Air Quality Assessment Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail ......Air Quality Assessment - Appendix A Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail Improvement Project 380220 - October 2012 iii SENES

Air Quality Assessment Deltaport Terminal, Road and

Rail Improvement Project Appendix A

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

SENES Consultants Limited 1338 West Broadway, Suite 303

Vancouver, BC V6H 1H2

Final Report

October 2012

Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place

Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4

(Blank Page)

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

DELTAPORT TERMINAL, ROAD AND RAIL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Prepared for:

Port Metro Vancouver

100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place

Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 3T4

Prepared by:

SENES Consultants Limited

1338 West Broadway, Suite 303

Vancouver, B.C. V6H 1H2

October 2012

Printed on Recycled Paper Containing Post-Consumer Fibre

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

DELTAPORT TERMINAL, ROAD AND RAIL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TITLE

Prepared for:

Port Metro Vancouver

100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place

Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 3T4

Prepared by:

SENES Consultants Limited

1338 West Broadway, Suite 303

Vancouver, B.C. V6H 1H2

_____________________________ _____________________________

Bohdan W. Hrebenyk, M.Sc. Sandy Willis, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Manager, B.C. Office Senior Environmental Engineer

October 2012

Printed on Recycled Paper Containing Post-Consumer Fibre

Air Quality Assessment - Appendix A

Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail Improvement Project

380220 - October 2012 i SENES Consultants Limited

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................v

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

2.0 SHIP EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Ship Parameters ................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.1 Ship Size Parameters................................................................................ 2-2

2.1.2 Ship Quantities ......................................................................................... 2-4

2.1.3 Ship Age................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2 Ship Activities ...................................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.1 Load Factors............................................................................................. 2-8

2.3 Ship Emission Factors.......................................................................................... 2-8

2.3.1 Emission Factor Implementation Timing ................................................ 2-8

2.3.2 CO2 equivalents (CO2e) ......................................................................... 2-11

2.3.3 Sulphur and PM adjustments ................................................................. 2-11

2.3.4 Emission Factors Used in the Assessment ............................................. 2-12

2.4 Tugboats ............................................................................................................. 2-13

2.5 Boilers ................................................................................................................ 2-14

3.0 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS ....................................................... 3-1

3.1 Deltaport .............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.1 Existing Equipment Capacity .................................................................. 3-2

3.1.2 Equipment Replacement .......................................................................... 3-5

3.1.3 Load Factors............................................................................................. 3-5

3.1.4 Emission Factors ...................................................................................... 3-6

3.1.4.1 Unadjusted Steady State Emission Factors .................................. 3-7

3.1.4.2 Equipment Deterioration Factor .................................................. 3-8

3.1.4.3 Transient Adjustment Factors ...................................................... 3-8

3.1.4.4 BSFC adjusted ............................................................................. 3-9

3.1.4.5 Sulphur considerations ................................................................. 3-9

3.1.4.6 SPM adjustment factor ............................................................... 3-10

3.1.4.7 Revised Emission Factors .......................................................... 3-10

3.2 Proposed Terminal 2 .......................................................................................... 3-11

3.3 Westshore ........................................................................................................... 3-11

4.0 RAIL LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS ............................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Locomotive Parameters ....................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Locomotive Activities .......................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Line-haul Locomotives ............................................................................ 4-4

4.2.2 Switch Locomotives................................................................................. 4-7

4.3 Emission Rates ..................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.1 Common Air Contaminants ..................................................................... 4-7

4.3.2 Greenhouse Gases .................................................................................. 4-10



380220 - October 2012 ii SENES Consultants Limited

5.0 ON-ROAD VEHICLE EMISSIONS ............................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Vehicle Activities................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Container Trucks ...................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 Employee and Visitor Vehicles ............................................................... 5-5

5.2 Emission Factors .................................................................................................. 5-6

6.0 SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY .................................................................................. 6-10

6.1 Ships ................................................................................................................... 6-10

6.1.1 Main Engine Size for Large Container Vessels ..................................... 6-10

6.1.2 Emission Factors and Load Factors ....................................................... 6-13

6.1.3 Activity-based versus fuel-based emission factors ................................ 6-15

6.2 Cargo Handling Equipment ............................................................................... 6-15

6.3 Rail Locomotives ............................................................................................... 6-16

6.4 On-road Vehicles ............................................................................................... 6-18

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 7-1



380220 - October 2012 iii SENES Consultants Limited

LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

Table 1.1 – Case Cargo Volume Comparison ............................................................................. 1-3

Table 2.1 –Ship Capacity and Engine Size .................................................................................. 2-2

Table 2.2 –Annual Ship Size Distribution for Deltaport and Proposed Terminal 2 .................... 2-3

Table 2.3 –Average and Maximum Ship Size for Hourly and Daily Assessments ..................... 2-3

Table 2.4 – Annual Ship Calls ..................................................................................................... 2-4

Table 2.5 – Daily and Hourly Ship Calls ..................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2.6 – Ship Age Distribution ............................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2.7 – Ship Activities........................................................................................................... 2-6

Table 2.8 – Deltaport and Proposed Terminal 2 Berthing Times ................................................ 2-7

Table 2.9 – Westshore Percent Queuing and Anchoring by Horizon Year ................................. 2-7

Table 2.10 – Daily and Hourly Ship Manoeuvring Activities ..................................................... 2-7

Table 2.11 – Ship Load Factors ................................................................................................... 2-8

Table 2.12 – Emission Factor Implementation Timing ............................................................... 2-9

Table 2.13 – NOx Emission Factor Fleet Composition ............................................................... 2-9

Table 2.14 – NOx Daily and Hourly Emission Factor Categories ............................................ 2-10

Table 2.15 – CO2 Equivalent Conversion Factors ..................................................................... 2-11

Table 2.16 – Comparison of CO2 to CO2e ................................................................................. 2-11

Table 2.17 – Sulphur and PM Adjustment Factors from MEIT 3.50 ........................................ 2-12

Table 2.18 – Emission Factors used in the Assessment, g/kW-hr ............................................. 2-12

Table 2.19 – Tugboat Emission Factors used in the Assessment, g/KW-hr .............................. 2-13

Table 2.20 – Hourly and Daily Emissions Scenarios Tug Activity Levels ............................... 2-14

Table 2.21 – Boiler Emission Factors, kg/Tonne ...................................................................... 2-15

Table 3.1 – Deltaport CHE Equipment ........................................................................................ 3-1

Table 3.2 – Cargo Throughputs ................................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3.3 – Case 1 Equipment Hours by Horizon Year .............................................................. 3-4

Table 3.4 – Case 2 and 3 Equipment Hours by Horizon Year ..................................................... 3-4

Table 3.5 – CHE Lifespan ........................................................................................................... 3-5

Table 3.6 – Emission Factor Adjustment Equations .................................................................... 3-6

Table 3.7 – Steady State Emission Factors, g/hp-hr .................................................................... 3-7

Table 3.8 – Deterioration Factors ................................................................................................ 3-8

Table 3.9 – Transient Adjustment Factors ................................................................................... 3-9

Table 3.10 – BSFCadj, lb/hp-hr .................................................................................................... 3-9

