Air Dispersion Modelling Report - Grizzly Oil Sands · 2013-08-14 · dispersion modelling approach, model input data, and the dispersion modelling results. 1.2 Ambient Air Quality

Appendix 3

Air Dispersion Modelling Report

Air Quality Assessment

for the Grizzly Oil Sands ULC

Thickwood Hills SAGD Project

Prepared for:

Grizzly Oil Sands ULC

Prepared by:

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd.

Suite 325, 1925 – 18th Avenue NE

Calgary, Alberta

T2E 7T8

November 2012

File # 11-101

6111 91 Street

Edmonton, AB T6E 6V6

tel: 780.496.9048

fax: 780.496.9049

Suite 325, 1925 18 Avenue NE

Calgary, AB T2E 7T8

tel: 403.592.6180

fax: 403.283.2647

#106, 10920 84 Avenue

Grande Prairie, AB T8X 6H2

tel: 780.357.5500

fax: 780.357.5501

10208 Centennial Drive

Fort McMurray, AB T9H 1Y5

tel: 780.743.4290

fax: 780.715.1164

toll free: 888.722.2563

www.mems.ca


Thickwood Hills SAGD Project Air Quality Assessment

November 2012

Page i 11-101

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ iv

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

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Ambient Air Quality Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Relationship between NOX and NO2 ....................................................................................... 2

1.3 Surrounding Terrain........................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 EMISSIONS DATA............................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Emissions ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Regional Emissions............................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Dispersion Modelling Approach...................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Model Parameters ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Meteorological Data................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.3 Background Concentration....................................................................................................... 7

3.0 DISPERSION MODEL PREDICTIONS............................................................................................ 8

3.1 SO2......................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 NO2........................................................................................................................................................ 9

3.3 PM2.5 .................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.4 CO ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.5 Non-Routine and Upset Conditions Assessment......................................................................... 11

4.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................... 14

5.0 CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 15

6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 16



November 2012

Page ii 11-101

List of Tables

Page

Table 1.2.1 Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Canada Wide Standards............................. 2

Table 2.1.1 Grizzly Thickwood Stack and Emission Parameters From Continuous Sources

Under Normal Operating Conditions..................................................................................... 4

Table 2.1.2 Building Information Used to Evaluate Downwash............................................................. 5

Table 2.3.1 Ambient Background Concentrations of Modelled Compounds ....................................... 8

Table 3.1.1 Summary of Ground-Level Predicted SO2 Concentrations(g/m3) at Property

Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations.......................................................... 9

Table 3.2.1 Summary of Ground-Level Predicted NO2 Concentrations(g/m3) at Property

Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations (OLM Method)............................ 10


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations (TCM Method) ............................ 10

Table 3.3.1 Summary of Ground-Level Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations(g/m3) at Property

Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations........................................................ 11

Table 3.4.1 Summary of Ground-Level Predicted CO Concentrations(g/m3) at Property

Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations........................................................ 11

Table 3.5.1 Stack and Emission Parameters for the Upset Flaring Scenario........................................ 12


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Upset Conditions .......................................................... 14


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Upset Conditions (OLM Method)............................... 14

List of Figures

Figure 1.1-1 Project Location Map

Figure 2.1-1 Central Processing Facility Plot Plan

Figure 2.3-1 Wind Rose from CALMET model Output at the Project Site, 2002 to 2006

Figure 3.1-1 Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average SO2 Concentrations (g/m3)

Figure 3.1-2 Predicted 99.7th Percentile 24-Hour Average SO2 Concentrations (g/m3)

Figure 3.1-3 Predicted Maximum 30-Day Average SO2 Concentrations (g/m3)

Figure 3.1-4 Predicted Annual Average SO2 Concentrations (g/m3)

Figure 3.2-1 Predicted 99.9th Percentile Hourly Average NO2 Concentrations (g/m3)

Figure 3.2-2 Predicted Annual Average NO2 Concentrations (g/m3)



November 2012

Page iii 11-101

List of Appendices

Appendix A Air Quality Modelling Settings



November 2012

Page iv 11-101

Executive Summary

Grizzly Oil Sands ULC (Grizzly) retained Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. (MEMS) to conduct air

dispersion modelling in support of Grizzly’s Application for its proposed Thickwood Thermal Project

(the Project). The Project will use steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and cyclic steam

stimulation (CSS) technology to recover bitumen, and it is expected that the Project will produce 1900

m3/day (12,000 bpd) at peak capacity. During the operation of the Project, combustion products such

as sulphur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and carbon

monoxide (CO) are vented to the atmosphere. These contaminants may be harmful to human health

at high ambient ground-level concentrations and, as such, emissions should not result in exceedances

of Alberta ambient air quality objectives (AAAQOs). The total emissions from the Project are

predicted to be 1.05 t/d for SO2, 0.42 t/d for NOX, 0.05 t/d for PM2.5 and 0.75 t/d for CO.

MEMS conducted dispersion modelling in accordance with Alberta Environment and Sustainable

Resource Development’s (ESRD) Air Quality Model Guideline (ESRD 2009). Dispersion modelling was

conducted with the CALPUFF model. The meteorological data was processed using CALMET. Five

years (2002 to 2006) of the MM5 regional meteorological dataset provided by ESRD were used as the

meteorological data source.

Modelling of combustion products SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and CO under typical operating conditions was

undertaken as well as modelling under upset conditions. The Air Quality Model Guideline (ESRD 2009)

requires that all significant emission sources within 5 km of the Project be identified and included in

the modelling. As no industrial facilities are located within 5 km of the Project, no other sources

besides those belonging to the Project were included in the dispersion modelling. Ambient

background concentrations based on measurements taken from the Fort McKay and the Fort

McMurray Athabasca Valley monitoring stations were also added to the predictions, as per ESRD

guidance (ESRD 2009).

The results of dispersion modelling for typical operations showed that ground-level predicted

concentrations for SO2, NO2, CO and PM2.5 were below AAAQOs. The predicted SO2 and NO2

concentrations for the upset scenario were also below the AAAQOs. The results conclude that the

operation of the Project is not expected to compromise air quality.



November 2012

Page 1 11-101

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Grizzly Oil Sands ULC. (Grizzly) is applying for a permit to develop an in-situ thermal project facility

in the Athabasca Oil Sands region. The proposed Thickwood Project (the “Project”) involves the

drilling of SAGD and CSS horizontal wells and the construction of a plant site consisting of two

modular central processing facilities each with a design capacity of 950 m3/day (6,000 bopd). The CPF

for the Project will be located in Section 23, Township 90, Range 15, W4M (Figure 1.1-1).

The CPF consists of two high pressure steam boilers (87 MW output) and two 5.9 MW combustion

turbine generators to produce electricity. The high pressure boilers are water-tube drum type boilers

and will be fuelled by produced gas. The power turbines will be fuelled by natural gas.

Operations at the plant will result in emissions to the atmosphere. These emissions include

combustion products such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter

(PM2.5) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). These contaminants may be harmful to human health at

sufficiently high ambient ground-level concentrations which should not exceed Alberta ambient air

quality objectives (AAAQO).

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. (MEMS) was retained by Grizzly to provide a dispersion modelling

assessment of NO2, SO2, CO and PM2.5 emissions associated with the expected operations of the

Project based on the most recent design information for the CPF. The modelling was executed

following the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) dispersion

modelling guidance document Air Quality Model Guideline (ESRD 2009). The CALMET and CALPUFF

models were used in the air quality assessment. This report outlines the assumptions, methodologies,

dispersion modelling approach, model input data, and the dispersion modelling results.

1.2 Ambient Air Quality Objectives

The AAAQOs for the compounds emitted by the Project are presented in Table 1.2.1. The compounds

relevant to the facility include NO2, SO2, CO and PM2.5. The objectives refer to averaging periods

ranging from one hour to one year.



November 2012

Page 2 11-101

Table 1.2.1 Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Canada Wide Standards

Parameter PeriodAlberta Objectives(a)

Canada Wide

Standards(b)

[µg/m3] [µg/m3]

SO2

30-day 30 –

Annual 20 –

24-hour 125 –

1-hour 450 –

NO2

Annual 45 –

1-hour 300 –

CO8-hour 6,000 –

1-hour 15,000 –

PM2.5

24-hour 30 30(c)

1-hour 80(d) –

(a) Source: ESRD (2011).(b) Source: CCME (2000).(c) 98th percentile.(d) Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guideline (AAAQG).

– No air quality standard or guideline for this averaging period/parameter.

1.2.1 Relationship between NOX and NO2

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are comprised of nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. High temperature combustion

processes primarily produce NO that in turn can be converted to NO2 in the atmosphere through

reactions with tropospheric ozone:

NO + O3 → NO2 + O2

Conversion of NOX to NO2 is estimated using the ESRD (2009) recommended Ozone Limiting Method

(OLM). This method states that if the ambient ozone concentration ([O3]) is greater than 90% of the

predicted NOX, then it is assumed that all the NOX is converted to NO2. Otherwise, the NO2

concentration is equal to the sum of the ozone and 10% of the predicted NOX concentration. That is:

If [O3] > 0.9 [NOX], then [NO2] = [NOX]

Otherwise, [NO2] = [O3] + 0.1 [NOX]



November 2012

Page 3 11-101

The following default screening values for [O3] for rural locations, as recommended by ESRD (2009),

can be used:

0.050 ppm (98.1 μg/m3) for hourly average;

0.040 ppm (78.5 μg/m3) for daily average; and

0.035 ppm (68.7 μg/m3) for annual average.

For the purpose of estimating ambient NO2 concentrations, emissions were first modeled as NOx and

dispersed without chemical transformation using CALPUFF. Then, NOX concentrations were

converted to NO2 using the OLM.

ESRD modelling guidelines state that if the OLM is used for NOX conversion, the NO2 assuming 100%

NOX conversion (the Total Conversion Method) must also be presented. NO2 concentrations using

both methods are reported in Section 3.

