Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Public Hearing Undertaking #36 | Page 1 Figure UT36-1 Types of Container Ships Calling Weekly at Roberts Bank Container Terminals (2035)

Undertaking #36 – Vessel Class Descriptions

Undertaking

VFPA to provide a table that presents vessel classes and their associated main engine sizes, their design speed, and their cruising speeds.

VFPA Response

The table provided in Appendix UT36-A presents the requested information regarding container vessel class characteristics by summarizing the main engine size (in Megawatts), maximum design speed (in knots), and cruising speed (in knots) for representative vessels for each vessel class. Additional information is provided below regarding potential effects considering the increased use of larger container vessels in the future with the Project.

As indicated by Mercator International in its report entitled Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Container Vessel Call Forecast Study (the Mercator Study; CEAR Document #1362 1), there have been developments in the container shipping industry, such as an accelerated trend toward larger ship sizes and the formation of new service alliances among others, which motivated the port authority to seek validation of earlier vessel call forecasts presented in the EIS and Marine Shipping Addendum (MSA).

As shown in the Figure UT36-1 below, two vessels from the Large Post-Panamax (PPX) class are projected to be replaced by a Neo-Panamax (NPX) and an Ultra-Large Container Ship (ULCS) in the future (2035), should the Project proceed. In 2035, without or with RBT2, the number of vessels calling weekly at Port of Vancouver container terminals will be 15.

Additional information is provided below to support the conclusions presented in the response to Undertaking #2 from the January 30, 2019 Information Session (CEAR Document #1473 2) and the response to Request #3 from the Panel’s letter dated February 22, 2019 (CEAR Document #1547 3), that potential effects from the increased use of larger container vessels in the future with RBT2 will not differ from the potential effects in the future without RBT2.

1 CEAR Document #1362 From the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to the Review Panel re: 2018 Container Vessel Call Forecast Study and Ship Traffic Information Sheet. 2 CEAR Document #1473 From the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to the Review Panel re: Response to Undertaking #2 from the January 30, 2019 Information Session (See Reference Document #1428). 3 CEAR Document #1547 From the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to the Review Panel re: Response to Request 3 for an Update Regarding Ship Traffic (See Reference Document #1467).

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Public Hearing Undertaking #36 | Page 1 Figure UT36-1 Types of Container Ships Calling Weekly at Roberts Bank Container Terminals (2035)

Vessel Class Characteristics

The characteristics of representative container vessels for the sizes (in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs)) identified in the Mercator Study (CEAR Document #1362, tables on pages 94 and 96 for 2035 with and without RBT2 projections) within each of the vessel classes are tabulated in Appendix UT36-A. Some of the vessels identified have previously called on terminals within port authority jurisdiction, others are scheduled to call, and the remainder are random selections. Notable from this table are the following key points:

1. Within each class, newer ships generally have smaller main engines. Examples:  Small PPX with ~8,000 TEUs: 2010 vessels Pragu e Express and Budapest Express compared to the smaller 2005 OOCL Tianjin  Large PPX with ~10,000 TEUs: 2016 Valparaíso Express compared to the smaller 2009 Zim Antwerp  ULCS: 2015 MSC Amsterdam compared to the rest of the older vessels in that class  Mega-Max: 2017 Madrid Maersk (20,000 TEUs) compared to the rest of the vessels in that class except for the faster design speed for MOL Triumph 2. Smaller engines are associated with slower maximum design speeds. Examples:  2016 Valparaíso Express compared to the smaller 2009 Zim Antwerp  2015 MSC Amsterdam compared to the rest of the vessels for that class  The Mega-Max class compared to the smaller classes 3. The newer, larger ULCS and Mega-Max classes generally have similar main engine sizes as NPX vessels. Example:  The ULCS MSC Amsterdam and Mega-Max Madrid Maersk have smaller engine sizes than the vessels listed in the NPX class (and the larger vessels have additional carrying capacity of between approximately 3,000 to 6,000 TEUs).

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Public Hearing Undertaking #36 | Page 2 Conclusions on Assessments for Air Quality, Underwater Noise, Wave Environment, and Light

Air Quality

Of all contaminants of potential concern assessed, nitrogen oxide (NO x) emissions are of highest interest due to regulatory linkages to health implications and stringent Canadian

ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2). As the older smaller container vessels are replaced with either newer or larger vessels, International Maritime Organization

(IMO) NO x emission limits will apply (depending on keel laid date). NO x Tier III-standards for marine diesel engines are in effect in the North American Emission Control Area (ECA) for all new-build vessels and retrofit engines after January 1, 2016. As shown in Table UT36-1, compared to Tier I engines, Tier II and Tier III engines will generate 15% and 80% fewer NO x emissions, respectively.