Table 3.11 – Adjusted Emission Factors, g/hp-hr...................................................................... 3-10

Table 3.12 – Proposed Terminal 2 Diesel Equipment ............................................................... 3-11

Table 3.13 – Coal Throughput, tonnes....................................................................................... 3-12

Table 4.1 – Power Rating and Fuel Consumption ....................................................................... 4-2

Table 4.2 – Locomotive Effective Power .................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4.3 – Fleet Tier Mixtures ................................................................................................... 4-4

Table 4.4 – Line-haul Train Activity Summary........................................................................... 4-5

Table 4.5 – Annual Line-haul Traffic Counts .............................................................................. 4-6

Table 4.6 – Daily Line-haul Traffic Counts ................................................................................. 4-6

Table 4.7 – Hourly Line-haul Traffic Counts .............................................................................. 4-6



380220 - October 2012 iv SENES Consultants Limited

Table 4.8 – US EPA Locomotive Emission Factors .................................................................... 4-8

Table 4.9 – Common Air Contaminant Emission Rates .............................................................. 4-9

Table 4.10 – Rail Association of Canada Emission Factors ...................................................... 4-10

Table 4.11 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Rates .......................................................................... 4-10

Table 5.1 – On-Road Vehicle Activity Summary ........................................................................ 5-2

Table 5.2 – Annual Container Truck Traffic Counts ................................................................... 5-3

Table 5.3 – Average Daily Container Truck Traffic Counts ....................................................... 5-3

Table 5.4 – Peak Daily Container Truck Traffic Counts ............................................................. 5-4

Table 5.5 – Average Hourly Container Truck Traffic Counts ..................................................... 5-4

Table 5.6 – Peak Hourly Container Truck Traffic Counts ........................................................... 5-4

Table 5.7 – Annual Employee and Visitor Vehicle Traffic Counts ............................................. 5-5

Table 5.8 – Daily Employee and Visitor Vehicle Traffic Counts................................................ 5-5

Table 5.9 – Hourly Employee and Visitor Vehicle Traffic Counts ............................................. 5-6

Table 5.10 – MOBILE6.2C On-Road Vehicle Emission Factors ................................................ 5-8

Table 5.11 – Heavy-duty Creep Cycle Emission Factors ............................................................ 5-9

LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

Figure 6.1 – Vessel Size and Main Engine Power Rating ......................................................... 6-12

Figure 6.2 – Range of Possible Main Engine Sizes ................................................................... 6-12

Figure 6.3 – Container Vessel Emission Factors Relative to Engine Load ............................... 6-14



380220 - October 2012 v SENES Consultants Limited

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations

AE Auxiliary Engine

Blr Boiler

BSFC Break-specific Fuel Consumption

CAC Common Air Contaminant

CARB California Air Resources Board

CHE Cargo Handling Equipment

DF Deterioration Factor

DP Deltaport Container Terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, BC

DTRRIP Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail Improvement Project

DWT Dead Weight Tonnage

ECA North American Emission Control Area

EF Emission Factor

LDV Light Duty Vehicles

LFV Lower Fraser Valley in south-western British Columbia

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GWP Global Warming Potential

HDDV Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles

IY Intermodal Yard

I/M Inspection and Maintenance

MDO Marine Diesel Oil

ME Main Engine

MEIT Marine Emission Inventory Tool

MPSC Maximum Practical Sustainable Capacity

RAC Railway Association of Canada

RTG Rubber-tired gantry cranes

SCC Source Classification Code

SFPR South Fraser Perimeter Road

T2 Proposed Terminal 2 container terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, BC

TAF Tension Adjustment Factor

TLS Truck Licensing System

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WS Westshore Terminals coal port at Roberts Bank in Delta, BC



380220 - October 2012 vi SENES Consultants Limited

Contaminants

CH4 Methane

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide equivalent; refers to global warming potential

HC Hydrocarbon

NH3 Ammonia

NOx Nitrogen Oxides (NO and NO2)

N2O Nitrous Oxide

PM Particulate Matter

PM10 Inhalable Particulate Matter (consisting of particles with a mean diameter less

than 10 microns)

PM2.5 Respirable or Fine Particulate Matter (consisting of particles with a mean

diameter less than 2.5 microns)

SO2 Sulphur Dioxide

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds; include a variety of organic chemicals that have a

high vapour pressure at room temperature

Units of Measure

g/bhp-hr Gram per break-horsepower hour

hp Horsepower

hr Hour

kg Kilogram

km Kilometre

kW-hr Kilowatt-hour

ppm Parts per million (unit of concentration)

TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (unit of measure for shipping containers)

Concepts

Cumulative

Effects

Cumulative effects are changes to the environment caused by the combination of

effects of past, present and “reasonably foreseeable” future



380220 - October 2012 1-1 SENES Consultants Limited

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail Improvement Project (DTRRIP) represents a series of

improvements to the existing Deltaport Terminal and supporting road and rail infrastructure at

Roberts Bank in Delta, B.C. DTRRIP represents an efficient and cost-effective way to upgrade

existing infrastructure. These infrastructure upgrades will allow for an increase in terminal

container capacity for future operations. The information presented in this report provides a

summary of the anticipated changes in air contaminant emissions and associated air quality due

to these changes in container handling capacity at the Deltaport Terminal.

The air quality assessment for DTRRIP was conducted based on Deltaport container terminal

capacity of 2.4 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU) per year by 2030. This is the most

practical and sustainable terminal operation scenario. In addition, two other potential scenarios

of future operations at the Deltaport Terminal (DP) were assessed, one scenario was based on a

Deltaport container terminal capacity of 3.0 million TEU per year by 2030 and another potential

scenario also with 3.0 million TEU, but with larger container ships calling at Deltaport, resulting

in a lower number of ship calls per year.

Of the three scenarios, the first scenario is considered the most likely as 800,000 TEU per

container terminal berth can be achieved practically and sustainably.

A key element of all of the scenarios is a definition of the term “capacity”. A capacity of 2.4 million TEU’s of cargo “across the dock” (meaning all cargo and empty containers moved to and from a vessel) is the “Maximum Practical Sustainable Capacity (MPSC)” of the Deltaport Terminal. This is the amount of cargo the terminal (and all of its components) can be expected

to handle in an efficient and economic manner year after year. The MPSC is typically 80% to

85% of the design capacity of the terminal. The design capacity is the capacity at which the

terminal can operate (and could do so during the peak season of late June through October) but

both the market and the operational sustainability of operating at peak levels cannot be

maintained in a safe, efficient or even economical manner.

Another aspect that bears discussion is that a marine terminal is composed of several operational

components, each with a unique design capacity. The overall capacity of the terminal is based

upon the component with the least capacity. Berths are one of the components and an increase of

one berth (from 2 berths to 3 berths) may make an incremental jump in annual TEU capacity for

that component. Thus, using a capacity of 3.0 million TEU’s for the air quality analysis due to vessel operations is very appropriate as larger vessels will be calling at Deltaport in the future as

the world’s container fleet vessel size increases. What is unknown is the direct relationship

between increasing vessel size and the number of vessel calls to Deltaport as many North




American container ports have witnessed an increase in TEU throughput based on vessel size

(and the increase in containers discharged) while not seeing an increase in the number of vessel

calls. The terminal capacity analysis indicated that with three berths and larger vessels, the berth

component was not the component restricting terminal capacity, meaning that during the peak

season, this component could be effectively operating near the 3.0 million TEU limit.