1.3 Surrounding Terrain

The Project is located at an elevation of approximately 478 m above sea level (ASL). The terrain

surrounding the Project is predominantly flat. There is a slight and gradual descent in terrain

towards the MacKay River valley, which runs south-southeast to north-northwest approximately

3 km north and west of the proposed plant site, with a maximum elevation decrease of approximately

8 m per 1,000 m distance from the plant. The terrain also rises gently in the southeast direction

towards Thickwood Hills at a rate of approximately 2 m per 1,000 m distance. Most of the

surrounding lands are lowlands.

2.0 EMISSIONS DATA

2.1 Project Emissions

The stack and emission parameters for the four continuous emission sources (two boilers and two

power turbines) operating at the Project under typical conditions are shown in Table 2.1.1. The SO2

emission rate from the boilers is based on expected fuel gas sulphur content of 0.08% by volume.

NOX and CO emission rates from the boilers and power turbines are based on equipment vendor

estimates. The emission rates for PM2.5 from the boilers and power turbines are based on fuel

consumption rates and U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors (Sections 1.4 and 3.1, respectively). Vapours

displaced during truck loading are directed to a flare. The truck load-out flare is an intermittent

source of emissions but was modelled continuously as a conservative assumption. NOX, CO and

PM2.5 emissions for the truck load-out flare were calculated using U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors

(Section 1.4).



November 2012

Page 4 11-101

Table 2.1.1 Grizzly Thickwood Stack and Emission Parameters From Continuous Sources

Under Normal Operating Conditions

Source

Description

UTM Coordinates

(m)Stack

Height

(m)

Stack

Diameter

(m)

Exit

Velocity

(m/s)

Exit

Temp

(K)

Emissions (t/d)

Easting Northing SO2 NOX CO PM2.5

Boiler (Plant 1) 422640 6297777 28.0 1.8 18.4 444 0.49 0.13 0.34 0.012

Boiler (Plant 2) 422730 6297777 28.0 1.8 18.4 444 0.49 0.13 0.34 0.012

Power Turbine

(Plant 1)422582 6297784 18.0 1.0 11.0 453 0.00 0.08 0.034 0.012

Power Turbine

(Plant 2)422672 6297784 18.0 1.0 11.0 453 0.00 0.08 0.034 0.012

Truck Loading

Flare422616 6297574 12.0 0.15 3.4 1273 0.061 0.003 0.001 0.0003

Flare Stack 1 422607 6297880 28.0 0.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Flare Stack 2 422667 6297880 28.0 0.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Emission Totals 1.05 0.42 0.75 0.05

N/A – Not applicable. The flare stacks are not continuous sources of emissions, with the exception of the pilot flame, which has

negligible emissions.

NOX emission rates for the boilers meet the ESRD Interim NOX Guidelines (ESRD 2007) for produced

gas combustion, and the CCME National Emissions Guidelines (CCME 1998), as per the calculation

below.

Input Fuelling Rate of Steam Boiler = 360.3 GJ/h

NOX Emission Intensity of boiler = (0.13 t/d ÷ 24 hours/d x 1,000,000 g/t ÷ 360.3 GJ/hour)

= 15.0 g/GJi

Corresponding ESRD Interim NOX Emission Limit for produced gas = 40 g/GJi

and,

CCME NOX Emission Limit for Boilers >105 GJ/h input capacity = 40 g/GJi

where,

GJi = energy input into the steam boiler in gigajoules

Thus, the boilers meet the ESRD Interim NOX Guidelines and CCME NOX Guideline.



November 2012

Page 5 11-101

The generation of downwash by buildings located within the proposed facility compound was

considered. Figure 2.1-1 presents the layout of the buildings, tanks and stacks relative to the Project

boundary. Table 2.1.2 presents the dimensions of all the buildings and tanks that were included in

the modelling.

Table 2.1.2 Building Information Used to Evaluate Downwash

BuildingLength

(m)

Width

(m)

Height

(m)

Office Complex 25.0 18.5 6.1

Maintenance Building 24.3 17.8 6.1

Central Processing Facility 1 85.2 55.4 8.4

Central Processing Facility 2 73.3 52.6 8.4

Phase 1 Tanks (10 tanks total) 7.0 7.0 12.2

Phase 2 Tanks (10 tanks total) 7.0 7.0 12.2

Phase 2 Make-Up Water Tanks (4 tanks total) 21.3 21.3 12.2

Lab 9.9 6.0 6.1

2.2 Regional Emissions

The Air Quality Model Guideline (ESRD 2009) requires that all significant emission sources within 5 km

of the Project be identified and included in the modelling. There are no facilities located within this

distance. The closest approved industrial facility to the Project is the Southern Pacific STP McKay

Thermal Project, which is located 7.2 km NNE of the Project. As such, no other emission sources are

included in the modelling.

2.3 Dispersion Modelling Approach

2.3.1 Model Parameters

Dispersion modelling was conducted with the CALPUFF model, which is one of the models

recommended in the Air Quality Model Guideline (ESRD 2009). The model origin (422640, 6297777)

was centred on the Project’s boiler stack (Plant 1) and the following receptor grids were considered as

per the latest ESRD model guidelines:

Grid A = 20 x 20 km, 1,000 m spacing centred on model origin;

Grid B = 16 x 16 km, 500 m spacing;

Grid C = 7.5 x 7.5 km, 250 m spacing;



November 2012

Page 6 11-101

Grid D = 1.5 x 1.5 km, 50 m spacing;

Grid E = 600 x 600 m, 20 m spacing;

along Project boundary line with 20 m spacing between receptors and;

Grid F = 600 x 600 m with 20 m spacing, centred on the location of maximum predicted

concentration from previous runs.

Receptors located within the plant site boundary were removed since the AAAQO typically applies

only to areas where public access is not restricted.

2.3.2 Meteorological Data

The CALMET modeling domain is 41 km by 41 km in size, which is larger than the computation

domain (20 km x 20 km) to reduce the potential for “edge effects” (ESRD 2009). The UTM coordinates

(NAD 83, Zone 12) for the modelling domain range from 402.1 km to 443.1 km easting, and 6,278 km

to 6,319 km northing (latitude 56.6 to 57.0 and longitude 111.9 to 112.6). Horizontal grid cells

1 km x 1 km were adopted for the CALMET modelling. This combination of grid size and number of

cells was chosen to minimize modelling run time while still capturing major terrain features that will

influence wind flow patterns.

Five years (2002 to 2006) of the MM5 regional meteorological dataset provided by ESRD were used as

the meteorological data source. No surface stations are located within the modelling domain and as

such no surface observations were added directly into the model.

Figure 2.3-1 shows a wind rose with the annual frequency of hourly-averaged wind speeds versus

wind direction at the Project site. The wind rose shows that winds from the southwest west to west

directions occur most frequently

Terrain data were obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM -3 Arc Second ~ 90 m)

website. The terrain heights for meteorological grid points, receptors, and sources are processed

through the TERREL CALMET pre-processor program.

To determine meteorological parameters in the boundary layer, the CALMET model requires a

physical description of the ground surface. The geophysical parameters used for this assessment

include land use category, terrain elevation, roughness length, albedo, Bowen ratio, surface heat flux

parameter, anthropogenic heat flux and leaf area index (LAI). Detailed values for all CALMET model

parameters are presented in Appendix A. Values for all land use parameters except land use category

and elevation were determined for the following periods:

Winter – January 1 to March 31 and November 15 to December 31



November 2012

Page 7 11-101

Spring – April 1 to June 14

Summer – June 15 to August 31

Fall – September 1 to November 14

2.3.3 Background Concentration

According to guidance from ESRD (2009), appropriate contaminant concentrations due to natural

sources, nearby sources, and unidentified, possibly distant sources are to be used as background to be

added on top of predicted values. For this assessment, SO2, NO2 and PM2.5 background

concentrations were obtained from measurement data collected at the Fort McKay air quality

monitoring station, which is the nearest air quality monitoring station to the Project.

CO background concentrations were obtained from measurements at the Fort McMurray air quality

monitoring station, the closest station to the Project that collected ambient CO measurements. The

station is located in a heavily industrialized area, which would result in higher background

concentrations than would be reasonably expected in the vicinity of the Project, which is situated in a

more rural setting.

For each of these measured contaminants, the 90th percentile value of all its hourly measurements was

used as the background concentration for hourly, 8-hour, and daily predictions. For the 30-day and

annual averaging periods, the average of all hourly measurements was used as the background

concentration. This method of determining background concentrations complies with the Air Quality

Model Guideline (ESRD 2009) for refined or advanced assessments. A summary of the background

values used in this assessment is provided in Table 2.3.1.

Measurements at the two stations are considered to over-state backgrounds. For CO, measurements

are from an urban/industrial site. PM2.5 measurements include the effects of natural phenomena like

forest fires, which increase background values.



November 2012

Page 8 11-101

Table 2.3.1 Ambient Background Concentrations of Modelled Compounds

CompoundsHourly

(µg/m3)

8-Hour

(µg/m3)

24-Hour

(µg/m3)

30-Day

(µg/m3)

Annual

(µg/m3)Data Source

SO2 7.9 N/A 9.2 3.5 3.5Ft. McKay Station

(Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2011)

NO2 36 N/A N/A N/A 13Ft. McKay Station

(Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2011)

PM2.5 11 N/A 9.6 N/A N/AFt. McKay Station

(Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2011)

CO 344 344 N/A N/A N/AFort McMurray Station

(Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2011)

N/A – Not assessed as there are no AAAQOs for these chemicals at the specified averaging period.

3.0 DISPERSION MODEL PREDICTIONS

Dispersion model predictions for SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and CO are provided for each of the five years that

was modelled. Also, for each chemical and for each year, the overall maximum prediction is

provided, as well as the maximum concentration predicted along the Project’s property boundary

line. Results are also presented in the form of concentration contours (isopleths). Isopleths are

presented only for the SO2 and NO2 predictions, as they are the only chemical emitted by the Project

in any significant quantities.

3.1 SO2

The CALPUFF modelling predictions for SO2 from the operation of the Project are listed in Table 3.1.1.

The results show that all SO2 predictions at the Project property boundary line, as well as at the

overall maximum point of impingement (MPOI), are below the AAAQO. All predictions presented in

this section include both natural and industrial background concentrations.

