136 107 90 67 137 1 124,528 124,528 7 50

FVRD1 Abbotsford 36 254 14 11 10 7 15 0 13,256 13,256 1 5 Chilliwack 28 193 11 9 7 5 11 0 10,085 10,085 1 4 Harrison Hot Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hope 1 10 1 0 0 0 1 0 522 522 0 0 Kent 12 83 5 4 3 2 5 0 4,325 4,325 0 2 Mission 9 60 3 3 2 2 3 0 3,153 3,153 0 1 FVRD1 Electoral Areas 70 492 28 22 19 14 28 0 25,657 25,657 1 10

FVRD1 Total 156 1,092 62 49 41 31 63 0 56,998 56,998 3 23

CLFV Total 497 3,479 198 156 131 97 199 1 181,526 181,526 10 73


C -42

C.3.4 Emission Results for Railways The emission results are summarized in Tables C.3.4.1 and Table C.3.4.2. Table C.3.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Railway Emissions by Activity

2005 Emissions (metric tonnes) Track Type CO NOX PM PM10 PM2.5 SOX VOC NH3 IPCC

CO2 Actual

CO2 CH4 N2O

Main Line 471 3,331 116 113 112 94 191 0 175,899 175,899 10 71 Yard Line 26 147 4 3 3 3 8 0 5,627 5,627 0 2 Total Diesel Emissions

497 3,479 119 117 115 97 199 1 181,526 181,526 10 73

Coal Dust 0 0 79 39 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Rail Emissions

497 3,479 198 156 131 97 199 1 181,526 181,526 10 73

Table C.3.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Emissions by Railway Companies

2005 Emissions (metric tonnes) Rail Company CO NOX PM PM10 PM2.5 SOX VOC NH3 IPCC

CO2 Actual

CO2 CH4 N2O

Canadian National 178 1,234 44 43 42 35 73 0 65,591 65,591 4 26 Canadian Pacific Railway 271 1,891 68 66 66 54 113 0 101,226 101,226 6 41 Burlington Northern Santa Fe

17 115 4 4 4 3 7 0 6,034 6,034 0 2

Southern Railway of B.C. 9 60 2 2 2 2 4 0 3,159 3,159 0 1 VIA Rail 33 245 5 5 5 5 8 0 9,789 9,789 1 4 Westcoast Express 10 77 2 1 1 2 3 0 3,058 3,058 0 1 Great Canadian Railtour Company

11 79 3 3 3 2 5 0 4,259 4,259 0 2

Yard and Main Line 529 3,701 127 124 123 103 212 1 193,115 193,115 11 78 Coal Dust Emissions 0 0 84 42 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Rail Emissions 529 3,701 211 166 140 103 212 1 0 193,115 11 78

C.4 Marine Vessels This section outlines the methodology used to estimate 2005, backcast and forecast emissions from marine vessels in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley (CLFV) region. The marine vessel categories are: • Ocean-going vessels • Harbour vessels, including workboats, tugboats and charters • Ferries, consisting of B.C. Ferries and other public and commercial ferry operations • Fishing vessels All of these components were completed by Metro Vancouver staff with the exception of the 2005 ocean-going vessel inventory for BC, which was completed by the Chamber of Shipping of BC. The methodology for each type of marine vessel is discussed in turn below.


C -43

Note: Recreational vessels were previously inventoried as a marine source; however, beginning in 2005, they will be inventoried under the non-road source category.

C.4.1 Ocean-Going Vessels (OGVs) Ocean-going vessels include all commercial vessels over 20 meters in length calling at a BC port between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006, and which entered the waters of the LFV for any duration. Vessel types include: • Bulk vessels, including bulk wood chip carriers; • General cargo vessels, including roll-on roll-off vessels and break bulk ships; • Container ships; • Motor vehicle carriers; • Tankers; • Cruise ships; • Miscellaneous vessels, such as cable-laying vessels.

Ocean-Going Vessels Emission Estimation Methodology The emissions from these vessels for 2005 were inventoried by the Chamber of Shipping of BC (CSBC), as part of a collaborative project involving Environment Canada, Metro Vancouver, the Vancouver Port Authority, and other key stakeholders. The 2005 OGV inventory represented a substantial improvement in methodology, made possible through collaboration with industry (see Box C.4.1.). This methodology is detailed in the report produced by the Chamber of Shipping, available online at: http://www.chamber-of-shipping.com/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=/Environment/2005-06_EmissionsInventory.pdf. This report only details the adjustments made to this inventory for the purposes of the LFV emissions inventory, including forecasting and backcasting efforts.


C -44

Box C.4.1. A Collaborative Approach to Emissions Inventory - Ocean-Going Vessels The 2005 BC Ocean-Going Vessel (OGV) Emissions Inventory (EI) is heralded as the most accurate vessel inventories to date. This is due, in large part, to intense collaborative efforts between government and industry. In 2004, a workgroup comprised of industry and government stakeholders was formed to share information and collaborate on OGV air emission characterization and management. This workgroup is known as the BC Marine Vessel Air Quality Work Group (BCMVAQWG). A subcommittee, composed of Chamber of Shipping of BC (CSBC), Environment Canada, Vancouver Port Authority (VPA), International Shipowner’s Alliance of Canada (ISAC) and Metro Vancouver, was struck to serve as the peer- review mechanism for emissions inventory work.

In 2005, the CSBC, with the support of the subcommittee, led the development of the 2005 OGV EI. The keystone of this inventory was a year-long survey of every single vessel to make a port-call in B.C. This questionnaire collected information on each vessel’s characteristics, including details about the engines and fuel. Thanks to close ties between the CSBC and its members, 2437 surveys were received out of a total number of 3565 known voyages, corresponding to a 68% response rate. Eleven shipping companies, representing over 700 voyages, demonstrated a 100% response rate over the course of the year. For the most part, surveys were returned fully completed and error-free. Survey results were supplemented with positional latitude/longitude coordinates and vessel speeds for every 3 – 7 minute increment for every vessel captured in the study (provided by the Canadian Coast Guard). The CSBC combined both datasets with emission factors to produce the 2005 OGV EI, which was finalized in February 2007.

Adjustments to the Chamber of Shipping 2005 OGV EI Due to Metro Vancouver’s involvement on the steering committee, relatively few adjustments were required to the CSBC’s emissions inventory. Results were already tabulated by the CSBC for the Lower Fraser Valley region (in addition to the entire BC coast). However, in addition to a few adjustments to correct for a discovered minor error, three significant adjustments were made to the CSBC results:

Adjustment 1 - NOx Emissions IMO Annex VI NOx Curve – IMO MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI set NOx limits for marine engines with power outputs greater than 130 kW that have either been installed on a ship constructed on or after January 1, 2000 or have had major conversions on or after January 1, 2000. These limits are: • 17.0g/kWh when rated engine speed is less than 130 rpm • 45.0*n(-0.2) g/kWh when n (rated engine speed) is 130 or more but less than 2000 rpm


C -45

• 9.8 g/kWh when rated engine speed is 2000 rpm or more These limits result in approximately 15% less NOx than uncontrolled engines.

The CSBC chose not to incorporate reductions in NOx emissions associated with this standard. Due to work by Environment Canada following the release of the CSBC inventory, the LFV EI was able to adjust NOx emissions to account for this regulation. Environment Canada provided the adjustment factors listed in Table C.4.1.1, which were applied against the NOx emissions from the 2005 CSBC inventory, backcast and forecast: Table C.4.1.1: IMO Post-1999 NOx Curve Adjustment Factors (Environment Canada)

Main Engines Aux Engines

2000 0.995 0.993 2005 0.947 0.93 2010 0.91 0.88 2015 0.90 0.87 2020 0.90 0.87 2025 0.90 0.87 2030 0.90 0.87

Adjustment 2 - PM Emissions In the time between the release of the CSBC inventory and the completion of the LFV emissions inventory, Environment Canada and the North American SECA team, completed research into the relationship between fuel sulphur content and PM emission factors. This research concluded that the PM emission factor used in the 2005 CSBC inventory was between 25% and 50% too low given the average fuel sulphur content in 2005. A linear relationship was developed linking fuel sulphur content to PM emissions, and this relationship was applied by Environment Canada to each voyage in 2005. A correction factor was developed from the difference between the old PM result and the new PM result. This correction factor was rolled up by vessel class and is listed in Table C.4.1.2 below. Metro Vancouver then applied this correction factor to all years.


C -46

Table C.4.1.2: PM Adjustment Factors (Environment Canada)

Main Engines Aux Engines Underway Bulk Vessel 1.35 1.25 Container Ship 1.34 1.20 Cruise Ship 1.38 N/A General Cargo 1.35 1.27 Misc 1.46 1.34 Motor Vehicle Carrier 1.35 1.28 Tanker 1.34 1.31 Maneuvering Bulk Vessel 1.35 1.25 Container Ship 1.34 1.20 Cruise Ship 1.39 N/A General Cargo 1.35 1.28 Misc 1.43 1.22 Motor Vehicle Carrier 1.35 1.28 Tanker 1.36 1.35 Berth Bulk Vessel N/A 1.26 Container Ship N/A 1.24 Cruise Ship 1.35 N/A General Cargo N/A 1.29 Misc N/A 1.36 Motor Vehicle Carrier N/A 1.30 Tanker N/A 1.30 Anchor Bulk Vessel N/A 1.26 Container Ship N/A 1.24 Cruise Ship 1.38 N/A General Cargo N/A 1.32 Misc N/A 1.57 Motor Vehicle Carrier N/A 1.26 Tanker N/A 1.31

Adjustment 3 - IPCC CO2 Emissions The CSBC inventory provided “actual” CO2 emissions as emitted within the study boundaries. This inventory adheres to IPCC reporting rules for navigation (IPCC 2006) which includes only “domestic” emissions into national emission totals. Domestic GHG emissions refer to vessel movements to or from another Canadian port. International greenhouse gas emissions refer to vessel movements to or from a port outside Canada. Due to difficulties using the 2005 data set to determine FROM and TO destinations, this adjustment was made using the same domestic to international ratios applied in the 2000 inventory.


C -47

In other words, the assumption was made that the percentage split between domestic and international emissions in 2000 held true in 2005.

Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels

Backcast Assumptions 1990-2000 Emissions Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit (LMIU) data for 1995-2005 was obtained by Environment Canada for all of British Columbia. Environment Canada summarized the data and provided aggregate information, by vessel class, on (1) the number of vessel arrivals and (2) total main engine “installed” power. The decision was made to use total main engine power as a surrogate for underway/manoeuvring emissions because main engines are used in those modes. For berth and anchor emissions, however, it was determined that the number of arrivals would serve as a better surrogate. Cruise ships and miscellaneous vessels were an exception. Due to unreliable main engine power data for these two vessel classes, number of vessel arrivals was used as a surrogate for all modes. Since LMIU data for 1990 was not available, 1990 values had to be derived from a linear regression of available 1995-2005 data. Table C.4.1.3 provides the backcast factors for each vessel class, in each mode. These factors were applied against the 2005 results. Table C.4.1.3: OGV Backcast Factors

Underway / Manoeuvring Berth/Anchor 1990 1995 2000 1990 1995 2000

Bulk Vessel 1.49 1.13 1.34 1.52 1.11 1.34 Container Ship 0.04 0.31 0.75 0.18 0.35 0.87 Cruise Ship 0.55 0.87 0.81 0.55 0.87 0.81 General Cargo 0.79 1.10 0.73 0.86 1.13 0.77 Misc 0.72 0.65 1.29 0.72 0.65 1.29 Motor Vehicle Carrier 0.23 0.58 0.99 0.32 0.60 0.99 Tanker 0.65 0.75 0.73 0.83 0.84 0.79

Forecast Assumptions 2010-2030 Emissions8 The original CSBC 2005 OGV EI did not include either a forecast or backcast of those emissions. Therefore, additional efforts were made by Metro Vancouver, in coordination with the emissions inventory subcommittee, to develop a forecast and backcast for OGV emissions.

Growth Rates In consultation with industry and within the subcommittee, there was general consensus that the most representative growth rates would address the following issues:

8 At its April 2008 meeting, the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) recommended amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI regulations to reduce harmful emissions from ships, which were adopted in October 2008. Due to these recent regulations, Metro Vancouver has re-estimated emissions from ocean-going vessels under the low, moderate and high case scenarios. Details can be found in Appendix F.


C -48

• Uncertainty – Forecasts are inherently uncertain for source sectors which have not matured. Additionally, that uncertainty increases as the forecast extends beyond the first five or ten years.

• Vessel Specific – The economic and technological influences on each vessel type differ. For example, there is a movement towards containerization of goods, which puts upwards pressure on growth of containerships and downward pressure on growth of bulk and general cargo vessels.

• Growth Slowdown – Overseas shipping is a burgeoning sector which has experienced astounding growth, particularly in the containership market. “The past 25 years have seen trade growing more than twice as fast as the world economy — what we call the “trade multiple.” This faster growth in trade, relative to the economy as a whole, is due entirely to the process of gradual globalization of manufacturing, whereby foreign production is substituted for domestic production of both components and finished goods. However, trade cannot keep growing faster than consumption forever. “At some point imports reach their natural market share ceilings — i.e. the level above which market forces (rather than trade barriers) will not let them rise. After this point, the import substitution effect dramatically slows down.” (Clancy, 2006). Eventually, shipping traffic will match GDP growth. Additionally, expected efficiency improvements are expected to contribute to slowdown in emissions growth, as smaller vessels are replaced by larger ones.

The following design elements were incorporated into the growth rates in order to address these issues. • Incorporate low, moderate and high growth scenarios to address the uncertainty issue. The three

scenarios would, in combination, capture the range of possibilities. High growth rate – This is the upper threshold. Assumes strong demand, no bottlenecks, strong

government support and no significant efficiency gains in the vessel fleet. This scenario is less likely to occur than the moderate growth rate, but still within the realm of possible.

Moderate growth rate – This is the figure which will be reported along with all emission sources in the Lower Fraser Valley. This scenario is most likely to occur.

Low growth rate – This is the lower threshold. It assumes weak demand, inefficiencies and bottlenecks, lack of government support and/or significant efficiency gains in the vessel fleet. This scenario is less likely to occur than the moderate growth rate, but still within the realm of possibility.

The subcommittee then collectively chose growth rates to reflect each of these scenarios. • Growth surrogates would be developed for each vessel class in order to account for the different

futures for each vessel type. • A near-term growth rate and a long-term growth rate would be developed in order to address the

longer term uncertainties. The decision was made to attempt to capture this slowdown in the forecast as follows: In the near-term (2006-2015), emissions will be grown at a compounded rate (annual average

growth rate). In the long-term (2016-2030) emissions will be grown at a linear rate. This linear rate would be developed from the expected growth in the first ten years.

This slower long-term rate also addresses the need to capture the growth slowdown. After establishing the parameters of the growth rates, a variety of surrogate growth rates were considered by the subcommittee. The two key sources of growth rates were (1) forecast commodity throughput tonnage and (2) historic trends in total “installed” main engine power or number of ship calls. Both of these methods had their advantages and disadvantages.


C -49

Forecast commodity throughput tonnage Although a number of commodity forecasts were readily available, they varied in their optimism and scope. Additionally, changes in vessel or operational efficiency, which affect vessels’ air emissions, would not be captured in commodity growth forecasts.

Historic trends Historic trends in vessel main engine power was the surrogate chosen by researchers for the CARB’s SECA work due to the close tie between a vessel’s engine power and the ship’s total emissions. However, for many vessel classes, trends could not be easily discerned from historic installed power. Additionally, growth rates are expected to be higher in the past than in the future with maturation of the shipping sector, therefore relying strictly on historic trends may overestimate future growth. Due to these trade-offs in choice of growth surrogate, industry input was sought. Stakeholders were presented with a table of various growth rates, and asked to provide their input on which rates were reasonable. Based on feedback, the subcommittee agreed to the rates presented in the following tables. Table C.4.1.4 provides the moderate growth rate for each vessel category and the source from which that rate was developed. Table C.4.1.5 provides the low and high growth rates. Table C.4.1.4: Moderate Case OGV Growth Rates

Vessel Type

2006-2015

2016-2030 References

Bulk Vessel 1.9% 1.7% Commodity throughput tonnage. (Westac, 2006) (IAG, 2006) (Colledge, 2004)

Container Ship 6.9% 5.0% 2005-2030 LMIU Installed Power expo-to-linear trend extrapolated from 1995-2005. (R2 = 0.77)

Cruise Ship 1.9% 1.7% Number of port calls adjusted with 2005 data and forecast linearly to 2030. (VPA, 2005)

General Cargo 0.0% 0.0% Average of available throughput growth rates. (Westac, 2006) (IAG, 2006) (Colledge, 2004)

Misc 0.0% 0.0% Average of available throughput growth rates. (Westac, 2006) (IAG, 2006) (Colledge, 2004)

Motor Vehicle Carrier 4.3% 3.4% LMIU Installed Power linear trend, 2005-2030. (R2 = 0.88) Tanker 3.4% 2.8% Liquid Bulk Throughput (VPA, 2005) (IAG, 2006)


C -50

Table C.4.1.5: Low & High Case OGV Growth Rates

LOW HIGH Vessel Type 2006-

2015 2016-2030 2006-

2015 2016-2030

2006-2015

2016-2030

Bulk Vessel 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 2.5% 3.0% Container Ship 4.0% 3.2% 6.9% 5.0% 6.6% 10.0% Cruise Ship 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 3.9% 5.0% General Cargo -1.5% -1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.5% Misc 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Motor Vehicle Carrier 1.0% 0.9% 4.3% 3.4% 3.9% 5.0% Tanker 1.5% 1.4% 3.4% 2.8% 3.2% 4.0%

Future Policy Measures In addition to differential growth rates, the subcommittee determined that it was desirable to incorporate implementation of different future policy measures into the forecast scenarios. A number of scenarios were considered, however, it was decided that in order to keep the results meaningful, the number of policy scenarios modeled should be limited to those deemed most likely to occur. The following scenarios were modeled: • SECA – Existing IMO MARPOL Annex VI regulations contain provisions to designate areas with

sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution problems as a SOx emission control area (SECA), where fuel sulphur content would be restricted to 1.5%. Efforts are currently underway to designate the west coast of North America as a SECA. If successful, a SECA would take effect sometime between 2010 and 2015. To model the effect of this policy, all voyages with reported fuel sulphur levels higher than 1.5% in 2005 were capped at 1.5% S, resulting in reductions in both SOx and PM. Calculations were provided by Environment Canada.

• Revisions to Annex VI (U.S. Proposal) – Negotiations are currently underway at the

International Maritime Organization (IMO) to make amendments to Annex VI of the MARPOL treaty. Although a variety of proposals have been submitted, at the time of this analysis, elements of the U.S. proposal have been supported by a variety of stakeholders, including some members of the emissions inventory subcommittee. Therefore, the decision was made by the subcommittee to model the most widely-supported elements of the U.S. proposal. These included: NOx Engine Limits

o 20% reduction in NOx in new main & auxiliary engines beginning in 2011 o 80% reduction in NOx in new main & auxiliary engines beginning in 2016 o No reductions from existing engines or boilers

0.1% Sulphur – Modeled a 0.1% fuel sulphur limit for all voyages beginning 2011/2012. Impacts on both SOx and PM emissions incorporated.

Adjustments were provided to Metro Vancouver by Environment Canada. Since none of these policy measures were officially adopted at the time of this analysis, they could not be incorporated into the moderate case. They are, however, reasonably likely to occur and are therefore incorporated into the low scenario.


C -51

Box C.4.2. Importance of International Regulation Concurrent with the development of this emissions inventory, the Government of Canada and various Canadian stakeholders negotiated at an international level to for the establishment of two potentially very significant air emissions reductions regulations on ocean-going vessels and their fuels – establishment of a North American Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) and/or revisions to IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI (described previously). Unfortunately, as no conclusions have yet been reached regarding the policy which will be implemented, this inventory was unable incorporate either of these policies into the moderate growth scenario. However, the significance of these policies on future smog-forming pollutants (namely, NOx, SOx and PM) needs to be stressed. The diagram below depicts the impact of these two policies against a situation in which no policies are implemented. It can be seen that the benefit of either a SECA (shown in pink) or the proposed revisions to Annex VI (shown in green) are significant to OGV emissions in our region.

Emission Results for OGVs Tables C.4.1.6 and C.4.1.7 provide detailed OGV emissions for the Canadian LFV region by vessel type and mode of activity.