Air contaminant emissions were calculated for six horizon years, namely: 2010, 2014, 2017,

2020, 2025 and 2030. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the three distinct operational scenarios,

based on total cargo handling throughput and the size of ships calling at the container terminals

which determines the number of ships that would call in each year. The three operational

scenarios are defined as follows:

Case 1: High "Direct" container traffic projection. Deltaport and potential future

container capacity have a combined sustainable capacity of 4.8 million TEU with the

ability to achieve higher throughput during peak periods. Westshore throughput 35

million tonnes coal.


container capacity have a combined sustainable capacity of up to 6.0 million TEU.

Westshore throughput 35 million tonnes coal.


container capacity have a total sustainable capacity of up to 6.0 million TEU. TEU per

ship call remains at 2010 level. Westshore throughput 35 million tonnes coal.

Table 1.1 lists the projected cargo throughput for each Case per horizon year of the assessment.

Emissions from Deltaport (DP), the proposed Terminal 2 (T2), and Westshore (WS) were

calculated for the following activities:

Container Ships calling at DP and T2, Bulk Carriers for WS and tugboats which assist

marine vessels to and from their berths

On-shore Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE)

Container Trucks servicing the container terminal(s) and Employee Vehicles

Locomotive Emissions from rail operations servicing the container terminals and coal

port.




Table 1.1 – Case Cargo Volume Comparison

Horizon

Year

Cumulative Effects Assessment

DP - DTRRIP WS Future Potential Container

Expansiona

Case 1 Case 2,3 Case 1,2,3 Case 1 Case 2,3

(million TEU) (million TEU) (Mt Coal) (million TEU) (million TEU)

2010 1.54 1.54 24.7 0.00 0.00

2014 1.74 1.74 25.0 0.00 0.00

2017 2.40 2.40 28.0 0.00 0.00

2020 2.40 3.00 31.0 1.10 0.50

2025 2.40 3.00 35.0 2.40 1.86

2030 2.40 3.00 35.0 2.40 3.00

Notes:

DP - Deltaport Terminal

WS - Westshore Terminals a proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2)

Air contaminant emissions were calculated for the following compounds:

Common Air Contaminants (CAC) Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Ammonia (NH3)

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4), expressed as CO2-equivalent (CO2e)1

Nitrous Oxide (N2O), expressed as CO2-equivalent (CO2e)

The emission estimates were calculated using best practice methods adopted by Transport

Canada, Environment Canada, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and which have

been used to estimate marine and landside emissions for Port Metro Vancouver and other ports

in California and Seattle.

1 CO2e represents the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of compounds other than CO2 used to determine how much

global temperature warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause, using the functionally

equivalent amount or concentration of CO2 as the reference. For methane, the GWP is estimated at 25, while that of

N2O is estimated at 298.




Hydrocarbons (HC) are a subset of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The two are used

interchangeably within this document because all of the VOCs emitted by transportation sources

are composed of HCs.

Emissions were assessed for the following time averaging periods:

Average annual emissions;

Daily maximum and average emissions; and

Hourly maximum and average emissions.

While the assessment presented in this report focuses on the DTRRIP impacts, the emissions

calculations for all three locations (DP, WS, and T2) and cases were performed concurrently in

Appendix A because of the commonalities in the calculation methods. Rather than providing a

repetitive discussion of calculation methods for each of the locations in this Appendix,

information on the three terminals has been grouped according to the various calculation

parameters.




2.0 SHIP EMISSIONS

Calculating emissions from ships involved the consideration of a number of parameters

including:

Ship size;

Number of ships;

Activity times;

Ship locations;

Ship age;

Types and sizes of engines;

The loading on the engines;

Emission factors and changes in emission factors over time due to changes in fuel or

engine technologies

The general calculation of emissions for ships is as follows:

Emissions (kg/period) = [Traffic Count (ships/period) * Ship Engine Size, kW *Emission Factor

(g/kW-hr) * Activity Load Factor (unitless) * A Time (hr) * kg/g]

Ships were considered to have three sources of combustion emissions. The main engine (ME),

the auxiliary engines (AE), and Boilers (Blr). Ship activities include manoeuvring, underway,

berthing, and for Westshore, queuing and anchoring. Load factors are specific to the activity.

Emission factors are primarily dependent on the type of ship and the combustion source. In

some cases, where control technologies are mandated through legislation they may also be

dependent on horizon year.

Tugboats were also included in the assessment and are discussed separately.

Parameters used in the assessment are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.




2.1 SHIP PARAMETERS

Ship parameters for Deltaport, proposed Terminal 2, and Westshore, including size, quantities,

and ship ages, were provided by Port Metro Vancouver (PMV).

2.1.1 Ship Size Parameters

For the proposed Terminal 2 and Deltaport, the ship engine sizes varied by horizon year but were

the same for each case. For WS only one ship size of 100,000 tonnes was considered with an

engine size of 14,784 kW. Ship capacities, as listed in Table 2.1, were converted to main engine

sizes based on trends in propulsion for container vessels as provided by Global Security (2011)

for ships up to 7,500 TEU. The projected trends from a variety of published sources provide an

upper bound estimate of the range of potential main engine sizes that larger container vessels of

>7,500 TEU capacity could have, as discussed in Section 6.1. Some vessels calling at Roberts

Bank in the future may have smaller main engines than those listed below. AE Power was

calculated using the Marine Emission Inventory Tool (MEIT 3.5) Auxiliary Power to Main

Power ratio of 0.17 for container ships and 0.29 for bulk ships and rounded to three significant

figures.

Table 2.1 –Ship Capacity and Engine Size

Location Cargo

Volume

Cargo

Units ME Power, kW

AE Power,

kW

DP and T2

1,000 TEU 4,500 765

2,500 TEU 20,000 3,400

3,500 TEU 31,500 5,360

4,500 TEU 40,000 6,800

5,500 TEU 50,000 8,500

6,500 TEU 53,000 9,010

7,500 TEU 56,850 9,670

8,500 TEU 68,500 11,650

9,500 TEU 75,800 12,900

12,000 TEU 102,800 17,500

WS 100,000 Tonnes 14,784 4,287

For Deltaport and the proposed Terminal 2 ships varied in size according to horizon year as

provided by PMV and are listed in Table 2.2. This distribution is consistent for Case 1, 2, and 3.

For WS, only one ship size was considered for all horizon years as listed in Table 2.1.