SO2 modelling results are also presented in Figures 3.1-1 to 3.1-4 in the form of SO2 concentration

contours (isopleths) for the 99.9th percentile hourly, 99.7th percentile 24-hour, maximum 30-day, and

average annual predicted concentrations. The isopleths in the figures represent predicted overall

maximum concentrations for the entire five year period. For example, the one-hour 99.9th percentile

isopleths figure shows the highest hourly prediction for each receptor during the five year period

between 2002 and 2006, after the top 8 hourly predictions (9th highest per year is the 99.9th percentile

value) for each individual year has been removed from consideration.



November 2012

Page 9 11-101


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations

Year / Averaging Period

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

99.9th 1-h Predictions (includes

industrial & natural background)284 294 224 231 246 248 263 275 237 239

AAAQO 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450



AAAQO 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

Max. 30-Day Predictions (includes


AAAQO 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Annual Predictions (includes

industrial & natural background)12 12 9.4 9.4 11 11 11 11 9.6 9.6

AAAQO 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

3.2 NO2

The CALPUFF modelling predictions for NO2 from the operation of the Project are listed in

Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. The results show that all NO2 predictions at the Project property boundary line,

as well as at the overall MPOI, are below the AAAQO. ESRD (2009) specifies that, if the ozone

limiting method (OLM) is used to determine the relationship between NO2 and NOX, then the results

using the total conversion method (TCM), which assumes all the NOX is converted to NO2, must also

be reported. The NO2 predictions using the OLM are shown in Table 3.2.1. The results using the

TCM are shown in Table 3.2.2. Although the TCM is considered a conservative screening approach

and it is expected to produce gross overestimations of NO2 concentrations, especially near emission

sources, the results from the TCM are still below the AAAQO for NO2. All predictions presented in

this section include both natural and industrial background concentrations.

Predictions of NO2 (obtained by OLM) are also presented in the form of NO2 isopleths in Figures 3.2-1

and 3.2-2. The figures show the 99.9th percentile hourly and average annual predicted concentrations.



November 2012

Page 10 11-101


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations (OLM Method)


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

99.9th 1h Predictions (includes


AAAQO 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300



AAAQO 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Typical Operations (TCM Method)


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI



AAAQO 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300



AAAQO 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

3.3 PM2.5

The CALPUFF modelling predictions for PM2.5 from the operation of the Project are listed in

Table 3.3.1. The results show that all PM2.5 predictions at the Project property boundary line as well as

at the overall MPOI are below the AAAQO (or guideline in the case of 1-hour predictions). No

predictions are provided for the annual averaging period as there is no annual AAAQO for PM2.5.



November 2012

Page 11 11-101

Table 3.3.1 Summary of Ground-Level Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations(g/m3) at Property



2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI



AAAQG* 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

99.7th 24h Prediction s (includes


AAAQO 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

* – indicates the one-hour AAAQG for PM2.5 (ESRD 2011) is a guideline and not a compliance objective.

3.4 CO

The CALPUFF modelling predictions for CO from the operation of the Project are listed in Table 3.4.1.

The results show that all CO predictions at the Project property boundary line as well as at the overall

MPOI are well below the AAAQO. Only the 99.9th percentile hourly and maximum 8-hour

predictions are presented here as there are no AAAQOs for any other averaging periods.

Table 3.4.1 Summary of Ground-Level Predicted CO Concentrations(g/m3) at Property



2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI



AAAQO 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Maximum 8h Predictions (includes


AAAQO 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

3.5 Non-Routine and Upset Conditions Assessment

It is the design intent that the Project emergency flare stacks be used as an emergency system, with

any normal process vents processed through the boilers. Thus, under normal conditions at the

Project, there will be negligible emissions from the use of natural gas by the pilot flame. In case of a

plant upset, emergency flaring will take place resulting in SO2 and NOX emissions to the atmosphere.



November 2012

Page 12 11-101

The following summarizes the air quality predictions from a worst-case upset flaring scenario at the

Project.

The worst-case scenario was identified as a boiler trip which would re-route the fuel gas to the flares.

The total duration of this potential flaring event is conservatively estimated to be no more than 60

minutes, as that duration is more than sufficient for operators to respond and shut down equipment

during this scenario.

Dispersion modelling of SO2 and NOX emissions from the Project resulting from this upset scenario

was performed using CALPUFF with the stack and emission parameters shown in Table 3.5.1. The

SO2 emission rate shown in the table is based on the expected sulphur content of the fuel gas of 0.08%

and the NOX emission rate was calculated using the emission factor from the U.S. EPA AP-42

document for industrial flares. In order to be conservative in this assessment, it was assumed that

both the Plant 1 and Plant 2 boilers trip concurrently, thus bringing about simultaneous flaring at

both emergency flare stacks. It was also assumed all the other sources at Plant 1 and Plant 2 continue

to operate normally during this flaring scenario, which is also a conservative assumption. The

regional background concentration was also included in model predictions.

Table 3.5.1 Stack and Emission Parameters for the Upset Flaring Scenario

Parameter Emergency Flare 1 Emergency Flare 2

Stack Locations (UTM E, UTM N) 422607, 6297880 422667, 6297880

Stack Height (m) 28.0 28.0

Exit Diameter (m) 0.2 0.2

Exit Velocity (m/s) 2.8 2.8

Release Height(a) (m) 36.3 36.3

Pseudo Diameter(b) (m) 11.4 11.4

Max. Flaring Duration (min.) 60.0 60.0

SO2 Emission Rate (g/s) 6.3 6.3

NOx Emission Rate (g/s) 2.9 2.9

Net Heating Value(c) (MJ/m3) 34.2 34.2

Flow Rate(c) (103m3/d) 250 250



November 2012

Page 13 11-101

Table 3.5.1 Stack and Emission Parameters for the Upset Flaring Scenario

Parameter Emergency Flare 1 Emergency Flare 2

Mole Fraction:

H2 0.0000 0.0000

N2 0.0120 0.0120

CO2 0.0211 0.0211

H2S 0.0008 0.0008

H2O 0.0057 0.0057

C1 0.9456 0.9456

C2 0.0009 0.0009

C3 0.0004 0.0004

iC4 0.0018 0.0018

nC4 0.0017 0.0017

iC5 0.0020 0.0020

nC5 0.0024 0.0024

C6+ 0.0030 0.0030

C7+ 0.0026 0.0026

Total 1.0000 1.0000

(a) Effective release height of plume for CALPUFF modelling.(b) Used in modelling to correspond to exit velocity and actual flow rate.(c) At 15°C and 101.3 kPa.

The CALPUFF modelling predictions for SO2 and NO2 from this upset scenario are presented in

Table 3.5.2. and Table 3.5.3, respectively. The predicted 99.9th percentile hourly average ground-level

concentration for SO2 and NO2 at the MPOI for the upset scenario is 294 g/m3 and 149 g/m3,

respectively, which are below their AAAQOs. Under normal operating conditions, the 99.9th

percentile hourly prediction for SO2 and NO2 at the MPOI are also 294 g/m3 and 149 g/m3. This

means that the operation of the flare under this upset scenario will have negligible impact on air

quality.



November 2012

Page 14 11-101


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Upset Conditions


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI



AAAQO 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450


Boundary Line and MPOI Under Upset Conditions (OLM Method)


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI

Plant

BoundaryMPOI



AAAQO 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the predictions for SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and CO, it can be concluded that the operation of the

Project is not expected to compromise air quality. The results of dispersion modelling showed that all

predicted concentrations along the Project’s boundary line and beyond are below the AAAQO.



November 2012

Page 15 11-101

5.0 CLOSURE

This report is based on and limited by the interpretation of data, circumstances, and conditions

available at the time of completion of the work as referenced throughout the report. Millennium EMS

Solutions Ltd. has performed its services in a manner consistent with the standard of care and skill

ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing under similar conditions. Millennium

EMS Solutions Ltd. believes that this information is accurate but cannot guarantee or warrant its

accuracy or completeness including information provided by third parties.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Grizzly Oil Sands ULC and authorized users

for specific application to this project site. The work was conducted in accordance with the scope of

work prepared for this project, verbal and written requests from Grizzly Oil Sands ULC. The report

has been prepared for specific application to this site and is based on the interpretation of emissions

data provided by Grizzly Oil Sands ULC. MEMS expresses no warranty with respect to the accuracy

of the emissions data. Ground-level concentration predictions of the substances assessed in this

report may vary according to updates to the emissions data based on actual stack sampling results.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. does not accept any responsibility for the use of this report, in whole

or in part, for any purpose other than that intended or to any third party for any use whatsoever.

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages if any, suffered by any third

party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. We disclaim any undertaking or

obligation to advise you or modify this report to reflect changes in any environmental practice or fact

after the date hereof which may come or be brought to our attention. We thank you for the

opportunity to be of assistance to Grizzly Oil Sands ULC.

Yours truly,

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Hongying (Lily) Lu, B.Sc. Yan Wong, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Junior Air Quality Specialist Senior Air Quality Engineer



November 2012

Page 16 11-101

6.0 REFERENCES

CASA (Clean Air Strategic Alliance) Data Warehouse.http://www.casadata.org/index.asp. Accessed

September 2012.

CCME. 1998. National Emission Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters. CCME

NOX/VOC Management Plan, N306 Multistakeholders Working Group and Steering

Committee Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, MB: CCME.

CCME. 2000. Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. Endorsed June 5-6, 2000.

Quebec, PQ.

ESRD (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development). 2003. Emergency / Process

Upset Flaring Management: Modelling Guidance (Revised).

ESRD. 2007. Emission Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines

using Gaseous Fuels Based on a Review of Best Available Technology Economically

Achievable (BATEA) Interim Guideline. Final Draft September 2007.

ESRD. 2009. Air Quality Model Guideline. Prepared by A. Idriss and F. Spurrel, Climate Change, Air

and Land Policy Branch, Alberta Environment. Revised May 2009. Edmonton, AB. 51 pp.

ISBN: 978-0-7785-8512-1 (On-line); 978-0-7785-8511-4 (Printed).

ESRD. 2011. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. Issued in April 2011.

U.S EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).1998. Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors AP-42, Chapter 1.4, Fifth Edition.

