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).