Table 2.2 –Annual Ship Size Distribution for Deltaport and Proposed Terminal 2

TEU Horizon Year

2010 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030

1,000

2,500 3%

3,500

4,500 12% 5% 1%

5,500 30% 24% 18% 12% 2%

6,500 16% 16% 14% 11% 6% 1%

7,500 9% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15%

8,500 27% 31% 34% 35% 35% 35%

9,500

4% 9% 14% 17% 17%

12,000 3% 6% 9% 13% 25% 31%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Average ship sizes for the daily and hourly assessments were provided by PMV and are listed in

Table 2.3. SENES assumed the largest ship size for the maximum emissions scenarios. As

previously stated, for Westshore only one ship size was used in the assessment.

Table 2.3 –Average and Maximum Ship Size for Hourly and Daily Assessments

Location Horizon

Year Scenario

Mean Cargo

Volume, TEU

ME Power,

KW

AE Power,

KW

DP and

T2

2010

Average

hourly and

daily

6,250 52,250 8,883

2014 7,050 55,000

9,350

2017 7,550 56,850 9,665

2020 8,000 62,675 10,655

2025 8,750 72,150 12,300

2030 9,500 75,800 12,900

all

Maximum

hourly and

daily

12,000 102,800 17,500

WS All All 100,000 tonnes 14,784 4,287




2.1.2 Ship Quantities

The number of ship calls used for each of the horizon years and Cases is presented in Table 2.4.

Ship calls formed the basis of the calculation methodology as the emissions are directly

proportional to the number of ships.

There are two types of ship calls at Deltaport. Most container ship calls involve discharging

containers and loading new containers all in one call. However, a smaller proportion of

container ships come into port, discharge some of their cargo and then sail without loading new

containers. Subsequently, these ships return at a later date to pick up new cargo. A ship that

operates this way would be counted as having made two ship calls since it arrives at berth twice.

However, the berthing time for these ship calls would be half that of a ship that unloads and

loads the cargo in the same call. The traffic data presented in the traffic report differentiates

between these two types of ship calls in the ship movement descriptions. There were 52 such

dual ship calls assumed for DP for all horizon years and all scenarios, in addition to the more

typical single calls. Because the calculation methodology varies slightly for the dual ship calls,

the number of single ship calls is listed first in Table 2.4, while the total number of ship calls is

listed separately in parentheses.

Table 2.4 – Annual Ship Calls

Horizon

Year

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

DP T2 WS DP T2 WS DP T2 WS

2010 245

(297) 246

245

(297) 246

245

(297) 246

2014 260

(312) 250

260

(312) 250

312

(364) 250

2017 312

(364) 280

312

(364) 280

312

(364) 280

2020 312

(364) 156 310

364

(416) 52 310

468

(520) 104 310

2025 260

(312) 260 350

364

(416) 208 350

468

(520) 312 350

2030 260

(312) 260 350

312

(364) 312 350

468

(520) 468 350




For the daily and hourly emissions scenarios, the ship quantities are listed in Table 2.5 and are

based on information provided from PMV.

Table 2.5 – Daily and Hourly Ship Calls

Time

period Horizon

Year Scenario

Ships at berth

WS DP T2 Total

Hourly

2010-2017 maximum 2 2

0 4

average 1 1 2

2020-2030 maximum 2 2 2 6

average 1 1 1 3

Daily

2010-2017 maximum 2 3

0 5

average 1 1 2

2020-2030 maximum 2 3 3 8

average 1 1 1 3

2.1.3 Ship Age

Ship age distribution was provided by PMV. Ship age is relevant to NOx emissions where ship

manufacturers are required to meet specific performance requirements. Ship age distribution as

provided by PMV did not vary by case or horizon year and is presented in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 – Ship Age Distribution

Fleet Age Maximum Age,

years DP and T2 WS

1 to 5 years 5 39% 31%

6 to 10 years 10 36% 43%

11-15 years 15 24% 23%

16-20 years 20 1% 2%




2.2 SHIP ACTIVITIES

Ship activities and activity times were consistent with previous assumptions made for the

Deltaport Third Berth Project (SENES 2007). Each activity is associated with an applicable time

frame for the activity. Ship activities and associated time frames are defined in Table 2.7.

Ships are considered to be underway en route to and from the port locations. When ships are

ready to berth they manoeuvre with the assistance of tugboats to the berth locations. The ships

are berthing while unloading and loading cargo.

Berthing time is associated with the size of the ship and varies for Deltaport and the proposed

Terminal 2 because of the number of different ship sizes. Berthing times for Westshore are

constant because of the assumption that only one ship size berths at Westshore. Berthing times

were calculated based on a relationship between vessel TEU capacity and unloading times as

reported for DP in 2006 (SENES 2007, Figure A.5) and are listed in Table 2.8.

Anchoring and queuing are associated with Westshore activities when the ships are required to

wait for a berth at Westshore and move to a different location (i.e., English Bay) to await a free

space. While there is the potential for anchoring and queuing to occur with Deltaport and the

proposed Terminal 2, it is infrequent and is not considered in the assessment. The frequency of

queuing and anchoring increases by horizon year and is presented in Table 2.9. Westshore ships

that queue and anchor are also considered to undergo manoeuvring at the alternate location.

Table 2.7 – Ship Activities

Activity DP and T2 time, hrs WS time, hrs

Berthing See Table 2.8 55

Anchoring No ships anchor 38 hours total

Queuing No ships queue 7 hours total

Manoeuvring 1 hr each way, 2 hours total

Underway 1.25 hrs each way, 2.5 hrs total




Table 2.8 – Deltaport and Proposed Terminal 2 Berthing Times

Cargo Volume Berthing time, hours

1000 26

2500 38

3500 45

4500 50

5500 55

6500 59

7500 63

8500 67

9500 70

12000 78

Table 2.9 – Westshore Percent Queuing and Anchoring by Horizon Year

Horizon Year Percent Queuing

2010 50%

2014 50%

2017 60%

2020 70%

2025 70%

2030 70%

There is limited space within the port location to conduct manoeuvring and for the hourly and

daily assessment scenarios the manoeuvring was assigned to Deltaport. In reality, manoeuvring

on an hourly or daily basis could occur at any of the locations. The number of ships undergoing

manoeuvring for the daily and hourly emission scenarios is presented in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10 – Daily and Hourly Ship Manoeuvring Activities

Time

period Horizon

Year Scenario

Manoeuvring

WS DP T2 Total

Hourly

2010-2017 maximum 0 1

0 1

average 0 1 1

2020-2030 maximum 0 1 0 1

average 0 1 0 1

Daily

2010-2017 maximum 2 3

0 5

average 1 1 2

2020-2030 maximum 2 3 3 8

average 1 1 1 3




2.2.1 Load Factors

Load factors used in the assessment are as listed in Table 2.11. MEIT provides load factors for

boilers, however, load factors were not considered in the assessment for boilers as the boiler

engine sizes have load factors incorporated, as recommended by a recent study completed for the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ICF 2009). The main engines were not considered

operational during berthing. For Westshore, queuing was considered to have the same load

factor as for underway, and anchoring was the same load factor as berthing. Underway load

factors for slow cruise were used for the main engines as per MEIT. According to the MEIT,

there is no difference in load factors during slow cruise for the auxiliary engines and boilers.