U.S EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).2000. Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors AP-42, Chapter 3.1, Fifth Edition.

http://www.casadata.org/index.asp



November 2012

11-101

FIGURES

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

MooseLakes

IR 174 B

Dover River

Joslyn Cr.

LegendLake McClelland

Lake

T98

Fort McKay

Birch MountainWildland Prov. Park

SunshineWest Ells

Dover Operating Corp.Dover South

McKay Operating Corp.MacKay River South

IR 166C

IR 166A

Laricina Germain

IR 174A

IR 174

AOSCLeducTAGD

SunshineLegend

Lake

JACOS

Ells River

McKay River

Athabasca River

NamurLake

SunshineThickwood

Horse

Rive

r

House

Rive

r

Christ

ina

River

Riv

er

N. Wabasca Lake

S. Wabasca Lake

Chipewyan River

Dunkirk

Rive

r

SandLake

T86

T87

T88

T90

T91

T92

T93

T94

T95

T97

R10W4M

R13R14R16R17 R15R18R9

R19

T99

T100

R8W4

R21R22R23R24

T85

T84

T83

T82

T81

T80

T96

R12 R11

Bitumount

Tar Island

Ft. McMurray

Mildred Lake

Anzac

Mariana Lake

Wabasca-Desmarais

Chipewyan Lake

Suncor McKayRiver

CNRL Horizon

Shell Jackpine

Suncor Voyageur

Dover Operating Corp.Dover North

Suncor Fort Hills

Suncor Voyageur South

Syncrude Aurora North

SyncrudeMildred Lake

Southern Pacific McKay

McKay Operating Corp.MacKay River North

Total Joslyn North Mine

Shell Pierre River Mine

E-T Energy Poplar Creek

Shell JackpineExpansion

Albian SandsMuskeg River

Dover Operating Corp.Dover Pilot

Suncor Millennium/Steepbank

UTS-Teck Cominco Equinox Mine

BPTerre de Grace

CNRL Horizon

Birch MountainHammerstone

Laricina Saleski

Grizzly Algar Lake

Connacher AlgarConnacher Great Divide

Excelsior Hangingstone Pilot

²³

63

UV881

1.1.1

PS

Nov 9/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:TITLE:

I

Legend

Project Boundary

MapArea

Fort McMurray

Calgary

Edmonton

Grizzly Thickwood Thermal Project

REF: MEMS, 2012

Regional Location of the Project

Ma

pD

ocu

me

nt:

(K:\

Act

ive

Pro

jects

20

11\A

P11

-10

1to

11-1

50

\11

-10

1\F

ina

lD

ocs

\Fig

1.1

.1R

eg

ion

alL

oca

tio

no

fP

roje

ct.m

xd

)

0 15 30

Kilometres

Grizzly Thickwood Project Area

KY

2.1-1


Central Processing Facility Plot Plan

JDC

LL

Nov 8/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

2.3-1


Wind Rose from CALMET Model Output at the Project Site, 2002 to 2006

JDC

LL

Nov 8/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 3.22%

AQ SA

Fort McMurray!(

Calgary

Edmonton

McK

ay

Rive

r

!

R15 R14 W4M

Maximum = 294 µg/m3

T 91

T 90

30

50

20

75

30

20

20

20

20

415000

415000

420000

420000

425000

425000

430000

430000

62

90

00

0

62

90

00

0

62

95

00

0

62

95

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

10

00

0

63

10

00

0

0 2 41

Kilometres

Legend

Study Area

Project Footprint

Plant Boundary

Isopleth Concentration

Topography (masl)

High : 800

Low : 200

IM

ap

Do

cu

me

nt:

(K

:\A

ctive

Pro

jects

20

11

\AP

11

-10

1 t

o 1

1-1

50

\11

-10

1\F

ina

l D

ocs\A

ir Q

ua

lity

\Fig

3.1

-1 P

red

icte

d 9

th H

igh

est

Ho

url

y S

O2

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n.m

xd

)16

/11

/20

12

--

10

:18

:18

AM

3.1-1


Predicted 9th Highest Hourly SO2

Concentration (µg/m3)

JDC

LL

Nov 16/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

AAAQO Guideline:

SO2 = 450 (µg/m3)

AQ SA

Fort McMurray!(

Calgary

Edmonton

McK

ay

Rive

r

!

R15 R14 W4M

Maximum = 90 µg/m3

T 91

T 90

15

12

15

20 30

12

12

12

15

12

415000

415000

420000

420000

425000

425000

430000

430000

62

90

00

0

62

90

00

0

62

95

00

0

62

95

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

10

00

0

63

10

00

0

0 2 41

Kilometres

Legend

Study Area

Project Footprint

Plant Boundary


Topography (masl)

High : 800

Low : 200

IM

ap

Do

cu

me

nt:

(K

:\A

ctive

Pro

jects

20

11

\AP

11

-10

1 t

o 1

1-1

50

\11

-10

1\F

ina

l D

ocs\A

ir Q

ua

lity

\Fig

3.1

-2 P

red

icte

d 2

nd

Hig

he

st

Da

ily S

O2

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n.m

xd

)16

/11

/20

12

--

10

:24

:08

AM

3.1-2


Predicted 2nd Highest Daily SO2


JDC

LL

Nov 16/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

AAAQO Guideline:

SO2 = 125 (µg/m3)

AQ SA

Fort McMurray!(

Calgary

Edmonton

McK

ay

Rive

r

!

R15 R14 W4M

Maximum = 23 µg/m3

T 91

T 90

4

4

5

7

4

4

415000

415000

420000

420000

425000

425000

430000

430000

62

90

00

0

62

90

00

0

62

95

00

0

62

95

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

10

00

0

63

10

00

0

0 2 41

Kilometres

Legend

Study Area

Project Footprint

Plant Boundary


Topography (masl)

High : 800

Low : 200

IM

ap

Do

cu

me

nt:

(K

:\A

ctive

Pro

jects

20

11

\AP

11

-10

1 t

o 1

1-1

50

\11

-10

1\F

ina

l D

ocs\A

ir Q

ua

lity

\Fig

3.1

-3 P

red

icte

d M

axim

um

Mo

nth

ly S

O2

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n.m

xd

)16

/11

/20

12

--

10

:25

:21

AM

3.1-3


Predicted Maximum Monthly SO2


JDC

LL

Nov 16/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

AAAQO Guideline:

SO2 = 30 (µg/m3)

AQ SA

Fort McMurray!(

Calgary

Edmonton

McK

ay

Rive

r

!

R15 R14 W4M

Maximum = 12 µg/m3

T 91

T 90

4

4

5

415000

415000

420000

420000

425000

425000

430000

430000

62

90

00

0

62

90

00

0

62

95

00

0

62

95

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

10

00

0

63

10

00

0

0 2 41

Kilometres

Legend

Study Area

Project Footprint

Plant Boundary


Topography (masl)

High : 800

Low : 200

IM

ap

Do

cu

me

nt:

(K

:\A

ctive

Pro

jects

20

11

\AP

11

-10

1 t

o 1

1-1

50

\11

-10

1\F

ina

l D

ocs\A

ir Q

ua

lity

\Fig

3.1

-4 P

red

icte

d A

nn

ua

l S

O2

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n.m

xd

)16

/11

/20

12

--

10

:26

:46

AM

3.1-4


Predicted Annual SO2


JDC

LL

Nov 16/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

AAAQO Guideline:

SO2 = 20 (µg/m3)

AQ SA

Fort McMurray!(

Calgary

Edmonton

McK

ay

Rive

r

!

R15 R14 W4M

Maximum = 149 µg/m3

T 91

T 90

60

45

60

80

45

45

45

45

415000

415000

420000

420000

425000

425000

430000

430000

62

90

00

0

62

90

00

0

62

95

00

0

62

95

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

10

00

0

63

10

00

0

0 2 41

Kilometres

Legend

Study Area

Project Footprint

Plant Boundary


Topography (masl)

High : 800

Low : 200

IM

ap

Do

cu

me

nt:

(K

:\A

ctive

Pro

jects

20

11

\AP

11

-10

1 t

o 1

1-1

50

\11

-10

1\F

ina

l D

ocs\A

ir Q

ua

lity

\Fig

3.1

-1 P

red

icte

d 9

th H

igh

est

Ho

url

y S

O2

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n.m

xd

)16

/11

/20

12

--

10

:18

:18

AM

3.2-1


Predicted 9th Highest Hourly NO2


JDC

LL

Nov 16/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

AAAQO Guideline:

NO2 = 300 (µg/m3)

AQ SA

Fort McMurray!(

Calgary

Edmonton

McK

ay

Rive

r

!

R15 R14 W4M

Maximum = 27 µg/m3

T 91

T 90

14

16

415000

415000

420000

420000

425000

425000

430000

430000

62

90

00

0

62

90

00

0

62

95

00

0

62

95

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

00

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

05

00

0

63

10

00

0

63

10

00

0

0 2 41

Kilometres

Legend

Study Area

Project Footprint

Plant Boundary


Topography (masl)

High : 800

Low : 200

IM

ap

Do

cu

me

nt:

(K

:\A

ctive

Pro

jects

20

11

\AP

11

-10

1 t

o 1

1-1

50

\11

-10

1\F

ina

l D

ocs\A

ir Q

ua

lity

\Fig

3.1

-4 P

red

icte

d A

nn

ua

l S

O2

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n.m

xd

)16

/11

/20

12

--

10

:26

:46

AM

3.2-2


Predicted Annual NO2


JDC

LL

Nov 16/12

11-101PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

AAAQO Guideline:

NO2 = 45 (µg/m3)



November 2012

11-101

APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY MODELLING SETTINGS



November 2012

Page A-i 11-101

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... ii

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

2.0 CALMET MODEL OPTIONS.............................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Wind Field Options (Input Group 5) ............................................................................................... 1

2.2 Meteorological Data Options (Input Group 4 and 6) .................................................................... 1

2.3 Surface Meteorology........................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Fifth Generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model (MM5)..................................................... 6

2.5 Geophysical Parameters .................................................................................................................... 7

2.5.1 Land Use...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.5.2 Terrain.......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.5.3 Anthropogenic Heat Flux Parameter ...................................................................................... 9

3.0 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS............................................................................................................. 9