OGV Smog-Forming Pollutants Backcast/Forecast Low, Moderate and High Growth under:

Business As Usual (no SECA, no revisions to Annex VI),1.5% SECA & NOx Revisions to Annex VI and0.1% Sulphur & NOx Reductions to Annex VI

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year

Tonn

es p

er Y

ear

Historic Near-term forecast Long-term forecast


C -52

Table C.4.1.6: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions of Criteria Air Contaminants (metric tonnes)

VESSEL MODE & TYPE

Underway Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 23 2 1 287 23 3 24 2 0 22 2 0 198 15 13 10 1 0 0 0 0

Container Ship 38 2 1 462 21 2 40 2 0 36 2 0 336 18 10 16 1 0 1 0 0

Cruise Ship 6 0 1 79 0 3 7 0 0 7 0 0 41 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0

General Cargo 15 1 1 181 16 2 15 1 0 14 1 0 121 10 5 6 0 0 0 0 0

Misc 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motor Vehicle Carrier 4 0 0 53 6 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 37 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Tanker 5 1 0 58 8 1 5 1 0 4 1 0 39 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 91 6 4 1,124 73 12 96 7 1 87 6 1 774 52 44 39 2 0 1 0 0

Maneuvering Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 9 2 1 49 28 4 5 3 0 5 2 0 34 20 16 10 1 0 0 0 0

Container Ship 19 3 1 103 31 3 12 3 0 11 3 0 76 26 15 21 1 0 0 0 0

Cruise Ship 3 0 1 38 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 19 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0

General Cargo 4 1 1 24 16 1 3 1 0 2 1 0 16 11 5 5 0 0 0 0 0

Misc 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Tanker 2 1 0 9 8 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 39 7 5 234 90 14 25 9 1 23 8 1 159 66 52 42 3 0 0 0 0

Berth Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 0 44 34 0 547 90 0 48 10 0 43 9 0 357 373 0 16 3 0 0 0

Container Ship 0 37 26 0 449 68 0 42 7 0 38 6 0 325 324 0 13 2 0 0 0

Cruise Ship 15 0 6 194 0 17 17 0 2 15 0 2 103 0 42 7 0 1 0 0 0

General Cargo 0 32 13 0 391 35 0 34 4 0 31 3 0 246 138 0 12 1 0 0 0

Misc 0 4 2 0 41 5 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 11 6 0 2 0 0 0 0


Tanker 0 7 5 0 82 14 0 7 2 0 6 1 0 49 60 0 2 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 15 128 88 194 1,563 234 17 139 25 15 125 22 103 1,019 963 7 47 7 0 0 0

Anchor Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 0 14 11 0 176 29 0 16 3 0 14 3 0 116 118 0 5 1 0 0 0

Container Ship 0 1 1 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cruise Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

General Cargo 0 1 1 0 18 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 10 5 0 1 0 0 0 0

Misc 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Tanker 0 3 3 0 43 7 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 24 28 0 1 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 20 14 0 249 39 0 22 4 0 19 4 0 158 158 0 7 1 0 0 0

All Modes Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 33 63 47 336 774 126 30 69 13 27 62 12 232 508 520 20 23 4 0 0 0

Container Ship 57 42 28 565 511 76 52 49 8 47 44 7 412 375 355 37 15 2 1 0 0

Cruise Ship 23 0 9 311 0 24 28 0 3 25 0 2 163 0 60 11 0 1 0 0 0

General Cargo 19 36 15 205 441 39 18 39 4 16 35 4 137 278 154 11 13 1 0 0 0

Misc 0 4 2 4 42 6 0 2 1 0 2 1 2 11 6 0 2 0 0 0 0


Tanker 6 11 9 67 141 23 6 12 2 5 11 2 45 83 96 4 4 1 0 0 0

Subtotal 145 162 112 1,552 1,974 298 138 176 32 125 158 28 1,035 1,294 1,215 88 59 9 2 0 0

COMMON AIR CONTAMINANTSHC NH3CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx

SOx HC NH3

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx HC NH3

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

SOx HC NH3

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx HC NH3

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5


C -53

Table C.4.1.7: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (metric tonnes)

DOMESTIC GHGs INTERNATIONAL GHGsVESSEL MODE & TYPE

Underway Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 3,893 440 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,773 765 531 1 0 0 0 0 0Container Ship 6,102 398 222 1 0 0 0 0 0 10,616 693 387 1 0 0 0 0 0Cruise Ship 1,877 0 328 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,265 0 570 0 0 0 0 0 0General Cargo 2,485 304 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,323 529 256 1 0 0 0 0 0Misc 52 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0Motor Vehicle Carrier 715 112 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,243 194 76 0 0 0 0 0 0Tanker 813 149 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,415 259 142 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 15,936 1,410 1,131 2 0 0 0 0 0 27,724 2,453 1,968 3 0 0 1 0 0

Maneuvering Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 683 540 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,188 940 627 0 0 0 0 0 0Container Ship 1,399 601 317 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,434 1,045 551 0 0 0 0 0 0Cruise Ship 1,076 0 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,872 0 569 0 0 0 0 0 0General Cargo 339 300 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 590 522 234 0 0 0 0 0 0Misc 9 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0Motor Vehicle Carrier 145 127 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 221 90 0 0 0 0 0 0Tanker 127 158 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 276 157 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 3,777 1,731 1,284 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,571 3,011 2,234 1 0 0 0 0 0

Berth Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 0 23,233 18,669 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 5,700 4,580 0 1 0 0 0 0Container Ship 0 19,092 14,186 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 4,684 3,480 0 1 0 0 0 0Cruise Ship 10,297 0 3,488 1 0 0 0 0 0 2,526 0 856 0 0 0 0 0 0General Cargo 0 16,635 7,195 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4,081 1,765 0 1 0 0 0 0Misc 0 2,101 1,101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 515 270 0 0 0 0 0 0Motor Vehicle Carrier 0 2,251 935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 552 229 0 0 0 0 0 0Tanker 0 3,496 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 858 736 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 10,297 66,808 48,574 1 8 0 0 2 0 2,526 16,390 11,917 0 2 0 0 0 0

Anchor Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 0 7,481 5,942 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1,835 1,458 0 0 0 0 0 0Container Ship 0 439 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 75 0 0 0 0 0 0Cruise Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0General Cargo 0 766 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 76 0 0 0 0 0 0Misc 0 54 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0Motor Vehicle Carrier 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Tanker 0 1,814 1,454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 445 357 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 10,564 8,047 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2,592 1,974 0 0 0 0 0 0

All Modes Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux Boil Main Aux BoilBulk Vessel 4,576 31,693 25,276 1 4 0 0 1 0 7,961 9,240 7,196 1 1 0 0 0 0Container Ship 7,501 20,530 15,029 1 3 0 0 1 0 13,050 6,529 4,493 2 1 0 0 0 0Cruise Ship 13,249 0 4,143 1 0 0 1 0 0 7,663 0 1,995 1 0 0 0 0 0General Cargo 2,824 18,005 7,788 0 2 0 0 1 0 4,913 5,320 2,332 1 1 0 0 0 0Misc 60 2,167 1,138 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 549 287 0 0 0 0 0 0Motor Vehicle Carrier 859 2,499 1,035 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,495 970 397 0 0 0 0 0 0Tanker 940 5,618 4,626 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,636 1,838 1,392 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 30,010 80,512 59,036 3 10 1 1 2 0 36,822 24,446 18,092 4 3 0 1 1 0

CO2 CH4 N2O

CO2 CH4 N2O

CO2 CH4 N2O

N2O

CO2 CH4N2O

CO2 CH4

N2O

CO2 CH4

N2O

CO2 CH4

N2O

CO2 CH4

CO2 CH4

N2O

CO2 CH4 N2O

C.4.2 Harbour Vessels Harbour vessels include tugboats and charter vessels

Harbour Vessels Emission Estimation Methodology The Council of Marine Carriers provided a list of vessels that operate in British Columbia waters. The list contains the name of the company and, the name, length and engine rating of the vessel. This list was cross checked with Transport Canada’s Vessel Registry System (http://www.tc.gc.ca/ShipRegistry/menu.asp?lang=e) to determine the regional area of operation within BC, which was based on office address for each company listed.


C -54

Based on US EPA’s vessel classification system of the size of the engine, each vessel was assigned to be a Category 1 or 2 vessel. Since no information was available on the age of the vessels, all vessels were assumed to be Tier 0 vessels with engines of model year 1999 or older. The US Puget Sound Ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett, recently completed a detailed air emissions inventory of all port related sources which included harbour vessels (Starcrest Consulting, April 2007). Some of the work developed as part of the harbour vessel air emissions inventory was used in the Lower Fraser Valley inventory, such as the hours of operation and engine load factor of the vessel. Table C.4.2.1 provides a summary of the type, number, average engine rating, hours of operation, time spent in the regional area, and load factor of each vessel category; however, please note that the emissions were calculated for each vessel and not for each category of vessel. Emissions for charter vessels for 2005 was obtained from Metro Vancouver’s previous emissions backcast and forecast work prepared for the year 2000 (Levelton Engineering, June 2003) Table C.4.2.1: Summary of Harbour Vessel Categories in the Lower Fraser Valley

Vessel Class Number of

Vessels

Average Power

Average Operation

Time

Average Power Load

Average Time Spent in the LFV

(kWatts) (Hours/Year) Powered Barges 6 3088 4000 60% 20% General Towing & Barging

120 925 3704 55% 40%

Harbour Assist 25 1512 2500 30% 100% Harbour Tour Boats 5 1298 2500 30% 100% Integrated Tug & Barge 2 1679 2500 30% 100% Log towing 48 450 2500 30% 60% Water taxis 10 269 2050 30% 100% Emissions for each vessel were calculated by the formula: Tug boat Emission = Power (kW) x Operation time (h/year) x Power Load (%) x Emission Factor (g/kWh) Table C.4.2.2 summarizes the Tier 0 emission factors for Category 1 and 2 engine vessels. The SOx emission factor is based on a fuel sulphur content of 0.0235%. Table C.4.2.2: US EPA Tier 0 Harbour Vessel Emission Factors (g/kWh) Minimum Power (kW) CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

37 2.00 11.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.99 0.27 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02 75 1.70 10.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.99 0.27 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02 130 1.50 10.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.99 0.27 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02 225 1.50 10.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.99 0.27 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02 450 1.50 10.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.99 0.27 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02 560 1.50 10.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.99 0.27 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02 1000 2.50 13.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.99 0.27 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02 Category 2 Engines 1.10 13.20 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.99 0.50 0.01 690.00 0.09 0.02


C -55

Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Harbour Vessels The forecast and backcast of the 2005 emission inventory was performed under different sets of assumptions for three scenarios: the moderate scenario, the high scenario and the low scenario. The moderate scenario was based on the best available information. Depending on the level of uncertainty and what details were available during this study, some of the planned emission reduction measures were included in a low scenario, rather than in the moderate scenarios. These scenarios provide low and high “bracketing” around the moderate scenario and allow for an analysis of the impact on emissions from factors such as growth in population and economy. The methodology for these scenarios is discussed in turn below. Emission results for these scenarios are published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007).