Table 2.11 – Ship Load Factors

Ship Type Location Engine Type Underway Manoeuvring Berthing

Bulk WS ME 0.55 0.1

AE 0.21 0.31 0.42

Container DP and T2 ME 0.5 0.1

AE 0.21 0.33 0.2

Source: MEIT 3.5

2.3 SHIP EMISSION FACTORS

Ship emission factors were taken from MEIT 3.5 and have the following considerations.

All transport ships run on Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO);

Emission factors for cargo ships segregated by Bulk (Westshore) and Container Ship

(Deltaport and proposed Terminal 2);

Some emission factors vary by horizon year or ship age; and

Emission factors vary by engine type

Specific information on emission factors is presented in the following subsections.

2.3.1 Emission Factor Implementation Timing

Emission factors for some contaminants are dependent on timing based on implementation of

sulphur in fuel regulations under the North American Emission Control Area (ECA). The

sulphur content of HFO according to MEIT 3.50 is 2.7% for 2010 for internationally sourced

fuel oil. More than 80% of the fleet comes from international locations. When fuel sulphur

levels drop to 1% in 2012 and to 0.1% in 2015, sulphur emission factors will also drop




accordingly. Particulate matter fractions (PM, PM2.5 and PM10) will also have an associated

decrease in these time frames. No lead time is required for these contaminants as the change in

fuel is the key driver of emissions.

To perform the calculations emission factors were grouped into emission factor categories of

EF1, EF2, or EF3 as listed in Table 2.12.

Table 2.12 – Emission Factor Implementation Timing

Contaminant 2010 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030

CO EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1

NOx EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3 EF3 EF3

SO2 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3 EF3 EF3

VOC EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1

NH3 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1

PM EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3 EF3 EF3

PM10 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3 EF3 EF3

PM2.5 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3 EF3 EF3

CO2e EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1

For NOx, the emission factor category indicates that ships built near the horizon year will have

control technologies sufficient to meet regulatory requirements. However, because the ship fleet

will also include older ships, not all ships will transition to the applicable emission factor

immediately. The ship fleet transition to emission factors is listed in Table 2.13. Thus, in 2010,

all ships regardless of ship age are assessed using EF1. In 2017, ships aged 1-5 years are

assumed to be capable of achieving EF3 emission factors, and ships older than 10 years old still

are considered to be emitting emission factor levels of EF1. By 2030, all ships are assumed to be

achieving EF3 for all regulated contaminants, but not for CO, VOCs, CO2e and NH3.

Table 2.13 – NOx Emission Factor Fleet Composition

Ship

Age,

years

Max

Age 2010 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030

1-5 5 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3 EF3 EF3

6-10 10 EF1 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3 EF3

11-15 15 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF3

16-25 20 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF2 EF3




For the daily and hourly averages NOx emission factors were determined based on ship age and

allocation of fleet age for each of the horizon years. The emission factor categories used for

NOx for the daily and hourly scenarios are listed in Table 2.14. The Fleet Allocation

percentages presented in Table 2.14 are from the proposed Terminal 2 and Deltaport, but

Westshore has similar fleet allocations and the emission factor categories were the same for

Westshore despite the minor differences in the fleet allocations.

Table 2.14 – NOx Daily and Hourly Emission Factor Categories

Horizon

year

Ship

Age,

years

EF

Category

Fleet

Allocation

Maximum

Scenario

Average

Scenario

2010

1-5 EF1 39%

EF1 EF1 6-10 EF1 36%

11-15 EF1 24%

16-25 EF1 1%

2014

1-5 EF2 39%

EF1 EF1 6-10 EF1 36%

11-15 EF1 24%

16-25 EF1 1%

2017

1-5 EF3 39%

EF2 EF2 6-10 EF2 36%

11-15 EF1 24%

16-25 EF1 1%

2020

1-5 EF3 39%

EF2 EF3 6-10 EF3 36%

11-15 EF2 24%

16-25 EF1 1%

2025

1-5 EF3 39%

EF3 EF3 6-10 EF3 36%

11-15 EF3 24%

16-25 EF2 1%

2030

1-5 EF3 39%

EF3 EF3 6-10 EF3 36%

11-15 EF3 24%

16-25 EF3 1%




2.3.2 CO2 equivalents (CO2e)

In some cases such as for the ships, total CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emission factors were provided.

In other cases, N2O and methane were converted to CO2e using the conversion factors listed in

Table 2.15.

Table 2.15 – CO2 Equivalent Conversion Factors

Contaminant Global Warming Potential (CO2e)

CH4 25

N2O 298

Source: Environment Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=CAD07259-1

Methane and N2O CO2e emissions are generally insignificant relative to CO2 emissions. MEIT

3.50 provides emission factors for CO2, N2O, CH4, and CO2e. In general, N2O and CH4 only

increase the CO2e emission factor by approximately 1%. This is demonstrated in Table 2.16.

Table 2.16 – Comparison of CO2 to CO2e

Source Description Emission Factor

Units

CO2 Emission

Factor

CO2e Emission

Factor

Ship 4 stroke engine g/kW-hr 670 676.4

Ship 2 stroke engine g/kW-hr 621 627.4

Ship Boiler Kg/Tonne 3188 3218

Car Gasoline g/km 238 242

Truck Diesel g/km 916 918

2.3.3 Sulphur and PM adjustments

Ships operating within 200 miles of the coastline of North America are considered to be within

the zone the of the North American Emission Control Area (ECA) which mandates that all ships

within this zone will use fuel having a sulphur content of 1% by July 1, 2012 and 0.1% by

January 1, 2015. Sulphur and PM emission factors were adjusted according to MEIT 3.5

formulas as listed in Table 2.17.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=CAD07259-1




Table 2.17 – Sulphur and PM Adjustment Factors from MEIT 3.50

Equation

Code Description

A B Ref.

Value Units Value Units

SO2 Engine Sulphur for reciprocating engines

[energy based] 4.2 g / %Sulphur 0 n/a CARB

SO2 Boiler Sulphur for boilers based on fuel

consumption rate 20 kg / %Sulphur 0 n/a AP-42

PM Engine Particulate Matter for reciprocating

engines [energy based] 0.3471875 g / %Sulphur 0.52083 g CARB

PM Boiler Particulate Matter for boilers based

on fuel consumption rate 1.17 kg / %Sulphur 0.41 kg AP-42

Notes: All equations are of the form EF[g/kWh] = ( A * Sulphur[%] ) / Scale + B

PM10 obtained by multiplying PM emission by 0.96 (US EPA)

PM2.5 obtained by multiplying PM10 emission by 0.92 (US EPA)

2.3.4 Emission Factors Used in the Assessment

The emission factors used in the assessment are presented in Table 2.18. Emission factors varied

only marginally by ship type (bulk or container) for NOx and PM2.5 based on information

provided by the MEIT. Because there were only marginal differences between the ship types,

the more conservative emission factor was chosen for all ships.