4.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 22



November 2012

Page A-ii 11-101

List of Tables

Page

Table A2-1 Wind Field Options and Parameters (Input Group 5) .......................................................... 2

Table A2-2 Wind Field Options and Parameters (Input Group 4) .......................................................... 4

Table A2-3 Mixing Height Parameters (Input Group 6)........................................................................... 4

Table A2-4 Temperature Parameters........................................................................................................... 5

Table A2-6 Surface Variables Associated with Land Use Characteristics.............................................. 7

Table A3-1 Assumed Gas Properties ........................................................................................................... 9

Table A3-2 Assumed Particulate Matter Properties................................................................................ 10

Table A3-3 Assumed Wet Deposition Parameters .................................................................................. 10

Table A3-4 Input Groups in the CALPUFF Control File ........................................................................ 10

Table A3-5 General Run Control Parameters (Input Group 1).............................................................. 12

Table A3-6 Technical Options (Input Group 2)........................................................................................ 13

Table A3-7 Species List-Chemistry Options (Subgroup 3a) ................................................................... 14

Table A3-8 Map Projection Grid Control Parameters (Input Group 4) ................................................ 15

Table A3-9 Sub-Grid Scale Complex Terrain Inputs (Input Group 6a) ................................................ 15

Table A3-10 Dry Deposition Parameters for Gases (Input Group 7) ...................................................... 16

Table A3-11 Size Parameters for Dry Deposition of Particles (Input Group 8)..................................... 16

Table A3-12 Miscellaneous Dry Deposition Parameters (Input Group 9) ............................................. 17

Table A3-13 Wet Deposition Parameters .................................................................................................... 17

Table A3-14 Chemistry Parameters (Input Group 11) .............................................................................. 18

Table A3-15 Miscellaneous Dispersion and Computational Parameters (Input Group 12) ................ 18



November 2012

Page A-1 11-101

1.0 INTRODUCTION

CALMET and CALPUFF models were used for the air quality assessment. Both of the models are

described in detail by Scire et al (2000) and Scire and Escoffier-Czaja (2004), and are recommended by

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) for regulatory air quality

assessments (ESRD, 2009).

This Appendix summarizes the CALMET and CALPUFF settings and compares to the default

parameter settings. Where a discrepancy between set value and default occurs, justification is given.

2.0 CALMET MODEL OPTIONS

2.1 Wind Field Options (Input Group 5)

Within the CALMET model, there are a number of options for calculating the modelling domain wind

field. Similarity theory is used to extrapolate surface winds to upper layers.

The maximum overland radius of influence for the surface layer is 5 km. The radius is 15 km at upper

levels. Additionally, the minimum radius of influence for the wind field interpolation is 0.1 km, and

radius of influence is set to 15 km for terrain features. The wind field options for the dispersion

meteorological component of the model are described in Table A2-1.

2.2 Meteorological Data Options (Input Group 4 and 6)

Hourly surface heat fluxes, as well as the observed morning and afternoon temperature soundings,

were used to calculate mixing heights. The minimum and maximum mixing heights allowed were

50 m and 3,000 m, respectively.

The inverse distance-squared method, which was recommended by Dean and Snyder (1977) and

Wei and McGuinness (1976), was used to interpolate air temperature, with a radius of influence of 500

km. A larger radius produces a more realistic temperature field, particularly at the surface.

The meteorological data options, mixing height, precipitation, and temperature parameters that were

used in the Project assessment are outlined in Table A2-2, Table A2-3, and Table A2-4, respectively.

The following provides rationale for the use of non-default model parameters:

IPROG: MM5 data were used.

FEXTR2: There is no extrapolation – this option is used only when IEXTRP = 3 or -3, whereas

IEXTRP = -4 was used in the project.

ICLOUD: Gridded cloud cover from prognostic relative humidity at all levels (MM5toGrads

algorithm). Since MM5 data was used, this is the best option for the model to be used.



November 2012

Page A-2 11-101

Table A2-1 Wind Field Options and Parameters (Input Group 5)

Parameter Default Current Description

Wind Field Model Options

IWFCOD 1 1 Model selection variable – Diagnostic wind module

IFRADJ 1 1 Compute Froude number adjustment (Yes = 1)

IKINE 0 0 Compute kinematic effects (No = 0)

IOBR 0 0 Use O’Brien procedure for adjustment of the vertical velocity (No)

ISLOPE 1 1 Compute slope flow effects (Yes)

IEXTRP 1 1Extrapolate surface wind observations to upper layers (similarity theory

used with layer 1 data at upper air stations ignored)

ICALM 0 0 Extrapolate surface winds even if calm (No)

BIAS NZ*0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0Layer-dependent biases modifying the weights of surface and upper air

stations

RMIN2 4.0 4.0

Minimum distance (km) from nearest upper air station to surface station

for which extrapolation of surface winds at surface station will be

allowed

IPROG 0 14

Use gridded prognostic wind field model output fields as input to the

diagnostic wind field model (14=use winds from MM5.DAT file as initial

guess field)

ISTEPPGS 3600 3600 Time-step (seconds) of the prognostic model input data

IGFMET 0 0Use coarse CALMET fields as initial guess fields (overwrites IGF based

on prognostic wind fields if any)

Radius of Influence Parameters

LVARY F F Use varying radius of influence (F - False)

RMAX1 - 5 Maximum radius of influence over land in the surface layer (km)

RMAX2 - 15 Maximum radius of influence over land aloft (km)

RMAX3 - 15 Maximum radius of influence over water (km)

Other Wind Field Input Parameters

RMIN 0.1 0.1 Minimum radius of influence used in the wind field interpolation (km)

TERRAD - 15.0 Radius of influence of terrain features (km)

R1 - 2.5Relative weighting of the first guess field and observations in the surface

layer (km)

R2 - 7.5Relative weighting of the first guess field and observations in the layers

aloft (km)

RPROG - 54.0 Relative weighting parameter of the prognostic wind field data (km)

DIVLIM 5.0E-6 5.0E-6Maximum acceptable divergence in the divergence minimization

procedure

NITER 50 50Maximum number of iterations in the divergence minimization

procedure



November 2012

Page A-3 11-101



NSMTH

(NZ)2,(mxnz-1)*4

2, 28, 28, 28,

28, 28, 28, 28Number of passes in the smoothing procedure

NINTR2 9999, 99, 99, 99,

99, 99, 99, 99

Maximum number of stations used in each layer for the interpolation of

data to a grid point(number 12 is bigger than number of stations, then all

stations are used)

CRITFN 1.0 1.0 Critical Froude number

ALPHA 0.1 0.1 Empirical factor controlling the influence of kinematic effects

FEXTR2(N

Z)nz*0.0

1, 1.7, 2.2, 3,

3.9, 5.1, 6.3,

7.2

Multiplicative scaling factor for extrapolation of surface observations to

upper layers

NBAR 0 0 Number of barriers to interpolation of the wind fields

KBAR NZ 8 Level (1 to NZ) up to which barriers apply

Diagnostic Module Data Input Options

IDIOPTI 0 0Surface temperature (0 = compute internally from hourly surface

observation)

ISURFT -1 -1Surface meteorological station to use for the surface temperature

(parameter ISURFT= -1 is for 2-D spatially varying surface temperatures)

IDIOPT2 0 0Domain-averaged temperature lapse (0 = compute internally from hourly

surface observation)

IUPT -1 -1Upper air station to use for the domain-scale lapse rate (-1 to use 2-D

spatially varying lapse rate)

ZUPT 200 200 Depth through which the domain-scale lapse rate is computed (m)

IDIOPT3 0 0 Domain-averaged wind components

IUPWND -1 -1 Upper air station to use for the domain-scale winds

ZUPWND 1.0, 1000 1.0, 1000Bottom and top of layer through which domain-scale winds are

computed (m)

IDIOPT4 0 0 Observed surface wind components for wind field module

IDIOPT5 0 0 Observed upper air wind components for wind field module



November 2012

Page A-4 11-101



NOOBS 0 2Use surface and overwater stations (no upper air observations)

Use MM4/MM5/M3D for upper air data

Number of Surface & Precipitation Meteorological Stations

NSSTA - 0 Number of surface stations

NPSTA - -1 use of MM5/M3D precipitation data

Cloud Data Options

ICLOUD 0 4 Gridded cloud cover from prognostic relative humidity at all levels

File Formats

IFORMS 2 2 Surface meteorological data file format (2 = formatted)

IFORMP 2 2 Precipitation data file format (2 = formatted)

IFORMC 2 2 Cloud data file format (unformatted – not used)

Table A2-3 Mixing Height Parameters (Input Group 6)


Empirical Mixing Height Constants

CONSTB 1.41 1.41 Neutral, mechanical equation

CONSTE 0.15 0.15 Convective mixing height equation

CONSTN 2400 2400 Stable mixing height equation

CONSTW 0.16 0.16 Over water mixing height equation

FCORIO 1.0E-4 1.2E-04 Absolute value of Coriolis (l/s); latitude dependent

Spatial Averaging of Mixing Heights

IAVEZI 1 1 Conduct spatial averaging (1 = yes)

MNMDAV 1 1 Maximum search radius in averaging (1 grid cells)

HAFANG 30 30 Half-angle of upwind looking cone for averaging (degrees)

ILEVZI 1 1 Layer of winds used in upwind averaging (1 layers)

Convective Mixing Height Options

IMIHXH 1 1Method to compute the convective mixing height (Maul-Carson for land

and water cells)

THRESHL 0 0Threshold buoyancy flux required to sustain convective mixing height

growth overland (expressed as a heat flux per meter of boundary layer)

THRESHW 0.05 0.05Threshold buoyancy flux required to sustain convective mixing height

growth overwater (expressed as a heat flux per meter boundary layer)

ILUOC3D 16 16Land use category ocean in 3D.DAT datasets (if 3D.DAT from MM5

version 3.0 iluoc3d=16)



November 2012

Page A-5 11-101

Table A2-3 Mixing Height Parameters (Input Group 6)


Other Mixing Heights Variables

DPTMIN 0.001 0.001Minimum potential temperature lapse rate in the stable layer above the

current convective missing height (oK/m)

DZZI 200 200Depth of layer above current convective mixing height through which

lapse rate is computed (m)