Moderate Scenario Emissions backcasting involves revisiting previous emission inventories and updating them for consistency with the 2005 year inventory, where the methodology has changed. This allows for an equitable analysis of emission trends. Due to changes in the methodology that occurred from the previous 2000 inventory, changes were made to the emission estimates for 2000, 1995 and 1990 using provincial transportation diesel fuel demand as a surrogate to measure this change. Forecasts can be developed by applying a growth surrogate to the 2005 emission estimates, accounting for any control equipment installed in the future: EY = E2005 x G x C where: EY = emissions for forecast year E2005 = emissions for 2005 G = growth factor C = control factor, accounting for changes in emission factors, emission control technology or regulations For the moderate scenario, the projected emissions were based on future provincial transportation diesel demand (NRCan 2006). The moderate scenario also includes SOx emission reductions from the federal sulphur in diesel regulations which imposes a sulphur content of 15ppm in marine diesel in 2012.

Low-High Scenarios Lower and higher than anticipated national economic forecasts in the Gross Domestic Product were provided by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist, and factored into the low and high scenario emissions forecast. US EPA has developed Tier 3 regulations for Category 1 engines for NOx and PM emissions beginning in 2012. The low scenario incorporates the potential future reductions in emissions from this regulation with the rationale that most harbour vessel engines are imported from the US and would therefore impact the Canadian market.

Emission Results for Harbour Vessels Table C.4.2.3 summarizes the emissions estimates for harbour vessels in the CLFV.


C -56

Table C.4.2.3: 2005 Emission Results for Harbour Vessels in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley

Vessel Type CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

Powered Barges 10 117 6 6 6 9 4 0 6,137 0 1 General Towing and Barging 158 1,306 57 57 57 99 42 1 69,455 2 9 Harbour Assist 37 372 19 19 19 28 13 0 19,567 1 3 Harbour Tours Boats 5 64 4 4 4 5 2 0 3,359 0 0 Integrated Tug and Barge 3 33 2 2 2 2 1 0 1,737 0 0 Log Towing 15 86 2 2 2 7 2 0 4,989 0 1 Water Taxis 2 17 1 1 1 2 0 0 1,140 0 0 Charters 12 93 1 1 1 4 4 0 5,609 1 1

Total Metro Vancouver 242 2,088 91 91 91 156 69 2 111,995 4 14 General Towing and Barging 2 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 657 0 0 Log Towing 5 27 1 1 1 2 1 0 1,713 0 0 Charters 4 32 1 1 1 1 1 0 1,939 0 0

Total FVRD 11 71 2 2 2 5 2 0 4,309 0 0

Total CLFV 252 2,159 93 93 93 161 71 2 116,304 4 15

C.4.3 Ferries With the exception of B.C. Ferries, emission estimates for all ferries operating in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley study area were calculated in the underway mode. A more detailed emission inventory was carried out for B.C. Ferries, including calculation of dockside, manoeuvring, underway and lay-up CACs. Lay-up emissions are those that occur while the ships are being repaired. Table C.4.3.1 summarizes the vessel population of all ferries in the CLFV. Table C.4.3.1: Vessel Population for Ferries Operating Within the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley

Company Number of Vessels Service Type BC Ferries 17 Vehicle/Passenger SeaBus 2 Passenger Aquabus 12 Passenger Granville Island Ferries 10 Passenger Albion Ferry 2 Vehicle/Passenger Barnston Island Ferry 1 Vehicle/Passenger

Ferries Emission Estimation Methodology Emissions for the SeaBus and Albion Ferry were obtained from a Translink report (RWDI 2006) and emissions for the Aquabus, Granville Island and Barnston Island Ferries were obtained from Metro Vancouver’s 2000 Emissions Inventory Report (Levelton 2003). Both reports used pollutant specific emission factors for underway-medium speed vessels, developed by Lloyd’s (1995) shown in Table C.4.3.2.


C -57

Table C.4.3.2: Emission Factor for Ferries

CO NOx PM VOC NH3 SOx Diesel (kg/Tonne) 7.4 91 1.2 2.4 0.006 20 (%S) CO2 N2O CH4 Diesel (kg/L) 2.73 0.00015 0.001 The entire fleet of B.C. Ferries accounts for up to 34 vessels in total. However, only 17 of these vessels travel within the CLFV on 6 of the 24 routes covered by B.C. Ferries. Moreover, some of these routes are not entirely within the CLFV, thereby requiring a calculation of the fraction of travel to allocate the proportion of emissions within the study area. Three ferry terminals fall within the boundary, namely Horseshoe Bay, Tsawwassen, and Bowen Island. The fraction of B.C. Ferries trip (length in the CLFV/total length of trip) within the CLFV by route is as follows: • Tsawwassen/Swartz Bay 7.2% • Horseshoe Bay/Nanaimo 26.1% • Horseshoe Bay/Langdale 71.4% • Horseshoe Bay/Snug Cove 100% • Tsawwassen/Gulf Islands 6.7% • Nanaimo/Tsawwassen 32.4% B.C. Ferries undertook an independent emissions study of their fleet for the year 2005 that was provided to Metro Vancouver, along with fuel consumption data. However, the results provided were based on the assumption that the entire volume of fuel on each route is consumed during underway travel. These conservative (for the most part) results therefore required adjustment to provide a more realistic representation of emissions from the B.C. Ferries fleet. Accordingly, a breakdown of the fuel consumed per route was assumed in terms of dockside, manoeuvring and underway movement using appropriate emission factors and/or fractions. This type of breakdown was not necessary for the greenhouse gases.

Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Ferries The forecast and backcast of the 2005 emission inventory was performed under different sets of assumptions for three scenarios: the moderate scenario, the high scenario and the low scenario. The moderate scenario was based on the best available information. Depending on the level of uncertainty and what details were available during this study, some of the planned emission reduction measures were included in a low scenario, rather than in the moderate scenarios. These scenarios provide low and high “bracketing” around the moderate scenario and allow for an analysis of the impact on emissions from factors such as growth in population and economy. The methodology for these scenarios is discussed in turn below. Emission results for these scenarios are published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007).

Moderate Scenario Emissions backcasting involves revisiting previous emission inventories and updating them for consistency with the 2005 year inventory, where the methodology has changed. This allows for an equitable analysis of emission trends. No methodology changes occurred from the previous 2000 inventory; hence, no changes were made to the emission estimates for 2000, 1995 and 1990.


C -58

Forecasts can be developed by applying a growth surrogate to the 2005 emission estimates, accounting for any control equipment installed in the future or for future regulations that may be adopted: EY = E2005 x G x C where: EY = emissions for forecast year E2005 = emissions for 2005 G = growth factor C = control factor, accounting for changes in emission factors, emission control technology or regulations For the moderate scenario for all ferries accept BC Ferries and seabuses, it was assumed that no change would occur in the future levels of operations; hence a no growth scenario was assumed. The moderate scenario however, did include SOx emission reductions from the federal sulphur in diesel regulations which imposes a sulphur content of 15ppm in marine diesel in 2012. The Albion Ferry will cease operation in 2009 with the opening of the Golden Ears Bridge and hence results in “0” emissions for Albion Ferry from 2010 onwards. In 2010, Translink will be adding a 3rd seabus to its current level of operation and will also be repowering the current two seabus engines from a Tier 0 to a Tier 2 US EPA standard. The addition of the 3rd seabus effectively increases all emission by 50% and the repowering to Tier 2 standards reduces NOx emissions by 25%. BC Ferries moderate scenario forecast is based on a projection of vehicles using BC Ferries provided by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist. The vehicle projection is based on historical vehicle information correlated to human population growth in the region.

Low-High Scenarios For all ferries accept BC Ferries, no changes are assumed. For BC Ferries, a lower and higher than anticipated BC Ferries vehicle usage forecasts provided by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist, was used for the low and high scenario emissions forecast.

Emission Results for Ferries Emission results for all ferries in the CLFV is summarized in Table C.4.3.3.


C -59

Table C.4.3.3: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Ferries Emission Inventory

2005 Emissions (Tonnes) CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

BC Ferries Dockside 29 253 3 3 3 6 2 0 11,140 1 4 Manoeuvring 56 102 1 1 1 7 7 0 6,326 0 2 Underway 107 823 17 17 17 101 35 0 45,791 2 17 Lay Up 6 44 2 2 2 1 1 0 545 0 0 Subtotal BC Ferries 198 1,223 23 23 23 116 45 0 63,801 3 23 Other Ferries Seabus 6 52 1 1 1 1 2 0 2,694 0 1 Aquabus/Granville Island

24 22 1 1 1 3 2 0 1,101 0 1

Albion Ferries 4 28 1 1 1 1 1 0 1,490 0 1 Barnston Island 1 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 216 0 0 Subtotal Other Ferries 34 107 2 2 2 6 6 0 5,501 1 2

Total All Ferries 233 1,330 25 25 25 122 50 0 69,302 4 25

C.4.4 Fishing Vessels

Fishing Vessels Emission Estimation Methodology Fishing vessel emission in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley have been estimated using the information presented in the Levelton (June 2003) report.

Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Fishing Vessels A no growth scenario was assumed for this sector.