Table 2.18 – Emission Factors used in the Assessment, g/kW-hr

Engine Type EF CO NOx SO2 VOC NH3 PM PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

AE

EF1 1.10 14.40 8.68 0.4 0.001 1.24 1.19 1.09 676.4

EF2

14.40 3.21 0.79 0.76 0.70

EF3

3.40 0.32 0.55 0.53 0.48

ME

EF1 1.40 18.05 11.09 0.60 0.02 1.44 1.38 1.27 627.4

EF2

14.40 4.10 0.86 0.83 0.76

EF3

3.40 0.41 0.56 0.53 0.49




2.4 TUGBOATS

Tugboats assist the ships in manoeuvring to and from the berths. The tugboat emission

calculation methodology follows the same general approach as previously described for the

cargo ships. Many of the assumptions used in calculating tugboat emissions were retained from

previous analyses completed for Roberts Bank terminals including:

Two hours of tugboat required per ship;

Tugboat average max power of 730 kW;

Emission factors do not vary across the horizon years;

Fuel type is marine diesel oil (MDO);

Engine load of 60%; and

Two tugboats were assigned for cargo ship sizes < 6500 TEU for Deltaport and the

proposed Terminal 2 activities, 3 tugboats were assigned for ship sizes > 6500 TEU, and

all Westshore ships because Westshore ships have a dry weight tonnage equivalent to a

ship size of >6500 TEU

Emission factors were reviewed from a number of sources including the MEIT 3.50 and previous

studies completed for the Roberts Bank terminals. MEIT 3.50 emission factors were rejected as

they were applicable to ocean going tugboats which were considered unrepresentative of the

types of tugboats that operate at Roberts Bank. Emission factors from Table 3-8, Tier 0 were

chosen from the ICF 2009 study as representative of the most current knowledge. Ammonia was

not listed in the ICF 2009 report and was taken from the existing SENES report. The sulphur

emission factor was modified to use low sulphur fuel (0.1%) which is the sulphur content in fuel

used in the Vancouver area. Tugboat emission factors are presented in Table 2.19.

Table 2.19 – Tugboat Emission Factors used in the Assessment, g/KW-hr

Engine CO NOx SO2 VOC NH3 PM PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

Tugboat 1.50 10.0 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.31 0.30 0.28 698

Tugboat emissions for the maximum and average hourly and daily scenarios were also

considered in the assessment based on the assumption that three tug boats are required for

manoeuvring the largest container ships and bulk carriers, as listed in Table 2.20.




Table 2.20 – Hourly and Daily Emissions Scenarios Tug Activity Levels

Time

period

Horizon

Year Scenario

Ships

Manoeuvring

Total Number of

Tugboats

Hourly

2010-2017 maximum 1 3

average 1 3

2020-2030 maximum 1 3

average 1 3

Daily

2010-2017 maximum 5 15

average 2 6

2020-2030 maximum 8 24

average 3 9

2.5 BOILERS

Boilers in ships are used to provide supplementary power not associated with ship propulsion.

Boiler use is relatively constant regardless of activity and is the main power supply associated

with berthing. Boiler sizes in general are not correlated with the size of the ship. ICF 2009

provides for boiler load sizes of 109 kW for bulk, 506 kW for container ships. Because these are

boiler load sizes, the load factor is incorporated into the size of the boiler and is not required in

additional calculations. The ICF 2009 report indicates that boilers are not typically operational

during underway operations, however, MEIT 3.50 indicates that boiler load factors while

underway are 0.08 - 0.14 and are equivalent to boiler loadings at berth. Because MEIT 3.50 is

considered representative of Canadian operations, boilers were assessed as operational during

underway activities.

Boiler emission factors are expressed in kg/tonne of fuel used and were taken from MEIT 3.50.

Emission factors on the boilers were not considered to vary across the horizon years for most

contaminants; however, boilers are subject to ECA and the sulphur content is expected to change

over time. This impacts the PM size fractions as well. Fuel types and blends with associated

sulphur content were slightly different for ship type (bulk, container) for 2010 and the emission

factors were calculated accordingly. By 2014 the fuel blend was considered to be the same for

both ship types. The recently completed emission inventory for Puget Sound (Starcrest 2007)

provides for a fuel use of 305 g/kW-hr, or 154 kg/hr (506 kW * 305 g/kW) for DP and T2 and 33

kg/hr for WS.

Boiler emission factors are listed in Table 2.21.




Table 2.21 – Boiler Emission Factors, kg/Tonne

CONTAMINANT LOCATION 2010 2014 2017 - 2030

CO DP, WS, and T2 2.99 2.99 2.99

CO2e DP, WS, and T2 2092 2092 2092

NH3 DP, WS, and T2 0.004 0.004 0.004

NOx DP, WS, and T2 7.995 7.995 7.995

PM DP and T2 2.83 1.58 0.527

WS 2.69 1.58 0.527

PM10 DP and T2 2.71 1.52 0.51

WS 2.58 1.52 0.51

PM2.5 DP and T2 2.50 1.40 0.47

WS 2.38 1.40 0.47

SO2 DP and T2 41.32 20 0.2

WS 38.98 20 0.2

VOCs DP, WS, and T2 0.247 0.247 0.247

The general calculation for boilers is as listed below. It is similar to the general calculation

methodology except that it relies on fuel usage:

Emissions (kg/period) = [Traffic Count (ships/period) * Fuel usage, tonnes * Emission Factor

(kg/Tonne) * Activity Time (hr)]




3.0 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS

Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) was assessed for the same contaminants, horizon years, and

emissions scenarios as with the ship assessment with the following modifications:

1. CHE activities were assumed to occur evenly throughout a daily period, therefore an

average daily and hourly scenario was considered;

2. There was no difference between Case 2 and Case 3 for CHE since it is only the ship

sizes that change with Case 2 and 3; and

3. Westshore calculations were prorated based on fuel usage.

Note that this section of the report references Case 2. It should be understood that any references

to Case 2 also apply to Case 3 if Case 3 is not specifically mentioned.

The US EPA Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for NONROAD Engine Modelling –

Compression – Ignition NR-009d, July 2010 (US EPA 2010) was used as the primary reference

for developing the emissions from CHE. This methodology has been incorporated into the

NONROAD model, and forms the basis for port emission inventories in the United States.

A detailed listing of existing diesel equipment at Deltaport was provided by PMV and included

age, type of equipment, power rating of the equipment, and annual hours of operation. A

summary of the different equipment types currently in use at Deltaport is presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Deltaport CHE Equipment

Equipment Type SCC Code Equipment

Type

Engine Rating,

hp

Number of units,

2010

Annual hours

per unit, 2010

Reach Stackers 2270003050

Industrial

Equipment

Other

Material

Handling

Equipment

243 14 4800

Rubber Tire Gantry

(RTG) cranes 600 30 4818

Top or Side Picks

Chassis or Reach

Stackers

150 13 4680

250 14 3600

Yard trucks (Hostlers

Terminal Tractors)

2270003070

Terminal

Tractors

160 27 4680

181 98 5100

The general emission calculation methodology is:

Emissions (kg/period) = [Equipment Count (CHE/period) * Engine Rating, hp * Emission

Factor (g/hp-hr) * Activity Time (hr) * kg/g]




In addition to the emission factor adjustments, the increase in cargo throughput was assessed to

determine whether additional pieces of equipment would be required. One other factor that

impacted the emissions was when equipment exceeded typical life spans. Older equipment was

replaced at the end of its life with new equipment that was assumed to be at the appropriate Tier

level for when it was replaced.