ZIMIN 50 50 Minimum overland mixing height (m)

ZIMAX 3000 3000 Maximum overland mixing height (m)

ZIMINW 50 50 Minimum over-water mixing height (m)

ZIMAXW 3000 3000 Maximum over-water mixing height (m)

Overwater Surface Fluxes Method and Parameters

ICOARE 10 10 COARE with no wave parameterization

DSHELF 0 0 Coastal/Shallow water length scale

IWARM 0 0 COARE warm layer computation (0=off)

ICOOL 0 0 COARE cool skin layer computation (0=off)

Relative Humidity Parameters

IRHPROG 0 13D relative humidity from observations or from prognostic data

(0= use RH NOOBS = 0,1)

Table A2-4 Temperature Parameters


Temperature Parameters

ITPROG 0 2Use Surface stations (no upper air observations),

Use MM5/M3D for upper air data (only if NOOBS = 0,1)

IRAD 1 1 Interpolation type (1 = 1/R)

TRADKM 500 500 Radius of influence for temperature interpolation (km)

NUMTS 5 5Maximum number of stations to include in temperature

interpolation

IAVET 1 1 Conduct spatial averaging of temperatures (1 = yes)

TGDEFB -0.0098 -0.0098Default temperature gradient below the mixing height over

water (oK/m)

TGDEFA -0.0045 -0.0045Default temperature gradient above the mixing height over

water (oK/m)



November 2012

Page A-6 11-101

Table A2-4 Temperature Parameters


JWAT1 - 99Beginning land use categories for temperature interpolation

over water (disabled)

JWAT2 - 99Ending land use categories for temperature interpolation

over water (disabled)

Precipitation Interpolation Parameters

NFLAGP 2 2 Method of interpolation (2=1/R**2)

SIGMAP 100 100 Radius of influence

CUTP 0.01 0.01Minimum precipitation rate cut-off (Values < CUTP = 0.0

mm/hr)

2.3 Surface Meteorology

No surface meteorology was used in the CALMET as no air quality stations were located in the

CALMET modelling domain.

2.4 Fifth Generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model (MM5)

The fifth generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model (MM5) was developed jointly by the

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Pennsylvania State University (PSU). It is a

prognostic model that computes horizontal and vertical velocity components, pressure, temperature,

relative humidity and vapour, cloud, rain, snow, ice, and graupel mixing ratios.

Studies conducted by the University of Washington (2005) show that the MM5 model is an effective

tool for characterizing winds in the Pacific Northwest. It also suggested that CALMET should be run

exclusively with MM5 data. The MM5 data are important in dispersion modelling, providing

information throughout the modelling domain and in regions where measurements are not readily

accessible. In other CALPUFF 3-D modelling studies completed in western Canada (e.g. BC

Environment, 2000), MM5 data were used exclusively when generating CALMET 3-D data.

For the purposes of this assessment, MM5 model output for the 2002 to 2006 model years (a

“standard” dataset provided by Alberta Environment) was used for the initial guess wind field in

CALMET runs and also for upper air data readings. The MM5 data are at 12 km resolution, with each

grid containing 30 vertical layers extending more than 10,000 m above ground.



November 2012

Page A-7 11-101

2.5 Geophysical Parameters

2.5.1 Land Use

To determine meteorological parameters in the boundary layer, the CALMET model requires a

physical description of the ground surface. The geophysical parameters for this assessment include

land use category, terrain elevation, roughness length, albedo, Bowen ratio, surface heat flux

parameter, anthropogenic heat flux and leaf area index (LAI). Values for all land use parameters

except land use category and elevation were determined for the following periods:

Winter – January 1 to March 31 and November 15 to December 31;

Spring – April 1 to June 14;

Summer – June 15 to August 31; and

Fall – September 1 to November 14.

The geophysical parameters for all periods are summarized in Table A2-6, below.

Table A2-6 Surface Variables Associated with Land Use Characteristics

LUC DescriptionRoughness

Length Zo (m)Albedo

Bowen

RatioHeat Flux

Anthropogenic

Heat Flux

Leaf Area

Index (LAI)

Winter

42Evergreen Forest

(Coniferous)0.90 0.35 1.50 0.15* 0.00 4.00

51 River 0.10 0.60 1.00 0.15 0.00 0.20

52 Lakes 0.05* 0.70* 0.50* 1.00 0.00 0.00

61 Forested Wetland 0.70 0.43 1.50 0.15* 0.00 1.00

62 Nonforested Wetland 0.70 0.43 1.50 0.15* 0.00 1.00

Spring

42Evergreen Forest

(Coniferous)0.90 0.25 0.70 0.15 0.00 4.00

51 River 0.15 0.23 0.30 0.15 0.00 0.15

52 Lakes 0.01 0.20 0.10 1.00 0.00 0.00

61 Forested Wetland 0.80 0.15 0.50 0.15 0.00 1.20

62 Nonforested Wetland 0.80 0.15 0.50 0.15 0.00 1.20



November 2012

Page A-8 11-101

Table A2-6 Surface Variables Associated with Land Use Characteristics

LUC DescriptionRoughness

Length Zo (m)Albedo

Bowen

RatioHeat Flux

Anthropogenic

Heat Flux

Leaf Area

Index (LAI)

Summer

42Evergreen Forest

(Coniferous)1.00 0.12 1.20 0.15 0.00 4.00

51 River 0.25 0.11 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.50

52 Lakes 0.0001 0.10 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.00



Fall

42Evergreen Forest

(Coniferous)1.00 0.12 1.00 0.15 0.00 4.00

51 River 0.20 0.13 0.10 0.50 0.00 0.00

52 Lakes 0.0001 0.14 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.00



* Value recommended by TRC for perennial snow. Also the default value for cropland and pasture, rangeland, forest, and barren land.

The CALMET modeling domain was described using four land use categories. A category was

assigned to each 1 km x 1 km grid cell based on the most prevalent land use type according to those

described by Cihlar and Beaubien (1998). These descriptive categories were then grouped into

broader classifications, which were provided by CALMET. The Land Use Categories were defined by

referencing topographic 1:50,000 maps of the area.

Each land use category was assigned summer, fall, winter, and spring values of roughness length,

albedo, Bowen Ratio, anthropogenic and soil flux parameters, and leaf area index.

The geotechnical parameters were largely the default values (recommended by PCRAMMET; US EPA

1995).

2.5.2 Terrain

Topographic elevations for the terrain were obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

(SRTM – 3 Arc Second – 90 m), which is a joint project between the National Geo-spatial-Intelligence

Agency (NGA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (SRTM, 2005). The

CALMET pre-processor program, TERREL, was used to extract and format terrain data.



November 2012

Page A-9 11-101

2.5.3 Anthropogenic Heat Flux Parameter

The urban heat island effect is a result of the interaction of several factors, including the absorption of

heat during the day by surfaces such as asphalt roads, concrete pavements, and roofs, which is then

radiated out into the atmosphere at night, and the release of heat from the tailpipes of vehicles and

ventilation stacks from buildings. The latter source of heat is especially significant in winter months.

The study of the anthropogenic heat flux in Nagoya, Japan revealed an additional anthropogenic heat

flux from the city centre of about 50 W/m2 during the winter months (Yamaguchi et al, 2004). The

anthropogenic heat flux in Tokyo exceeded 400 W/m2 in summer during the daytime, and the

maximum value occurred in winter (1,590 W/m2). In the suburbs of Tokyo, the heat flux from houses

reached about 30 W/m2 (CGER, 1997).

For modelling purposes, the anthropogenic heat flux is usually considered to be zero due to lack of

measurements in a given area. However, PCRAMMET (US EPA, 1995) recognizes that in areas with

high population densities or energy use, such as an industrial facility, anthropogenic flux may not

always be negligible. An anthropogenic heat flux of about 10 W/m2 in summer, 15 W/m2 in spring

and fall, and 30 W/m2 in winter was assumed for urban areas. It was also assumed that the

anthropogenic heat flux from open mine surfaces was 5 W/m2 during the whole year. The

anthropogenic heat flux elsewhere was assumed to be zero.

3.0 CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS

Assumed gas and particulate matter properties are listed in Tables A3-1 to A3-3. The CALPUFF

dispersion model is a tool that uses a range of user specified options. The CALPUFF control file

defines 17 input groups as identified in Table A3-4.

Table A3-1 Assumed Gas Properties

SO2 NO NO2 HNO3

Diffusivity (cm2/s) 0.115 0.186 0.141 0.108

Alpha Star (a*) 1000 1.0 1.0 1.0

Reactivity 8.0 2.0 8.0 18.0

Mesophyll Resistance (s/cm) 0.0 94.0 5.0 0.0

Henry's Law Coefficient 0.0332 21.5 4.09 10x10-8



November 2012

Page A-10 11-101

Table A3-2 Assumed Particulate Matter Properties

SO4 NO3 PM2.5

Geometric mass mean diameter (µm) 0.48 0.48 0.98

Geometric standard deviation (µm) 2.0 2.0 1.8

Table A3-3 Assumed Wet Deposition Parameters

Scavenging

Coefficient

(s-1)

SO2 SO4 NO NO2 HNO3 NO3 PM2.5

Liquid 3.0 x 10-5 1.0 x 10-4 2.9 x 10-5 5.1 x 10-5 6.0 x 10-5 1.0 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-4

Frozen 0.0 3.0 x 10-5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 x 10-5 3.0 x 10-5

Table A3-4 Input Groups in the CALPUFF Control File

Input

GroupDescription Applicable to the Project

0 Input and output file names Yes

1 General run control parameters Yes

2 Technical options Yes

3 Species list Yes

4 Grid control parameters Yes

5 Output options Yes

6 Sub grid scale complex terrain inputs No

7 Dry deposition parameters for gases Yes

8 Dry deposition parameters for particles Yes

9 Miscellaneous dry deposition for parameters Yes

10 Wet deposition parameters Yes

11 Chemistry parameters Yes

12 Diffusion and computational parameters Yes



November 2012

Page A-11 11-101

Table A3-4 Input Groups in the CALPUFF Control File

Input

GroupDescription Applicable to the Project

13 Point source parameters Yes

14 Area source parameters Yes

15 Line source parameters No

16 Volume source parameters Yes

17 Discrete receptor information Yes

The chemistry option was invoked in CALPUFF since SO2 and NOX sources are involved in this

assessment. This option was switched on when dealing with the following eight species: SO2, SO4,

NO, NO2, HNO3, NO3, CO, and primary PM2.5, but was switched off for the modelling runs that

assessed ambient VOC concentrations.