Spatial Allocation All fishing vessel emissions were assumed to occur only in the Metro Vancouver area

Emission Results for Fishing Vessels The emission results are summarized in Table C.4.4.1


C -60

Table C.4.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Fishing Vessels Emission Inventory

2005 Emissions (Tonnes) CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O

Fishing Vessels 3 20 0 0 0 1 1 0 1,107 0 0

C.4.5 Results for All Commercial Marine Vessels The results of all commercial marine activity in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley is summarized in Table C.4.5.1. Table C.4.5.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Marine Vessels Emission Inventory by Vessel Category

2005 Emissions (Tonnes) Vessel Type CO NOx Part PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 IPCC CO2 Actual CO2 CH4 N2O

Metro Vancouver Ocean Going 418 3,825 346 346 311 3,545 156 2 169,559 248,919 14 3 Ferries 233 1,330 25 25 25 122 50 0 69,302 69,302 4 25 Harbour 242 2,088 91 91 91 156 69 2 111,995 111,995 4 14 Fishing 3 20 0 0 0 1 1 0 1,107 1,107 0 0

Total Metro Vancouver 895 7,263 463 463 428 3,824 276 4 351,963 431,324 22 43

Fraser Valley Regional District Ocean Going 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ferries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harbour 11 71 2 2 2 5 2 0 4,309 4,309 0 0 Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total FVRD 11 71 2 2 2 5 2 0 4,309 4,309 0 0

Total CLFV 906 7,334 464 464 430 3,829 279 4 356,272 435,632 22 44


C -61

C.5 Non-Road Engines The 2005 CLFV non-road engine emissions inventory & forecast and backcast were completed under contract by RWDI Air Inc. A summary of the methodology is provided in this section. Further detail can be found in the report “2005 Non-road Engine Fleet Characterization in the Lower Fraser Valley” (RWDI, 2007). The non-road engine category includes emission estimates for the following equipment: • agricultural equipment, such as tractors • airport ground support equipment • commercial equipment, such as generators • construction equipment, such as backhoes • industrial equipment, such as fork lifts • commercial and residential lawn and garden equipment, such as lawnmowers • recreational marine vessels • railway maintenance equipment • recreational vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles and off-road motorcycles

C.5.1 Non-Road Engines Emission Estimation Methodology The EPA developed a non-road emissions model to assist regulatory agencies in the creation of non-road emission inventories. The model includes more than 80 basic and 260 specific types of non-road equipment, which are further stratified into horsepower rating, and also includes data on gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. The NONROAD2005 model (EPA, 2006) estimates 2005 emissions of CO, NOx, VOC, SOx, PM, PM10, PM2.5, CO2 and CH4 for the above engine types by generating emission factors that are applied to user-supplied data on non-road equipment populations and activity in Metro Vancouver and FVRD1. The NONROAD model also produces estimates of fuel consumption, which were used to estimate N2O emissions, based on emission factors from Environment Canada (Environment Canada, 2005).

C.5.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology for Non-Road Engines

Moderate Scenario The NONROAD2005 model can also project future year emissions and backcast past year emissions. In estimating future year projections and in backcasting, the model includes growth and scrappage rates for equipment in addition to a variety of control program options. The model was used to backcast emissions to 1990, 1995, and 2000, and forecast emissions to 2010-2030 in five year increments. The forecast accounts for planned federal amendments to the Off-Road Compression – Ignition Engine Emission Regulations to incorporate Tier 4 emission standards in alignment with the United States Environmental Protection Agency standards. NONROAD2005 allows for entry of area-specific variables such as Reid Vapour Pressure (RVP), gasoline and diesel sulphur content, and climate data, so that the model can be “customized” to a given region. Those inputs are shown in Table C.5.2.1.


C -62

Table C.5.2.1: Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Input Data - NONROAD2005 Model

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Fuel RVP (psi) 12.7 12.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6Fuel Oxygen (wt%) 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7Gas Sulphur (wt%) 0.0257 0.0300 0.0023 0.0025 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030Diesel Sulphur (wt%) 0.2121 0.2370 0.0647 0.0647 0.0120 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015Marine Diesel Sulphur (wt%) 0.1300 0.1300 0.1300 0.0647 0.0500 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015LPG Sulphur (wt%) 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075Minimum Temperature (ºF) 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6Maximum Temperature (ºF) 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3Average Temperature (ºF ) 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2Altitude Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low LowStage II Control (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Low-High Scenarios B.C. GDP projections for the different non-road engine categories, reflecting a range in growth in the region from a sensitivity analysis completed by Metro Vancouver’s Senior Economist, were factored into the low and high scenario emissions forecasts, respectively. Emission results for these forecast scenarios are published in the “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast” report (Metro Vancouver, 2007).

C.5.3 Spatial Allocation While the regional non-road engine emissions were prepared by RWDI, emission estimates were allocated to the municipalities by Metro Vancouver staff, based on the following surrogates: • agricultural equipment – number of agricultural tractors (Statistics Canada, 2006) • airport ground support equipment – equipment at YVR (YVR, 2005) and other local airports (RWDI,

2007) • commercial equipment – commercial floor space • construction equipment – value of construction activity (Metro Vancouver, 2007; B.C. Statistics, 2007) • industrial equipment – area of industrial floor space (Metro Vancouver, 2007) • commercial lawn and garden equipment – number of apartments (Metro Vancouver, 2007; Urban

Futures, 2005) • residential lawn and garden equipment – number of ground-oriented dwellings (Metro Vancouver,

2007; Urban Futures, 2005) • pleasure craft – water area (Levelton, 2002) • railway maintenance equipment – rail municipal emissions (see Section C.3) • recreational vehicles – recreational and parks land area (Metro Vancouver, 2007)

C.5.4 2005 Emission Results for Non-Road Engines Estimates of non-road engine emissions, by category, are shown in Table C.5.4.1.


C -63

Table C.5.4.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Non-Road Engine Emission Inventory (metric tonnes) Equipment Type CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E

Agricultural Equipment 1,287 1,251 157 157 152 47 187 1 119,218 6 48 134,266Airport Equipment 962 212 7 7 6 3 53 0 16,604 4 3 17,705Commercial Equipment 53,074 1,095 83 83 80 20 1,912 2 150,355 289 21 162,941Construction and Mining Equipment 4,695 2,750 237 237 230 101 465 2 263,204 13 104 295,759Industrial Equipment 13,097 3,301 99 99 97 53 741 1 259,879 629 48 287,966Lawn and Garden Equipment (Commercial) 27,454 336 87 87 81 5 1,662 1 60,606 67 5 63,652Lawn and Garden Equipment (Residential) 25,598 183 19 19 18 1 1,495 1 47,084 79 1 49,076Pleasure Craft 9,041 513 53 53 49 9 3,033 1 71,076 37 10 74,993Railroad Equipment 17 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 449 0 0 503Recreational Equipment 12,559 70 32 32 29 1 1,058 0 22,573 25 1 23,325Total 147,785 9,716 775 775 741 240 10,608 9 1,011,048 1,149 242 1,110,187 Further detail on the non-road equipment populations and emission results can be found in the RWDI report. Non-road engine emission estimates by municipality are shown in Table C.5.4.2. Table C.5.4.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Non-Road Engine Emission Inventory by Municipality (metric tonnes)

CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2EMetro VancouverAnmore 46 7 1 1 1 0 3 0 695 0 0 775Belcarra 33 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 414 0 0 461Bowen Island 338 11 2 2 1 0 27 0 1,471 1 0 1,603Burnaby 13,839 901 60 60 57 20 717 1 90,027 133 20 99,066Coquitlam 5,218 274 21 21 20 7 286 0 29,116 38 7 31,946Delta 5,566 579 32 32 31 12 321 0 52,355 92 11 57,795Langley City 1,505 83 6 6 5 2 77 0 8,472 13 2 9,292Langley Township 6,055 609 55 55 53 18 349 1 60,666 51 18 67,361Lions Bay 28 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 80 0 0 85Maple Ridge 2,815 150 13 13 13 4 158 0 16,334 18 4 17,956New Westminster 3,695 187 15 15 14 4 185 0 20,011 26 5 21,957North Van. City 2,350 110 11 11 10 3 158 0 12,235 13 3 13,376North Van. Dist. 3,438 146 11 11 10 3 175 0 16,216 23 3 17,730Pitt Meadows 772 82 9 9 8 3 53 0 8,472 3 3 9,417Port Coquitlam 2,295 160 9 9 9 3 130 0 15,368 27 3 16,877Port Moody 938 61 5 5 5 2 55 0 6,487 5 2 7,154Richmond 11,739 1,121 60 60 58 23 616 1 102,815 144 23 112,920Surrey 17,366 1,349 100 100 96 35 958 1 134,740 156 35 148,822Vancouver 36,716 1,671 142 142 135 42 1,811 2 184,903 226 42 202,717West Vancouver 3,078 134 15 15 14 4 206 0 15,999 9 4 17,554White Rock 874 49 5 5 5 2 49 0 5,518 3 2 6,084Electoral Area A (UBC) 1,022 30 4 4 4 1 68 0 3,843 4 1 4,170Other Electoral Area 180 2 0 0 0 0 11 0 355 1 0 371Marine Areas 7,490 425 44 44 41 8 2,513 1 58,878 30 8 62,119Metro Vancouver Total 127,396 8,145 618 618 591 195 8,929 8 845,468 1,018 196 927,608

Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD1, within LFV)Abbotsford 5,351 552 63 63 60 19 356 1 57,031 22 19 63,401Chilliwack 6,628 550 50 50 48 15 372 0 55,360 55 15 61,292Harrison Hot Springs 200 11 1 1 0 0 9 0 1,048 2 0 1,147Hope 1,283 71 3 3 3 1 57 0 6,914 14 1 7,564Kent 1,167 56 3 3 3 1 61 0 5,720 11 1 6,244Mission 2,521 113 10 10 9 3 152 0 12,642 16 3 13,822FVRD1 Electoral Areas 1,689 132 19 19 18 5 152 0 14,667 4 5 16,238FVRD1 Marine Areas 1,551 88 9 9 8 2 520 0 12,198 6 2 12,872FVRD1 Total 20,389 1,571 157 157 151 45 1,680 1 165,580 130 46 182,579

Canadian LFV Total 147,785 9,716 775 775 741 240 10,608 9 1,011,048 1,149 242 1,110,187


C -64

References – CLFV Mobile Sources B.C. Statistics. 2007. “Economic Statistics – Construction and Housing.” http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/econ_stat.asp Environment Canada. 2005. “Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2003.” EPA. 2006. NONROAD2005 Model. Levelton Engineering Ltd. 2002. “Marine Vessel Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley for the Year 2000.” Metro Vancuver. 2007. “2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast.” https://www.gvrd.bc.ca./air/inventory_reports.htm Metro Vancouver. 2007. Geographic Information Systems. Metro Vancouver. 2007. Regional Development Division. RWDI AIR Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists, 2007, ”2005 Nonroad Engine Fleet Characterization in the Lower Fraser Valley.” Statistics Canada. 2006. “2006 Census of Agriculture.” http://www/statcan.ca/english/freepub/95-629-XIE/95-629-XIE2007000.htm Urban Futures. 2005. “The Fraser Valley Regional District: Population Growth and the Context for Managing Change.”