These adjustments are discussed in greater detail in the following subsections.

3.1 DELTAPORT

3.1.1 Existing Equipment Capacity

The first step in the calculation was to determine whether the existing equipment capacity could

meet future projected cargo throughput. The horizon year 2010 was considered as the base year

and relative increases in cargo handling requirements were assumed to be directly proportional to

the potential hours available for the existing equipment.

The increase in cargo handling requirements is listed in Table 3.2. In 2014, for Case 1, there will

be 1.74 million TEU of cargo throughput, representing 13% more throughput than for the

horizon year of 2010.

Table 3.2 – Cargo Throughputs

Year Million TEU TEU Ratios

Case 1 Case 2, 3 Case 1 Case 2, 3

2010 1.54 1.54 1.00 1.00

2014 1.74 1.74 1.13 1.13

2017 2.40 2.40 1.56 1.56

2020 2.40 3.00 1.56 1.95

2025 2.40 3.00 1.56 1.95

2030 2.40 3.00 1.56 1.95

Each piece of equipment was assumed to be capable of operating up to a maximum of 8322

hours per year. This means that the equipment could be in use up to 95% of the time, or in

operation for 50 weeks of the year. While this may be an optimistic assumption, it is

conservative because it implies that new equipment, which would be held to more stringent

emission standards, would not be required until the existing equipment has reached maximum

operational capacity.




For example, there are 14 reacher stackers which operate 4800 hours per unit (Table 3.1) for a

total of 67,200 hours worked in 2010. Each reacher stacker could operate up to 8322 hours or a

total of 116,508 hours. Therefore, there are a total of 49,308 hours (116,508 hours available –

67,200 hours) that can be “used up” prior to needing additional reacher stackers.

In 2014, there is a 13% increase in hours required, for a total of 75,927 hours. The total

available hours are 116,508 hours, which is higher than the 75,927 hours that is required.

Therefore, no additional reacher stackers were assumed to be required in 2014.

In 2020 Case 2, there is almost a doubling in the required hours such that 130,909 hours are

required (14 pieces of equipment * 4800 hours * 1.95). This is higher than the available 116,508

hours and an additional 14,400 hours are required. Each piece of equipment can operate up to

8322 hours, therefore two additional pieces of equipment are required under Case 2 for horizon

years 2020-2030.

Both Case 1 and Case 2 were considered in the assessment listed in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4.

No additional equipment is required for Case 1. For Case 2 and 3, additional equipment is

required for the horizon years 2020-2030.

All additional equipment was assumed to meet Tier 4 emission requirements.




Table 3.3 – Case 1 Equipment Hours by Horizon Year

Equipment Power,

hp

2010 2014 2017 2020, 2025, 2030

Hours

per

Unit

Number

of units

Total

equipment

hours

Total hrs

available

Total

Equipment

Hours

Remaining

Available

hrs

Number

of

additional

units

Total

Equipment

Hours

Remaining

Available hrs

Number

of

additional

units

Total

Equipment

Hours

Remaining

Available

hrs

Number

of

additional

units

Reach Stackers 326 4800 14 67,200 116,508 75,927 40,581 0 104,727 11,781 0 104,727 11,781 0

Rubber Tire Gantry (RTG) cranes 805 4818 30 144,540 249,660 163,311 86,349 0 225,257 24,403 0 225,257 24,403 0

Top or Side Picks Chassis or Reach Stackers 201 4680 13 60,840 108,186 68,741 39,445 0 94,816 13,370 0 94,816 13,370 0


Yard trucks (Hostlers or Terminal Tractors) 181 5100 98 499,800 815,556 564,709 250,847 0 778,909 36,647 0 778,909 36,647 0

Yard trucks (Hostlers or Terminal Tractors) 215 4680 27 126,360 224,694 142,770 81,924 0 196,925 27,769 0 196,925 27,769 0

Table 3.4 – Case 2 and 3 Equipment Hours by Horizon Year

Equipment Power,

hp

2010 2014 2017 2020, 2025, 2030

Hours

per

Unit

Number

of units

Total

Equipment

Hours

Total hrs

available

Total

Equipment

Hours

Remaining

Available

hrs

Number of

additional

units

Total

Equipment

Hours

Remaining

Available hrs

Number of

additional

units

Total

Equipment

Hours

Remaining

Available

hrs

Number of

additional

units

Average

hours per

equipment

Reach Stackers 326 4800 14 67,200 116,508 75,927 40,581 0 104,727 11,781 0 130,909 -14,401 2 7201

Rubber Tire Gantry (RTG) cranes 805 4818 30 144,540 249,660 163,311 86,349 0 225,257 24,403 0 281,571 -31,911 4 7978

Top or Side Picks Chassis or Reach Stackers 201 4680 13 60,840 108,186 68,741 39,445 0 94,816 13,370 0 118,519 -10,333 2 5167


Yard trucks (Hostlers or Terminal Tractors) 181 5100 98 499,800 815,556 564,709 250,847 0 778,909 36,647 0 973,636 -158,080 19 8320

Yard trucks (Hostlers or Terminal Tractors) 215 4680 27 126,360 224,694 142,770 81,924 0 196,925 27,769 0 246,156 -21,462 3 7154




3.1.2 Equipment Replacement

The CHE at Deltaport varies in age from less than a year old to up to 14 years old. It is

unrealistic to expect that a 14 year old piece of equipment will still be functional 20 years later in

2030. Expected life spans of equipment were provided by ICF 2009 and are listed in Table 3.5.

The life span for yard trucks, according to ICF 2009, is 12 years. However, several trucks at

Deltaport are 14 years old and the life span was adjusted accordingly to allow for one more year

of usage.

Table 3.5 – CHE Lifespan

Equipment Description Life span

(in years)

Reach Stackers 16

Rubber Tire Gantry (RTG) cranes 24

Top or Side Picks Chassis or Reach Stackers 16

Yard trucks (Hostlers or Terminal Tractors) 15

The age of the equipment was calculated for each horizon year. When equipment exceeded its

life span, it was replaced with new equipment. Tier 4 emission requirements are effective as of

2012 and any new equipment was assumed to meet Tier 4 with the exception of the RTG cranes.

Deltaport is considering purchasing electric cranes as replacements to existing cranes when they

reach their lifespan and any new cranes were assumed to be electric with no local emissions.

3.1.3 Load Factors

The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach conducted a study of engine load for yard

trucks and cranes in 2006 and 2009 (Starcrest 2010, Starcrest 2011). Both studies showed that

the load factors taken from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) OFFROAD model

were too high and were revised by CARB. Load factors for this study were taken from Table I-5

of Appendix B of the 2011 amendment for the CHE Regulation and are as follows;

RTG cranes, 0.2

Yard trucks, 0.39

Reacher stackers, 0.59




3.1.4 Emission Factors

Table 3.6 shows the US EPA (2010) equations that are applicable to the development of the

emission factors used in the DTRRIP assessment.