The CALPUFF input parameters were selected according to the default values, with some exceptions.

For the simulation of building downwash, the PRIME method was used for buildings within Project

fence lines; building downwash was not considered for non-Project facilities.

Tables A3-5 to A3-15 identify the input parameters, default options, and values used for the current

project. Non-default parameters were used as follows:

MBDW: PRIME method used for plume downwash – the PRIME method is considered more

advanced and is recommended by the Alberta modelling guidelines (ESRD 2009).

MCHEM: RIVAD/ARM3 chemistry used for chemical transformations. In several tests

conducted to date, the results have shown no significant differences between the modelling

results obtained with MESOPUFF II and RIVAD/ARM3 chemistry

(http://www.src.com/calpuff/FAQ-answers.htm#3.3.6).

MREG: unnecessary as this is not a U.S. application.

Diffusivity: based on current literature (Seinfeld and Pandis, 2006; US Forest Service, 2011).

Mean PM2.5 diameter was used as recommended by model developer Joe Scire (TRC Solutions,

private communication).

BCKO3: hourly ozone background concentrations were based on ozone measurements in Fort

McKay from 2002 to 2006.

BCKNH3: based on measurements in oil sands area (ammonia measurements began at two

stations – Fort McKay and Patricia McInnis – in mid-2006, and the average measured value

was used as the monthly concentration).



November 2012

Page A-12 11-101

PLX0 values are based on measurements at Mannix – 20-m and 75-m towers (BOVAR

Environmental, 1996a).

PPC values were based on values in the ADEPT2 model developed for dispersion modeling in

Alberta and then used in the ISCBE version of ISC3 developed for the oil sands area (BOVAR

Environmental, 1996b).

Table A3-5 General Run Control Parameters (Input Group 1)


METRUN 0 0 All model periods in met file(s) will be run

IBYR - 2002 Starting year

IBMO - 1 Starting month

IBDY - 1 Starting day

IBHR - 0 Starting hour

IBMIN - 0 Starting minute

IBSEC - 0 Starting second

IEYR - 2007 Ending year

IEMO - 1 Ending month

IEDY - 1 Ending day

IEMIN - 0 Ending minute

IESEC - 0 Ending second

XBTZ - 7.0 Base time zone (MST = 7.0)

NSECDT - 3600 Length of run (seconds)

NSPEC 5 8 Number of chemical species

NSE 3 5 Number of chemical species to be emitted

ITEST 2 2 Program is executed after SETUP phase

MRESTART 0 0 Does not read or write a restart file

NRESPD 0 0 Restart file written only at last period

METFM 1 1Meteorological data format 1= CALMET binary file

(CALMET.MET)

MPRFFM 1 1 Meteorological profile data format

AVET 60 60 Averaging time (minutes)

PGTIME 60 60 PG Averaging time (minutes)



November 2012

Page A-13 11-101

Table A3-6 Technical Options (Input Group 2)


MGAUSS 1 1 Gaussian distribution used in near field

MCTADJ 3 3 Terrain adjustment method (3 = Partial plume path adjustment)

MCTSG 0 0 Subgrid-scale complex terrain (0 = not modelled)

MSLUG 0 0 Near-field puffs not modelled as elongated

MTRANS 1 1 Transitional plume rise modelled

MTIP 1 1 Stack tip downwash used (MTIP=0 for upset flaring)

MRISE 1 1Briggs plume rise for point sources not subjected to building

downwash

MBDW 1 2 Method used to simulate building downwash (2 = PRIME method)

MSHEAR 0 0 Vertical wind shear not modelled

MSPLIT 0 0 Puff splitting is not allowed

MCHEM 1 3Transformation rates computed internally using RIVID/ARM3

scheme

MAQCHEM 0 0 Aqueous phase transformation not modelled

MWET 1 1 Wet removal modelled

MDRY 1 1 Dry deposition modelled

MTILT 0 0 Gravitational settling (plume tilt) not modeled

MDISP 3 3

Method used to compute dispersion coefficients - PG dispersion

coefficients for RURAL areas (computed using the ISCST multi-

segment approximation) and MP coefficients in urban areas

MTURBVW 3 3 Use both v and w from PROFILE.DAT to compute y and z (n/a)

MDISP2 3 3

Back-up method used to compute dispersion when measured

turbulence data are missing (used only if MDISP = 1 or 5) This

parameter is not used because MDISP = 3 for Connacher Great

Divide.

MTAULY 0 0Draxler default 617.284 (s) used for Lagrangian timescale for

Sigma-y (used only if MDISP=1,2 or MDISP2=1,2)

MTAUADV 0 0Method used for Advective-Decay timescale for Turbulence (used

only if MDISP=2 or MDISP2=2)

MCTURB 1 1

Standard CALPUFF subroutines used to compute turbulence

sigma-v & sigma-w using micrometeorological variables(Used

only if MDISP = 2 or MDISP2 = 2)



November 2012

Page A-14 11-101

Table A3-6 Technical Options (Input Group 2)


MROUGH 0 0 PG y and z not adjusted for roughness

MPARTL 1 1 partial plume penetration of elevated inversion

MPARTLBA 1 1partial plume penetration of elevated inversion (buoyant area

sources)

MTINV 0 0Strength of temperature inversion computed from default

gradients

MPDF 0 0 PDF not used for dispersion under convective conditions

MSGTIBL 0 0 Sub-grid TIBL module not used for shore line

MBCON 0 0 Boundary conditions (concentration) not modelled

MSOURCE 0 0 No Individual source contributions saved

MFOG 0 0 Do not configure for FOG model output

MREG 1 0Do not test options specified to see if they conform to regulatory

values

Table A3-7 Species List-Chemistry Options (Subgroup 3a)

CSPECModelled

(0=no, 1=yes)

Emitted

(0=no, 1=yes)

Dry deposition (0=none,

1=computed gas,

2=computed particle,

3=user-specified)

Output group Number

SO2 1 1 1 0

SO4-2 1 0 2 0

NO 1 1 1 0

NO2 1 1 1 0

HNO3 1 0 1 0

NO3- 1 0 2 0

PM2.5 1 1 2 0

CO 1 1 0 0



November 2012

Page A-15 11-101

Table A3-8 Map Projection Grid Control Parameters (Input Group 4)


PMAP UTM UTM Map projection: Universal Transverse Mercator

IUTMZN - 12 UTM Zone (1 to 60)

UTMHEM N N Northern hemisphere UTM projection

DATUM WGS-84 NAR-B NIMA Datum Region - Canada

NX - 41 Number of X grid cells in meteorological grid

NY 41 Number of Y grid cells in meteorological grid

NZ - 8 Number of vertical layers in meteorological grid

DGRIDKM - 1.0 Grid spacing (km)

ZFACE -

0,20,40,80,

160,320,600,

1400,3000

Cell face heights in meteorological grid (m)

XORIGKM - 402.14Reference X coordinate for SW corner of grid cell (1,1) of

meteorological grid (km)

YORIGKM - 6277.277Reference Y coordinate for SW corner of grid cell (1,1) of

meteorological grid (km)

IBCOMP - 1 X index of lower left corner of the computational grid

JBCOMP - 1 Y index of lower left corner of the computational grid

IECOMP - 41 X index upper right corner of the computational grid

JECOMP - 41 Y index upper right corner of the computational grid

LSAMP T F Sampling grid is not used

IBSAMP - 1 X index of lower left corner of the sampling grid

JBSAMP - 1 Y index of lower left corner of the sampling grid

IESAMP - 28 X index of upper right corner of the sampling grid

JESAMP - 32 Y index of upper right corner of the sampling grid

MESHDN 1 1 Nesting factor of the sampling grid

Table A3-9 Sub-Grid Scale Complex Terrain Inputs (Input Group 6a)


NHILL 0 0 Number of terrain features

NCTREC 0 0 Number of special complex terrain receptors

MHILL - 0 Input terrain and receptor data for CTSG hills input in CTDM format

XHILL2M 1 1 Conversion factor for changing horizontal dimensions to metres

ZHILL2M 1 1 Conversion factor for changing vertical dimensions to metres

XCTDMKM - 0 X origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF coordinate system (km)

YCTDMKM - 0 Y origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF coordinate system (km)



November 2012

Page A-16 11-101

Table A3-10 Dry Deposition Parameters for Gases (Input Group 7)

Species Default Current Description

SO2

0.1509 0.115 Diffusivity (cm2/s) (Seinfeld and Pandis, 2006; US Forest Services)

1000.0 1000. Alpha star

8.0 8.0 Reactivity

0.0 0.0 Mesophyll resistance (s/cm)

0.4 0.0332 Henry’s Law coefficient

NO

- 0.186 Diffusivity (cm2/s) (Seinfeld and Pandis, 2006; US Forest Services)

- 1.0 Alpha star

- 2. Reactivity

- 94. Mesophyll resistance (s/cm)

- 21.5 Henry’s Law coefficient

NO2


1.0 1.0 Alpha star

8.0 8. Reactivity

5.0 5. Mesophyll resistance (s/cm)


HNO3


1.0 1.0 Alpha star

18.0 18. Reactivity

0.0 0. Mesophyll resistance (s/cm)


Table A3-11 Size Parameters for Dry Deposition of Particles (Input Group 8)


SO42 0.48 0.48 Geometric mass mean diameter of SO42 [m]

SO42 2.0 2.0 Geometric standard deviation of SO42 [m]

NO3- 0.48 0.48 Geometric mass mean diameter of NO3- [m]

NO3- 2.0 2.0 Geometric standard deviation of NO3- [m]

PM2.5 0.48 0.98 Geometric mass mean diameter of PM2.5 [m]

PM2.5 2.0 1.8Geometric standard deviation of PM2.5 [m] (Seinfeld andPandis, 2006; US Forest Services)