D -1

Appendix D – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley 2005 Emissions by City/Municipality The distribution of the combined emissions of point, area, and mobile sources by city and municipality is presented in Tables D.1 to D.2 and Figures D.1 to D.13. Table D.1: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Airshed Emission Inventory by Regional District and Municipality

(metric tonnes)

CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E PM PM10 PM2.5

Metro VancouverAnmore 132 19 3 2 2 0 83 3 6,255 2 1 6,517 9 2 0Belcarra 59 10 1 1 1 0 19 1 2,542 1 0 2,667 3 1 0Bowen Island 1,765 144 39 27 25 4 193 19 42,296 45 11 46,624 445 85 13Burnaby 34,317 4,004 881 492 311 736 5,197 329 1,714,396 524 110 1,759,624 2,273 436 68Coquitlam 15,758 1,569 289 173 122 26 2,448 225 585,187 2,165 53 647,057 1,185 227 35Delta 26,133 5,170 2,368 1,333 851 244 3,991 397 2,040,997 8,130 165 2,262,866 1,588 304 47Langley City 2,445 225 381 134 45 4 495 32 98,596 105 6 102,683 89 17 3Langley Township 21,366 2,380 813 415 247 47 3,873 1,087 834,632 1,960 137 918,406 1,576 302 47Lions Bay 78 14 34 13 4 0 20 2 8,019 4 0 8,209 1 0 0Maple Ridge 7,882 859 451 213 124 18 1,693 186 351,881 793 38 380,223 493 95 15New Westminster 7,915 772 657 340 200 17 1,272 88 295,492 115 25 305,595 461 88 14North Vancouver City 7,369 901 282 117 59 32 1,101 75 308,335 89 26 318,232 267 51 8North Vancouver District 6,285 904 628 376 163 36 1,639 113 329,389 1,075 20 358,232 520 100 16Pitt Meadows 4,385 401 301 179 135 7 732 110 132,075 383 37 151,446 270 52 8Port Coquitlam 5,966 705 201 108 75 13 1,250 101 241,410 117 21 250,478 408 78 12Port Moody 3,005 384 217 91 46 7 641 42 244,073 100 13 250,049 225 43 7Richmond 32,415 4,771 1,703 901 499 85 4,533 331 2,025,553 3,623 111 2,136,108 2,062 395 61Surrey 52,265 5,536 2,840 1,226 623 94 8,531 1,236 1,956,519 4,452 223 2,119,178 3,920 751 117Vancouver 71,339 6,246 1,768 937 602 117 10,233 771 2,609,237 1,039 192 2,690,439 3,802 729 113West Vancouver 7,067 711 139 83 55 21 1,163 73 252,593 86 23 261,412 90 17 3White Rock 1,275 128 72 34 20 3 257 22 54,323 29 4 56,093 41 8 1Electoral Area A (UEL) 2,415 222 89 38 15 2 1,875 76 67,920 70 8 71,847 156 30 5Other Electoral Areas in MV 709 41 13 11 3 0 56 5 15,272 5 2 15,957 52 10 2Metro Vancouver Marine Areas 9,183 8,040 514 514 476 3,864 3,030 5 468,357 55 57 487,192 0 0 0Metro Vancouver Total 321,526 44,156 14,685 7,757 4,699 5,381 54,325 5,331 14,685,350 24,966 1,282 15,607,134 19,937 3,821 594

FVRD1Abbotsford 24,716 2,945 1,911 855 394 81 4,762 4,002 976,810 5,975 259 1,182,511 1,980 379 59Chilliwack 14,551 1,686 1,002 499 289 35 3,178 1,653 464,697 6,677 166 656,400 798 153 24Harrison Hot Springs 411 34 3 3 3 0 75 3 10,239 5 1 10,648 19 4 1Hope 1,528 109 27 21 19 3 248 11 25,011 527 4 37,265 7 1 0Kent 2,036 253 61 28 17 5 873 226 49,492 1,219 32 84,865 96 18 3Mission 6,874 551 205 121 93 13 1,214 89 174,908 966 30 204,369 393 75 12FVRD1 Electoral Areas 2,105 949 246 122 74 19 8,721 475 47,472 1,876 59 105,248 17 3 0FVRD1 Marine Areas 1,562 159 11 11 10 6 523 0 16,507 7 2 17,298 0 0 0FVRD1 Total 53,783 6,686 3,465 1,657 899 162 19,593 6,459 1,765,138 17,252 552 2,298,605 3,309 634 99

CLFV Total 375,309 50,842 18,150 9,414 5,599 5,544 73,918 11,790 16,450,488 42,218 1,834 17,905,739 23,246 4,456 693

Road Dust


D -2

Table D.2: 2005 Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Airshed Emission Inventory by Regional District and Municipality (Percent of Canadian LFV Emissions)

CO NOx PM PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E PM PM10 PM2.5

Metro VancouverAnmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Belcarra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bowen Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2Burnaby 9 8 5 5 6 13 7 3 10 1 6 10 10 10 10Coquitlam 4 3 2 2 2 0 3 2 4 5 3 4 5 5 5Delta 7 10 13 14 15 4 5 3 12 19 9 13 7 7 7Langley City 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Langley Township 6 5 4 4 4 1 5 9 5 5 7 5 7 7 7Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2New Westminster 2 2 4 4 4 0 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 2North Vancouver City 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1North Vancouver District 2 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2Pitt Meadows 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1Port Coquitlam 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 2Port Moody 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1Richmond 9 9 9 10 9 2 6 3 12 9 6 12 9 9 9Surrey 14 11 16 13 11 2 12 10 12 11 12 12 17 17 17Vancouver 19 12 10 10 11 2 14 7 16 2 10 15 16 16 16West Vancouver 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0White Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Electoral Area A (UEL) 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1Other Electoral Areas in MV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Metro Vancouver Marine Areas 2 16 3 5 9 70 4 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0Metro Vancouver Total 86 87 81 82 84 97 73 45 89 59 70 87 86 86 86

FVRD1Abbotsford 7 6 11 9 7 1 6 34 6 14 14 7 9 9 9Chilliwack 4 3 6 5 5 1 4 14 3 16 9 4 3 3 3Harrison Hot Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Kent 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0Mission 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2FVRD1 Electoral Areas 1 2 1 1 1 0 12 4 0 4 3 1 0 0 0FVRD1 Marine Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0FVRD1 Total 14 13 19 18 16 3 27 55 11 41 30 13 14 14 14

CLFV Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Road Dust


D -3

Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide emission are highest in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, and Richmond, due mainly to the amount of motor vehicles and non-road equipment in those areas. Figure D.1: Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

132 59 1765

34317

15758

26133

2445

21366

78

7882 7915 7369 62854385 5966

3005

32415

52265

71339

7067

1275 2415 709

24716

14551

411 1528 2036

6874

2105

10744

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (t

onne

s)

Nitrogen Oxides Roughly half of the NOx emissions are attributed to motor vehicles and non-road equipment, and accordingly, emissions are higher in Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, and Burnaby. Delta is also among the largest areas for NOx because of the additional impact of a cement plant. Significant amounts of NOx emissions also come from the marine areas, due mainly to ocean-going and harbour vessels. Figure D.2: Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

19 10 144

4004

1569

5170

225

2380

14

859 772 901 904401

705384

4771

5536

6246

711128 222 41

2945

1686

34 109 253551

949

8198

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)


D -4

Particulate Matter Point and area sources emit most of the total PM, PM10, and PM2.5. Here, emissions are highest in areas such as Surrey, Delta, Vancouver, Richmond and Abbotsford due to the varying influences of industry (e.g. wood products, bulk shipping terminals, cement plants), construction activity, agriculture, burning and residential heating (e.g. fireplaces). Figures below do not include emissions of road dust, which are proportional to vehicular traffic in each municipality. Figure D.3: Total Particulate Matter Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

3 1 39

881

289

2368

381

813

34

451

657

282

628

301201 217

1703 1768

139 72 8913

1911

1002

3 27 61205 246

525

2840

0

1000

2000

3000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)

Figure D.4: PM10 Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

2 1 27

492

173

1333

134

415

13

213

340

117

376

179108 91

901

1226

937

8334 38 11

855

499

3 21 28

121 122

525

0

500

1000

1500

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)


D -5

Figure D.5: PM2.5 Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

2 125

311

122

851

45

247

4

124

200

59

163135

7546

499

623 602

5520 15 3

394

289

3 19 17

93 74

486

0

250

500

750

1000An

mor

e

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)

Sulphur Oxides The distribution of SOx emissions is influenced mainly by ocean-going vessels in the marine areas and a petroleum refinery in Burnaby. Figure D.6: Sulphur Oxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

0 0 4

736

26244

4 47 0 18 17 32 36 7 13 7 85 94 117 21 3 2 0 81 35 0 3 5 13 19

3870

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)

Volatile Organic Compounds The distribution of VOC emissions tend to correlate with area and mobile sources. Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, and Abbotsford have the highest emissions of VOC. However, VOC emissions in the Electoral Areas of the FVRD1 are of similar magnitude, reflecting the contribution of biogenic (natural) sources.