Based on the table in Appendix UT36-A and the response presented in IR4-02 (CEAR 4 Document #934 ), NO x emissions from Project-associated container vessels are expected to be lower than those predicted in the EIS and MSA due to the following:

 The same number of vessels transiting through the marine shipping area in the future with RBT2, and fewer additional vessels calling at Roberts Bank in the future with RBT2;

 Vessels currently being built to meet the IMO’s regulations on Tier III NO x emission standards (refer to Exhibit 30, CEAR Document #18465); and  Newer ships are expected to be capable of connecting to shore power while at berth.

Further, the maximum hourly emission scenario assumed a NO x limit that reflects no Tier III ships (i.e., 85% of vessels were Tier II and 15% were Tier I). With the most current industry information, Mercator International has projected that between approximately 54% and 72% of vessels are expected to be Tier III by 2035 (Exhibit 30, CEAR Document #1826).

Table UT36-1 IMO Tier Levels for Ocean-going Vessels with Engine-rated Speed of less than 130 rpms 6

NO Limit % Decrease from Tier Level Effective Date for New Builds x (g/kWh) Tier I Tier I Jan 1, 2006 17 n/a Tier II Jan 1, 2011 14.4 15% Jan 1, 2016 (North America ECA) Tier III 3.4 80% Jan 1, 2021 (Baltic Sea / North Sea ECA)

4 CEAR Document #934 From the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to the Review Panel re: Compilation of the Review Panel's Information Requests and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority's Responses (NOTE: Updated February 15, 2019). 5 CEAR Document #1846 Exhibit 30 - Document presented by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority on May 29, 2019 - NOx Tiers of Containerships That will Call Vancouver. 6 The NO x emission limits of Regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI apply to each marine diesel engine with a power output of more than 130 kW installed on a ship.

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Public Hearing Undertaking #36 | Page 3 In summary, an increase in the use of larger vessels with RBT2 is not anticipated to result in an increase in air contaminant emissions. Based on assumptions incorporated in the air quality studies, the assessments provided in the EIS and MSA are conservative.

Underwater Noise

Overall noise emissions from larger NPX container ships are no higher than Large PPX container ships, based on port authority-led Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program source level data collected from the Strait of Georgia Underwater Listening Station. When extrapolating source levels from NPX container ships (based on 13,000 TEU capacity, 366 m length) using the Ross power-law scaling law for vessel length to ULCS container ships (15,000 to 18,000 TEU capacity, 398 m length), ULCS vessels are not expected to have higher noise emissions than Large PPX (based on 9,600 TEU capacity, 338 m length) vessels. A reduction in vessel speed will decrease underwater noise. Therefore, if a larger vessel having lower maximum design speed is transiting at a slower speed, underwater noise will be reduced.

In Undertaking #20 (CEAR Document #1800 7), the port authority provided the results of updated underwater noise modelling for terminal operation. This included a comparison of updated underwater noise predictions, using an NPX vessel (13,000 TEU), against forecasts from previous underwater noise modelling scenarios that considered a Mega-Max (18,000 TEU) and Large PPX (9,600 TEU) vessel (Table 1 in Appendix A of CEAR Document #1800). In addition, Appendix C of Undertaking #20 (CEAR Document #1800) provides a comparison of sound pressure levels for Large PPX, NPX, and ULCS vessels, and corresponding radii (in metres) of behavioural response thresholds for marine mammals at four locations in the marine shipping area.

In summary, an increase in the use of larger vessels with RBT2 is not anticipated to result in appreciable differences in underwater noise, since the larger NPX and ULCS class vessels will generate similar underwater noise to Large PPX vessels when cruising at the same speed. Based on new data on vessel noise emissions from the port authority-led ECHO Program, the assessments provided in the EIS and MSA are conservative.

Wave Environment

Wave height varies with vessel speed, vessel hull form, distance from transit line, and water depth. The only factor that possibly changes with the increased use of larger vessels (with RBT2) is vessel speed. Larger vessels can have smaller main engines compared to smaller vessels, as the maximum design speed and cruising speed of larger vessels can be slower (as shown in Table IR4-02-2 of CEAR Document #934 and Appendix UT36-A). Since container vessel traffic with or without RBT2 is projected to be the same in 2035, there will be no additional wake-generated waves with RBT2.

7 CEAR Document #1800 Undertaking #20: From the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority - Underwater Noise Documents.

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Public Hearing Undertaking #36 | Page 4 In summary, the use of larger vessels with RBT2 will not increase the number or size of wake- generated waves in the marine shipping area. If a vessel transits at a slower speed, regardless of vessel size, the height of waves will be less. As such, the MSA assessment is conservative.

Light

The requirements for navigational lights (as described in the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 ) do not increase once ships are larger than 50 m in length (as outlined in IR6-03 of CEAR Document #934). Therefore, while larger container ships may have more light sources, these lights are not all used when the ship is underway. For light trespass and sky glow levels for the MSA assessment, therefore, the use of larger container ships with RBT2 will not change the predicted levels compared to without RBT2.