November 2012

Page A-17 11-101

Table A3-12 Miscellaneous Dry Deposition Parameters (Input Group 9)

Parameters Default Current Description

RCUTR 30 30 Reference cuticle resistance (s/cm)

RGR 10 10 Reference ground resistance (s/cm)

REACTR 8 8 Reference pollutant reactivity

NINT 9 9Number of particle size intervals for effective particle

deposition velocity

IVEG 1 1 Vegetation in non-irrigated areas is active and unstressed

Table A3-13 Wet Deposition Parameters


SO2

0.00003 0.00003 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]

0.0 0.0 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s-1]

SO4-20.0001 0.0001 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]


NO0.000029 0.000029 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]


NO2



HNO3



NO3-0.0001 0.0001 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]


PM2.5





November 2012

Page A-18 11-101

Table A3-14 Chemistry Parameters (Input Group 11)


MOZ 1 1 Monthly background ozone value

BCKO3 12*80

32.03; 32.62; 35.75; 39.72; 36.39;

31.45; 24.56; 20.58; 19.97; 23.57;

28.08; 26.51

Background monthly ozone concentration

(ppb)

BCKNH3 12*10 12*0.22 Background ammonia concentration (ppb)

RNITE1 0.2 0.2 Nighttime NO2 loss rate in percent/hour

RNITE2 2 2 Nighttime NOX loss rate in percent/hour

RNITE3 2 2 Nighttime HNO3 loss rate in percent/hour

MH202 1 1 Background H2O2 concentrations

BCKH202 12*1 12*1

Background monthly H2O2 concentrations

(Aqueous phase transformations not

modelled)

BCKPMF - -

Fine particulate concentration for Secondary

Organic Aerosol Option (used only if

MCHEM=4 in Connacher Great Divide

MCHEM =3)

OFRAC - -Organic fraction of fine particulate for SOA

Option (used only if MCHEM=4)

VCNX - -VOC/NOX ratio for SOA Option (used only

if MCHEM=4)

Table A3-15 Miscellaneous Dispersion and Computational Parameters (Input Group 12)


SYDEP 550 550Horizontal size of a puff in metres beyond which the time

dependant dispersion equation of Heffter is used

MHFTSZ 0 0 Do not use Heffter formulas for sigma z

JSUP 5 5Stability class used to determine dispersion rates for puffs above

boundary layer

CONK1 0.01 0.01 Vertical dispersion constant for stable conditions

CONK2 0.1 0.1 Vertical dispersion constant for neutral/stable conditions



November 2012

Page A-19 11-101



TBD 0.5 0.5

Use ISC transition point for determining the transition point

between the Schulman-Scire to Huber-Snyder Building

Downwash scheme

IURB1 10 10Lower range of land use categories for which urban dispersion is

assumed

IURB2 19 19Upper range of land use categories for which urban dispersion is

assumed

ILANDUIN 20 20 Land use category for modelling domain

ZOIN 0.25 0.25 Roughness length in metres for modelling domain

XLAIIN 3.0 3.0 Leaf area index for modelling domain

ELEVIN 0.0 334 Elevation above sea level

XLATIN -999 57.0 North latitude of station in degrees

XLONIN -999 111.0 South latitude of station in degrees

ANEMHT 10 10 Anemometer height in metres

ISIGMAV 1 1 Sigma-v is read for lateral turbulence data

IMIXCTDM 0 0 Predicted mixing heights are used

XMXLEN 1 1 Maximum length of emitted slug in meteorological grid units

XSAMLEN 1 1Maximum travel distance of slug or puff in meteorological grid

units during one sampling unit

MXNEW 99 99Maximum number of puffs or slugs released from one source

during one time step

MXSAM 99 99Maximum number of sampling steps during one time step for a

puff or slug

NCOUNT 2 2Number of iterations used when computing the transport wind for a

sampling step that includes transitional plume rise

SYMIN 1 1 Minimum sigma y in metres for a new puff or slug

SZMIN 1 1 Minimum sigma z in metres for a new puff or slug

CDIV 0.0, 0.0 0.0, 0.0 Divergence criteria for dw/dz in met cells

NLUTIBL 4 4 Search radius for nearest land and water cells

WSCALM 0.5 0.5 Minimum wind speed allowed for non-calm conditions (m/s)

XMAXZI 3000 3000 Maximum mixing height in metres

XMINZI 50 50 Minimum mixing height in metres



November 2012

Page A-20 11-101



WSCAT

1.54 1.54 wind speed category 1 [m/s]





PTG00.020 0.020 potential temperature gradient for E stability [K/m]

0.035 0.035 potential temperature gradient for F stability [K/m]

SL2PF 10 10Slug-to-puff transition criterion factor equal to sigma y/length of

slug

NSPLIT 3 3 Number of puffs that result every time a puff is split

IRESPLIT Hour 17=1 Hour 17=1 Time(s) of day when split puffs are eligible to be split once again

ZISPLIT 100 100 Minimum allowable last hour’s mixing height for puff splitting

ROLDMAX 0.25 0.25

Maximum allowable ratio of last hour’s mixing height and

maximum mixing height experienced by the puff for puff

splitting

NSPLITH 5 5Number of puff that result every time a puff is split

(nsplith = 5 means that 1 puff splits into 5)

SYSPLITH 1 1 Minimum sigma-y of puff before it may be horizontally split

SHSPLITH 2 2Minimum puff elongation rate due to wind shear before it may be

horizontally split

CNSPLITH 1.0E-7 1.0E-7Minimum concentration of each species in puff before it may be

horizontally split

EPSSLUG 1.00E-04 1.00E-04Fractional convergence criterion for numerical SLUG sampling

iteration

EPSAREA 1.00E-06 1.00E-06Fractional convergence criterion for numerical AREA sampling

iteration

DRISE 1.0 1.0 Trajectory step length for numerical rise

HTMINBC 500 500Minimum height (m) to which BC puffs are mixed as they are

emitted at the release point if greater than this minimum

RSAMPBC 10 10 Search radius (km) about a receptor for sampling nearest BC puff

MDEPBC 1 1Near-surface depletion adjustment to concentration profile used

when sampling BC puffs - Adjust concentration for depletion



November 2012

Page A-21 11-101


Stability Class

Parameter

SVMIN SWMIN

Minimum turbulence (v) (m/s) Minimum turbulence (w) (m/s)

A 0.5 0.2

B 0.5 0.12

C 0.5 0.08

D 0.5 0.06

E 0.5 0.03

F 0.5 0.016

Stability Class

Parameter

PLX0 PPC

Wind speed profile exponent Plume path coefficient

A 0.21 0.8

B 0.21 0.7

C 0.23 0.6

D 0.40 0.5

E 0.62 0.4

F 0.50 0.35



November 2012

Page A-22 11-101

4.0 REFERENCES

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2009. Air Quality Model

Guideline. Prepared by A. Idriss and F. Spurrell, Climate Change, Air and Land Policy Branch.

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8151.pdf. 44 pp.

BOVAR Environmental (1996a). Meteorology Observations in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region.

Report. No. 3 prepared for Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group, and Syncrude Canada Ltd.

BOVAR Environmental (1996b). Ambient Air Quality Predictions in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region.

Report. No. 4 prepared for Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group, and Syncrude Canada Ltd.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BC Environment). 2000. Submission by

BC Environment to Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Regarding the

Proposed Sumas Energy Project. Victoria, BC.

CGER (Center for Global Environmental Research ).1997, Distribution of Urban Anthropogenic Heat

In Tokyo Based on Very Precise Digital Land Use Data. CGER-D019(CD)-’97. Tsukuba

JAPAN.

Cihlar, J. and J. Beaubien. 1998. Land Cover of Canada, Version 1.1. Special Publication, NBIOME

Project. Produced by the Canadian Center for Remote Sensing, Canadian Forest Service,

Natural Resources Canada. Available on CD from the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing.

Ottawa, ON.

Dean, J.D. and W.M. Snyder. 1977. Temporally and Areally Distributed Rainfall. Journal of Irrigation

and Drainage Division 103:221-229.

Scire, J. and C. Escoffier-Czaja. 2004. CALPUFF Training Course, Canadian Prairie and Northern

Section of the Air and Waste Management Association. Calgary, AB

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis and R.J. Yamartino. 2000. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Model (Version

5.0). Earth Technologies Inc. Concord, MA.

Seinfeld J.H. and Pandis S.N. (2006) Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics – From Air Pollution to

Climate Change; Second Edition –John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Shuttle Radar Technology Mission (SRTM). 2005. “Finished”. Pre-defined areas of 3 arc second (90

meter) SRTM "Finished" data in SRTM format, on DVD; covers the globe between 60° N and

56° S latitude. The SRTM Format is created from the SRTM DTED® Level 1 "Finished" product

supplied by National Geospace-Intelligence Agency. Available at:

http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/srtmbil.html.

http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/srtmbil.html



November 2012

Page A-23 11-101

TRC (TRC solutions).2010. http://www.src.com/calpuff/FAQ-questions.htm. Accessed April 2010.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1995. PCRAMMET User’s Guide. US EPA,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.

University of Washington. 2005. Pacific Northwest MM5 Verification Statistics. Available at:

(http://www.atmos.washington.edu/mm5rt/verify.html).

US Forest Service. 2011. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/landscapes/Solutions/Mole.shtml Date: Accessed

April 2011.

Wei, T.C. and J.L. McGuinness. 1976. Reciprocal Distance Squared Method, A Computer Technique

for Estimated Areal Precipitation. ARS NC-8. US Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC.

Yamaguchi, Y., S. Kato and K. Okamato. 2004. Surface Heat Flux Analysis in Urban Areas Using

ATER and MODIS Data. GIS-IDEAS Hanoi, 2004 Symposium by Japan-Vietnam

Geoinformatics Consortium. Available at: http://gisws.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/gisideas04

http://www.src.com/calpuff/FAQ-questions.htm

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/mm5rt/verify.html

http://gisws.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/gisideas04

Documents

Air Dispersion Modelling Report - Grizzly Oil Sands · 2013-08-14 · dispersion modelling approach, model input data, and the dispersion modelling results. 1.2 Ambient Air Quality