D -6

Figure D.7: Volatile Organic Compound Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

83 19 193

5197

2448

3991

495

3873

20

16931272 1101

1639

7321250

641

4533

8531

10233

1163

257

1875

56

4762

3178

75 248873

1214

8721

3552

0

4000

8000

12000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)

Ammonia Agriculture contributes the largest amount of ammonia in the region. Emissions are highest in Abbotsford, and Chilliwack, due mainly to manure handling and storage, and fertilizer application. Figure D.8: Ammonia Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

3 1 19

329 225397

32

1087

2186 88 75 113 110 101 42

331

1236

771

73 22 76 5

4002

1653

3 11226

89

475

50

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)


D -7

Greenhouse Gases Carbon dioxide emissions (Figure D.9) are high in Vancouver and Surrey, due mainly to cars, light and heavy trucks, buses, non-road equipment, and heating. Delta and Richmond have significant emissions from cement plants. Burnaby is also among the highest emitters of carbon dioxide because of the additional impact of a petroleum refinery. Figure D.9: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

6 3 42

1714

585

2041

99

835

8

352 295 308 329

132241 244

2026 1957

2609

253

54 68 15

977

465

10 25 49175

47

485

0

1000

2000

3000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (k

iloto

nnes

)

Methane emissions (Figure D.10) are strongly influenced by landfills and agriculture; hence the higher emissions in Delta, Abbotsford, and Chilliwack. Figure D.10: Methane Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

2 1 45524

2165

8130

105

1960

4

793

115 89

1075

383117 100

3623

4452

1039

86 29 70 5

5975

6677

5527

1219966

1876

610

2500

5000

7500

10000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)


D -8

Mobile and area sources are the largest contributors to nitrous oxide emissions (Figure D.11), and as a result, emissions are higher in Abbotsford, Surrey, Vancouver, Chilliwack, and Delta, due to varying degrees of vehicle and agricultural activity. Figure D.11: Nitrous Oxide Emissions by Municipality and Electoral Area

1 011

110

53

165

6

137

0

3825 26 20

3721

13

111

223

192

23

4 8 2

259

166

1 4

32 30

59 59

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (to

nnes

)

Greenhouse gas emissions, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (Figure D.12), are high in Vancouver and Surrey, due mainly to on-road vehicles, non-road equipment, and heating. A petroleum refinery in Burnaby and cement plants in Delta and Richmond are also significant sources of emissions in those municipalities. Figure D.12: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2E) by Municipality and Electoral Area

7 3 47

1760

647

2263

103

918

8

380 306 318 358

151250 250

2136 2119

2690

261

56 72 16

1183

656

11 37 85204

105

504

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Anm

ore

Belc

arra

Bow

en Is

land

Burn

aby

Coq

uitla

m

Del

ta

Lang

ley

City

Lang

ley

Tow

nshi

p

Lion

s Ba

y

Map

le R

idge

New

Wes

tmin

ster

Nor

th V

anco

uver

City

Nor

th V

anco

uver

Dis

trict

Pitt

Mea

dow

s

Port

Coq

uitla

m

Port

Moo

dy

Ric

hmon

d

Surr

ey

Vanc

ouve

r

Wes

t Van

couv

er

Whi

te R

ock

Elec

tora

l Are

a A

(UEL

)

Oth

er E

lect

oral

Are

as in

MV

Abbo

tsfo

rd

Chi

lliwac

k

Har

rison

Hot

Spr

ings

Hop

e

Kent

Mis

sion

Elec

tora

l Are

as in

FVR

D1

Mar

ine

Area

s

Emis

sion

s (k

iloto

nnes

)


E -1

Appendix E – Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Diesel engines emit a mixture of air pollutants, mainly composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter, made up of carbon particles (also called soot) as well as other gases that become visible as they cool. Diesel particulate matter is a toxic air contaminant, with a potential to cause cancer and other adverse health effects. In addition to particulate matter, emissions from diesel-fueled engines include over 40 other cancer-causing substances. The major sources of diesel particulate matter are diesel-fueled cars, trucks, buses, locomotives, marine vessels, and non-road engines. Diesel PM2.5 emissions estimates for the CLFV are summarized in Table E.1. Diesel particulate matter from point and area sources are expected to be insignificant compared to diesel particulate matter from mobile sources. Table E.1: Canadian Lower Fraser Valley Diesel PM2.5 Emission Inventory

(metric tonnes) Source 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Light-Duty Vehicles 47 46 27 16 12 8 5 3 1Heavy-Duty Vehicles 410 275 148 90 45 24 16 13 12

Locomotives 72 76 65 115 98 92 86 81 77

Marine Ocean-Going Vessels 241 251 304 311 368 443 509 574 640 Harbour Vessels 67 84 82 93 105 111 116 125 133 Ferries 25 29 32 25 26 28 30 31 32 Fishing Vessels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Marine Sub-Total 333 365 419 430 499 582 655 731 806

Nonroad Agricultural Equipment 204 212 191 152 120 82 50 30 16 Airport Equipment 6 8 7 6 5 4 2 1 1 Commercial Equipment 47 56 57 55 49 39 29 20 15 Construction Equipment 326 312 263 222 193 136 74 42 27 Industrial Equipment 134 124 105 84 70 38 13 9 8 Lawn and Garden Equipment (Commercial) 7 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 4 Lawn and Garden Equipment (Residential) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recreational Marine 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Railroad Equipment 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Recreational Equipment 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0Nonroad Sub-total 729 728 639 535 452 311 179 112 76

Total 1,592 1,490 1,298 1,187 1,106 1,017 941 940 972


F -1

Appendix F – Ocean-Going Vessels Addendum F.1 Background In December 2007, Metro Vancouver completed the 2005 emission inventory of all sources within the international Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) region, including ocean-going vessels. A forecast to 2030 was also conducted as part of this effort. At the time of this analysis, talks were underway at the international level to increase the stringency of air pollution regulations on marine vessels; however, no proposals had been adopted at that time. Thus, the decision was made to exclude proposed international regulations from the “moderate” emissions growth scenario. Since this time, talks have progressed at the international level. In April 2008, the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) met in London to consider changes to MARPOL Annex VI. MARPOL Annex VI is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It governs various pollutants, including air emissions from ocean-going vessels. At this April 2008 meeting, MEPC recommended amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI regulations to reduce harmful emissions from ships. The specific elements recommended by MEPC in April 2008 are summarized in Table F.1: Table F.1: MEPC Recommendations of April 2008

*Emission limit actually varies based on engine speed, with a maximum of the amount indicated. **Limits for 1990-1999 ships apply as retrofit kits become available. ***Emission control areas are designated coastal zones where more stringent emission standards apply. These recommended regulations were adopted in October 2008. Once implemented, they will have a significant impact on certain emissions within our region. This addendum is being provided as an update to the 2005 emission inventory to account for these regulations.

F.2 Updates to the Emissions Inventory Due to these recent regulations, Metro Vancouver has re-estimated emissions from ocean-going vessels under the low, moderate and high case scenarios as follows:

Current rules New global rules

New rules within Emissions Control Areas (ECAs)***

SOx Emissions (% fuel S content

or equivalent)

4.5% 3.5% (as of 2012) 0.5% (as of 2020)

1.0% (as of 2010) 0.1% (as of 2015)

NOx Emissions

17 g/kWh* (ships built from 2000 on) (Tier 1)

17 g/kWh* (ships built from 1990** to 2010)

(Tier 1)

14.4 g/kWh* (ships built from 2011 on) (Tier 2)

3.4 g/kWh* (ships built from 2016 on) (Tier 3)


F -2

Low & Moderate Scenarios Assumes that all of the April 2008 regulations are implemented, and that a SOx Emission Control Area (SECA) and a NOx Emission Control Area (NECA) are formed on the B.C. coast.

High Scenario Assumes that these newly adopted regulations are not implemented. This line is effectively unchanged from the previous high case. These modeling assumptions are presented in more detail in the Table F.2: Table F.2: Modelling Assumption

LOW CASE MODERATE CASE HIGH CASE Activity Growth Rate Low Moderate High

Sulphur Emission Control Area Limits (% Fuel Sulphur Content)

0.1% (2015+)* None

Global Cap Sulphur Cap (% Fuel Sulphur Content)

Not applicable

4.5%

NOx Emission Limits for New Engines

17 g/kW (2000+) (Tier 1) 14.4 g/kW (2011+) (Tier 2) 3.4 g/kW (2016+) (Tier 3)

17 g/kW (2000+)

NOx Emission Limits for Existing (1990-1999 model year) Engines

17 g/kW (2015+) (Tier 1) None

*SECA limits are 1.5%S currently, to be lowered to 1% in 2010 and 0.1% in 2015. The assumption made is that there is not sufficient time to get a SECA in place by 2010, therefore, only the 2015 SECA level is modeled.

F.3 Results The following graphs depict the three new scenarios, as well as the previous moderate scenario included in the 2005 emission inventory (Metro Vancouver, 2007).


F -3

Figure F.1: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on NOx Emissions From Ships Calling LFV

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year

Tonn

es p

er y

ear

Moderate Case (moderate growth rate, MEPC NOx stds & NECA) Low Case (low growth, MEPC NOx stds & NECA)Previous Moderate Case (moderate growth rate, no action, Tier I only) High Case (High growth, no action, Tier I only)


Low

High

Moderate

Previous Moderate

Figure F.2: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on SOx Emissions From Ships Calling LFV

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Tonn

es p

er y

ear

Moderate Case (moderate growth, 0.1%S SECA (2015)) Low Case (low growth, 0.1%S SECA (2015))

Previous Moderate Case (moderate growth, 4.5%S global cap) High Case (high growth, 4.5%S global cap)


Low

High

Moderate

Previous Moderate


F -4

Figure F.3: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on Particulate Emissions From Ships Calling LFV

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Moderate Case (moderate growth, 0.1%S SECA (2015)) Low Case (low growth, 0.1%S SECA (2015))

Previous Moderate Case (moderate growth, 4.5%S global cap) High Case (high growth, 4.5%S global cap)


Low

High

Moderate

Previous Moderate

Tonnes per year

Figure F.4: Expected Effect of April 2008 MEPC Recommendation on Smog Forming Pollutants From Ships Calling LFV

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Tonn

es p

er y

ear

Moderate Case (moderate growth, MEPC NOx stds & NECA, 0.1%S SECA (2015)) Low Case (low growth, MEPC NOx stds & NECA, 01%S SECA (2015))

Previous Moderate Case (moderate growth, no SECA, no new MEPC stds) High Case (high growth, no SECA, no new MEPC stds)


Low

High

Moderate

Previous Moderate


F -5

F.4 Regional Implications Ocean-going vessels are a significant contributor to total emissions in the international Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) region; therefore, emissions reductions associated with new MEPC regulations will affect total emissions of certain pollutants in the airshed. The following graphs show total regional emissions for each of the four key pollutants (NOx, SOx, particulates and smog-forming pollutants) under a moderate growth scenario. The dashed boxes represent the emissions reductions associated with the April 2008 MEPC recommendations from the total emissions presented previously in the 2005 emission inventory report (Metro Vancouver, 2007). The remaining marine vessel emissions (including ocean-going vessels, harbour craft and ferries) are shown in dark blue. Figure F.5: Forecast NOx Emissions by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

NO

x (k

iloto

nnes

/ yr

)

All Other Sources Marine Vessels Reductions due to MEPC regulations


F -6

Figure F.6: Forecast SOx Emissions by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations

-

5

10

15

20

25

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

SOx

(kilo

tonn

es /

yr)

All Other sources Marine Vessels Reductions due to MEPC regulations

Figure F.7: Forecast Fine Particulate (PM2.5) Emissions by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

All Other Sources Marine Reductions due to MEPC regulations

PM

2.5 e

xclu

ding

road

dus

t (ki

loto

nnes

/ yr

)


F -7

Figure F.8: Forecast Smog-Forming Pollutants by Source in LFV Region under April 2008 MEPC Recommendations

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Sm

og-F

orm

ing

Pol

luta

nts

(kilo

tonn

es /

yr All Other Sources Marine Vessels Reductions due to MEPC regulations

Conclusions • In comparing our new moderate scenario to our previous moderate scenario:

NOx emissions are 62% less in the new scenario by 2030; SOx emissions are 96% less in the new scenario by 2030; Particulate emissions are 76% less in the new scenario by 2030; and Smog-forming pollutant emissions are 77% less in the new scenario by 2030.