Appendices

Appendix UT36-A Representative Container Vessel Characteristics for Each Vessel Size Class

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Public Hearing Undertaking #36 | Page 5

APPENDIX UT36-A REPRESENTATIVE CONTAINER VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS FOR EACH VESSEL SIZE CLASS

Table UT36-A1 Representative Container Vessel Characteristics for Each Container Vessel Size Class

Max Class Year Vessel Main Cruise Container Vessel Representative Capacity Keel Laid Date Vessel Design of Capacity First Sailed Engine Engine Tier Speed b Engine type Size Class Vessel (TEUs) Assumed/Actual a LOA Speed Introduction Range (TEUs) (MW) (knots) (knots) Spirit of Tokyo 2,532 2001 210 Feb. 2002 21.6 Pre-Tier 22 B&W 8S70MC Pinehurst Kontor 5,060 2004 294 Aug 2004 41.1 Pre-Tier 24.3 MAN B&W MOL Presence 6,350 Sep 2007 293 Mar 2008 62.9 I 27 26 MAN B&W 11K98MC Small Post-Panamax 1988, 1996 4,000 - 8,999 MOL Performance 6,500 2002 294 Feb. 2002 60.4 I 25 SUL 8ZAL40S (PPX) OOCL Tianjin 8,060 2004 323 May 2005 68.5 Pre-Tier 25 B&W 12K 98MCC Prague Express 8,750 Oct 2009 336 Mar. 2010 57.0 I 25.6 B&W 10K 98ME Budapest Express 8,750 Oct 2009 336 Mar. 2010 57.2 I 24.1 B&W 12K 98ME COSCO Guangzhou 9,469 2005 350 Feb. 2006 74.8 I 25.6 24.5 MAN B&W 12K98MC Maersk Algol 9,580 2008 338 Mar 2008 68.6 I 25.5 20 SUL 12RT-flex96C Zim Antwerp 10,070 Mar 2009 349 Dec. 2009 68.6 I 25.8 B&W 12K 98MC Large PPX 2000 9,000 - 12,700 Valparaíso Express 10,600 Nov 2015 333 Nov 2016 34.2 II 21 MAN B&W 7S90ME-C10.5 CMA CGM Thalassa 11,040 Jul 2008 348 Dec. 2008 72.3 I 24.7 24.3 MAN B&W 12K98MC -C Kota Pekarang 11,923 Dec 2015 330 Nov 2017 42.4 II 23 DOOSAN 1DE : 2 SA 8 CY Maersk Essex 13,092 Dec 2010 366 Jul 2011 68.8 I 24.6 Hyundai-Wartsila 12RT-flex 96C Antwerpen Express 13,167 Dec 2012 367 Jun 2013 68.8 II 24.6 Sulzer 12K 98ME-C7 Neo-Panamax (NPX) 2008 13,000 - 14,999 Maersk Eindhoven 13,092 Mar 2010 367 Jun 2010 68.6 I 24.7 23.1 HW 12RT-flex 96C-B MSC Danit 14,000 2009 366 Mar 2009 72.2 I 24.1 24.1 MAN B&W 12K98MC-C APL Vanda 13,900 2013 369 Jul 2013 69.7 II 24.15 MAN S90ME-C9.2-TII Emma Maersk 15,000 Jan 2006 397 Aug 2006 80.1 I 25.5 25.5 Wärtsilä 14RT-Flex96c Ultra-Large Container 2006 15,000 - 17,999 MSC Amsterdam 16,652 2015 399 2015 59.8 II 23.0 MAN-B&W-STX 11S90ME-C9 Ship (ULCS) CMA CGM Marco Polo 16,020 Apr 2012 396 Nov 2012 80.1 II 25.1 Wärtsilä 14RT-flex96C Maersk McKinney 18,340 Nov 2012 399 Jul 2013 64 II 23 16 2xMAN-B&W 8S80ME-C 9.2 MØller CSCL Globe 19,100 May 2014 400 Dec 2014 69.7 II 22 20.5 MAN B&W 12S90ME-C Mega-Max 2013 18,000 - 24,000 MSC Oscar 19,224 Jul 2014 395 Dec 2014 62.5 II 22.8 22.8 MAN B&W 11S90ME-C MOL Triumph 20,170 Dec 2015 400 Mar 2017 82.4 II 24 22 MAN B&W G95ME Madrid Maersk 20,568 2015 399 Apr 2017 52.6 II 21 2 x MAN 7 cylinders OOCL Hong Kong 21,413 Dec 2015 400 May 2017 75.6 II 21 14.6 MAN D&T 11G95ME-C9 Notes: a. Actual dates shown with month. b. For some vessels, cruise speed information is not publicly available.

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Appendix UT36-A | Page 1