• SOx emissions from entire LFV region are significantly affected by new international regulations.

Regional emissions of NOx and PM2.5 are impacted, but much less significantly.


G -1

Appendix G – 2005 Emission Inventory for Whatcom County, USA The 2005 Whatcom County emission inventory was compiled under contract (RWDI, 2007b), with the backcast/forecast portion prepared by Metro Vancouver.

G.1 Results and Methodology The 2005 Whatcom County emission inventory was compiled under contract (RWDI, 2007b). The results and the methodology details of that work can be found in RWDI’s report “Whatcom County Air Emission Inventory for the year 2005.”

G.2 Backcast/Forecast Methodology

G.2.1 Point Sources No backcasting of point sources were done for the years 1990, 1995 & 2000 due to the lack of process specific data/previous methodology used. The following highlights the methodology used for forecasting specific point source in Whatcom County: • Electric Power Generation: (Encogen Northwest Cogeneration Plant, Puget Sound Energy –

Whitehorn Station, Sumas Cogeneration Company & Tenaska Washington Partners, L.P.) – Forecasting based on data provided by US Energy Information Administration: Annual Energy Outlook 2007 which predicts annual electric power generation for the Northwest Power Pool Area to the year 2030.

• Paper and Allied Products: (Georgia Pacific West) – No forecasting for this facility as Georgia

Pacific formally announced that this facility will cease operation by the end of 2007. • Petroleum Products: (BP West Coast Products & Conoco Philips Company) – Forecasted

emissions to be equal to their 2005 emission estimates with the assumption that these facilities are currently at, or near their maximum permitted emission levels and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future (also assumed no major ERM’s).

• Primary Metal Industries: (Alcoa Primary Metals - Intalco) – Forecasted emissions to be equal to

their 2005 emission estimates with the assumption that Intalco is currently at, or near their maximum permitted emission levels and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future (also assumed no major ERM’s).

• Wood Products Industry: (Canfor USA) – Forecasting based on Washington State employment

forecasts for the Wood Products Industry. • Misc. Point Sources:

Darigold – Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for the Foods Industry. Fairhaven Shipyard - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for Other

Transportation Equipment. Heath Tecna Inc. - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for Aerospace

Products and Parts.


G -2

Western Washington University - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for Education and Health Services.

Whatcom Builders – Forecasting based on Whatcom population projections provided by the Office of Financial Management – Sate of Washington.

IKO Pacific Inc. - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for Paper and Paper Products.

Northwest Pipeline Corp. – Sumas Station - Forecasting based on U.S. Energy Information Administration –Delivered Energy Consumption (pipeline natural gas) forecasts through to 2030 – Pacific Region.

Ershigs Inc. - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for the Plastics and Rubber Products Industry.

MAAX Hydroswirl - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for the Plastics and Rubber Products Industry.

Oceanus Plastics - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for Other Transportation Equipment.

Sea Sport Boats Inc. - Forecasting based on Washington State employment forecasts for Other Transportation Equipment.

G.2.2 Area Sources The growth surrogates used to backcast and forecast area source emissions in Whatcom County are summarized in Table G.2.2.1. Table G.2.2.1: Growth Surrogates for Backcasting and Forecasting Whatcom County Area Sources Area Sources Description Backcast Forecast Moderate

Scenario Forecast Hi/Lo

Scenarios Agricultural Wind Erosion Whatcom Human

Population Whatcom Human

Population Forecast Whatcom Hi-Lo

Population Forecast Fertilizer

Application Whatcom Human

Population Whatcom Human

Population Forecast Remain constant

Pesticides Applied

Whatcom Human Population

Whatcom Human Population Forecast

Remain constant

Cattle Used historical agricultural census data and added dairy cattle

Population Forecast Per Historical Trend

Remain constant

Wildlife Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory

Unchanged from 2005 Population

Remain constant

Pigs Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Remain constant

Sheep Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Remain constant

Poultry Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Remain constant

Horses Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Remain constant


Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Remain constant


G -3

Area Sources Description Backcast Forecast Moderate Scenario

Forecast Hi/Lo Scenarios

Burning Agricultural Burning


Unchanged from 2005. Unchanged from 2005

Forest Fires Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory

Per Averaged Historical Acreage

Burned

Used historical Acerage Burned to set

the Hi - Lo values Prescribed

Burning Unchanged from 2000

Emission Inventory Unchanged from 2005 Unchanged from 2005

Incineration Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Whatcom Hi-Lo Population Forecast

Residential Open Burning


Housing Unit Forecast Per Historical Trend

Remain constant

Landclearing Unchanged from 2005 Emission Inventory

Unchanged from 2005. Remain constant

Vehicle Fires Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Structural Fires Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Gasoline Marketing

Truck Loading Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Trucks In Transit




Marine in Transit




Railcar Loading Whatcom Human Population



Barge & Ship Loading




External Floating Roof

Tanks




Internal Floating Roof Tanks




Fixed Roof Tanks




Automobile Service Stations




Bulk Cardlock/Air/Marine Refueling




Landfills

Municipal & Industrial Landfills

Estimated Using LANDGEM model and

Average waste-in-place

Estimated Using LANDGEM model and

Average waste-in-place

Remain constant

Natural Sources

Biogenics Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory

Unchanged from 2005 Remain constant


G -4



Natural Sources

Marine Aerosol Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Solvent Evaporation

Consumer Products




Dry Cleaning Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Glues, Adhesives and

Sealants




Metal Degreasing




Architectural Surface Coating




Automotive Refinish




Industrial Coatings




Pesticides Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Printing Inks Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Other Commercial and

Industrial Applications




Space Heating

Residential - N.G.




Residential -

Fuel Oil Unchanged from 2000

Emission Inventory Whatcom Human

Population Forecast Whatcom Hi-Lo

Population Forecast Residential -

Light Petroleum Gas




Residential - Wood




Commercial/Institutional - N.G.




Commercial/Institutional - Fuel

Oil




Commercial/Institutional - Propane




Construction and Demolition





G -5



Cutback Asphalt Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Domestic Animals




Ducks Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory


Human Perspiration




Human Breath Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Refrigerants Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Tobacco Smoke Unchanged from 2000 Emission Inventory



Meat Cooking, Frying




Meat Cooking, Charbroiling




Meat Cooking, BBQ




Natural Gas Distribution




G.2.3 Mobile Sources

G.2.3.1 On-Road No backcasting of on-road sources were done for the years 1990, 1995 & 2000. The forecasting for the moderate scenario was based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The high and low scenario VMT forecasts were adjusted by the projected high and low vehicle population forecasts for Washington State. Table G.2.3.1.2 summarizes the methodology used. Table G.2.3.1.1: Growth Surrogates for Forecasting Whatcom County On-Road Sources Forecast Low Moderate High Growth Rate

Moderate VMT forecast adjusted by low pop growth to 2030a

VMT forecast to 2020 b

Moderate VMT forecast adjusted by high pop growth to 2030a

CAC Regs Mobile 6.2 defaults GHG Regs California Tailpipe Stds (2009-2016) No change in fuel consumption rates a Office of Financial Management: Washington State County Growth Management Population Projections: 2000 to 2030 (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/default.asp) b Personal communication with Sally Otterson, Washington Department of Ecology


G -6

G.2.3.2 Ocean – Going Vessels The backcasting and forecasting for bulk, container, cruise, general cargo, motor carriers, and miscellaneous ocean-going vessels, was completed using the same methodology as that used in the Lower Fraser Valley (see section C.4.1), and is summarized in Tables G.2.3.2.1 & G.2.3.2.2. Table G.2.3.2.1: Ocean–Going Vessels Forecast Methodology Forecast Low Moderate High Tankers No changec All Other Vessel Types Same growth rate as B.C. c Used same growth rate as point source refineries. Table G.2.3.2.2: Ocean–Going Vessels Backcast Methodology Tankers Number of tanker trips in Whatcomd All Other Vessel Types

Same growth rate as B.C.

d U.S. ACE Number of Tanker Trips to Whatcom from Levelton 2000 report, adjusted against 2005 values.

G.2.3.3 All Other Commercial Vessels Whatcom county human population was used as a growth surrogate to forecast the emissions of all non ocean-going vessels in Whatcom County. The high and low scenarios were adjusted for high and low Whatcom County human growth projections.

G.2.3.4 Aircraft Aircraft emission for the medium, high and low scenario were based on projected jet fuel demand in Washington State9.

G.2.3.5 Railway Railway emissions for the medium, high and low scenarios were based on projected fuel demand by the freight and passenger rail industry in Washington State10.

G.2.3.6 Other Non-Road Engines The NONROAD2005 model was used project future year emissions and backcast past year emissions for the moderate scenario. The high and low emission scenarios were obtained by adjusting the moderate scenario estimates with projected high and low human population in Whatcom County.

9 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/c500050531a.htm, Updated on 8/29/2007, Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

10 Report #: DOE/EIA-0383(2007)


G -7

References – 2005 Emission Inventory for Whatcom County, USA Levelton. 2002, “Whatcom County Air Emission Inventory for the Year 2000.” Levelton. 2003, “Backcast and Forecast for Year 2000 – Whatcom County Emission Inventory.” RWDI. 2007b, “Whatcom County Air Emission Inventory for the year 2005.” e004911933