Table 3.6 – Emission Factor Adjustment Equations

Contaminant Equation

US EPA (2010)

Equation

Reference

HC, CO, NOx EFadj = EFSS x TAF x DF Equation 1

PM EFadj = EFSS x TAF x DF- SPMadj Equation 2

BSCF EFajd(BSFC) = EFSS x TAF Equation 3

SPMadj SPMadj = BSFCadj x 453.6 x 7.0 x soxcnv x 0.01 x (soxbas -soxdsl) Equation 5

CO2 CO2 = (BSFC x 453.6 -HC) x 0.87 x (44/12) Equation 6

SO2 SO2 = (BSFC * 453.6* (1 -soxcnv) -HC) * 0.01 * soxdsl * 2 Equation 7

The definitions in the equations are as follows:

EFadj = final emission factor used in model, after adjustments to account for transient

operation and deterioration (g/hp-hr);

EFSS = zero-hour, steady-state emission factor (g/hp-hr);

TAF = transient adjustment factor (unitless);

DF = deterioration factor (unitless);

SPMadj = adjustment to PM emission factor to account for variations in fuel sulphur content

(g/hp-hr);

BSFC = in-use adjusted brake-specific fuel consumption (lb fuel/hp-hr);

HC is the in-use adjusted hydrocarbon emissions in g/hp-hr;

soxcnv = grams PM sulphur/grams fuel sulphur consumed;

soxbas = default certification fuel sulphur weight percent; and

soxdsl = episodic fuel sulphur weight percent (specified by user).

Note that Equation 2 is incorrectly stated in US EPA (2010). The incorrect version indicates that

the equation is to be multiplied by the SPM adjustment factor. However, in some cases the SPM

adjustment factor could be zero and the resultant emission factor would therefore also be zero.

The corrected version is listed in the US EPA (2010) example calculations and the correct form

of the equation is included in the table above.

Ammonia is not discussed in US EPA (2010). Therefore, the same emission factor that was used

in previous SENES studies for Deltaport was also used for DTRRIP, but adjusted for the BSFC.




Further discussion on the emission factors and the adjustments is provided in the following

subsections.

3.1.4.1 Unadjusted Steady State Emission Factors

The base unadjusted emission factors from US EPA (2010) are listed in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 – Steady State Emission Factors, g/hp-hr

Contaminant Tier Engine power, hp

>175-300 >300-600 >600-750 >750

CO

Tier 0 2.700 2.700 2.7 2.7

Tier 1 0.748 1.306 1.372 0.7642

Tier 2 0.748 0.843 1.372 0.7642

Tier 3 0.748 0.843 1.372

Tier 4 0.075 0.084 0.133 0.7642

NOx

Tier 0 8.380 8.380 8.38 8.38

Tier 1 5.577 6.015 5.8215 6.1525

Tier 2 4.000 4.335 4.1 4.1

Tier 3 2.500 2.500 2.5

Tier 4 0.276 0.276 2.5 2.392

HC

Tier 0 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68

Tier 1 0.3085 0.2025 0.1473 0.2861

Tier 2 0.3085 0.1669 0.1669 0.1669

Tier 3 0.1836 0.1669 0.1314

Tier 4 0.1314 0.1314 0.1314 0.2815

PM

Tier 0 0.402 0.402 0.402 0.402

Tier 1 0.252 0.201 0.2201 0.1934

Tier 2 0.132 0.132 0.1316 0.1316

Tier 3 0.150 0.150 0.15

Tier 4 0.009 0.009 0.0092 0.069

Note: No Tier 3 standard for engines > 750 hp

Some of the emission factors were adjusted to account for deterioration and transient power.




3.1.4.2 Equipment Deterioration Factor

Equipment emissions deteriorate over time for some contaminants, with particulate matter

deterioration of up to 47% over the lifetime of the piece of equipment (US EPA 2010) as listed in

Table 3.8. Other contaminants such as NOx experience deterioration of approximately 2% over

the lifetime of the equipment. While CO has a deterioration factor of approximately 10-15%

with an average lifespan of greater than 15 years for the CHE equipment, the deterioration is

approximately 1% of the emissions per year.

The particulate matter emission factors were adjusted to account for deterioration because of the

significant deterioration that occurs over the lifespan of the equipment. A deterioration rate of

47% over a 15 year life span for a piece of equipment represents approximately 3% deterioration

per year. Therefore, for a piece of equipment that is 10 years old, the emission factor increases

by approximately 30%.

Table 3.8 – Deterioration Factors

Tier CO NOx HC PM

Tier 0 0.185 0.024 0.047 0.473

Tier 1 0.101 0.024 0.036 0.473

Tier 2 0.101 0.009 0.034 0.473

Tier 3 0.151 0.008 0.027 0.473

Tier 4 0.151 0.008 0.027 0.473

The equipment deterioration factor was calculated for the individual age groupings of the

equipment.

3.1.4.3 Transient Adjustment Factors

Emission factors for engines are generally based on tests conducted using stationary use cycles.

Actual emissions under dynamic use in real world situations can be substantially different from

those determined in static test conditions. Transient adjustment factors (TAF) try to account for

the variability in the loading, engine speed, and other differences under variable load operating

conditions. The adjustment factors vary by equipment type. Table F6 of US EPA (2010)

characterizes equipment and provides a TAF assignment. Cranes and Stackers were considered

SCC Code 2270003050, Industrial Equipment Other Material Handling Equipment and had a

representative cycle of Backhoe with a Lo LF TAF assignment. Yard trucks were grouped under

the SCC Code of 2270003070, Terminal Tractors, with representative cycles of Crawlers and a

TAF assignment of Hi LF.




The TAF assignment factors are listed in Table 3.9 and are from Table A5 (US EPA 2010).

TAFs were assigned to all applicable contaminants, and the BSFC which is used for SO2 and

CO2 emission factor adjustments.

Table 3.9 – Transient Adjustment Factors

TAF CO HC BSFC NOx PM

Base-Tier 3 Base-Tier 2 Tier 3 Base-Tier 2 Tier 3

Backhoe Lo LF 2.57 2.29 1.18 1.1 1.21 1.97 2.37

Crawler Hi LF 1.53 1.05 1.01 0.95 1.04 1.23 1.47

3.1.4.4 BSFC adjusted

For some of the emission factors (CO2, SO2, PM), the BSFC adjusted factor (BSFCadj) was

considered. BSFCadj was calculated using the unadjusted (steady state) BSFCss and multiplied by

the TAF previously listed in Table 3.9. The applicable BSFC for all DP power ratings and Tiers

1-3 is 0.367 lg/hp-hr. For Tier 4 the BSFCadj = BSFCss.

The BSFCadj for Tiers 1-3 are listed in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10 – BSFCadj, lb/hp-hr

Equipment Category BSFCadj

Backhoe-Lo LF 0.433

Crawler Hi LF 0.371

3.1.4.5 Sulphur considerations

Both SO2 and PM steady state emission factors are based on a sulphur content of 0.33 percent

sulphur by weight. The fuel used at Deltaport is 15 ppm, or 0.0015%.

The following values were used for the sulphur parameters.

soxcnv = 0.02247 for Base – Tier 3 engines, 0.3 for Tier 4 engines.

soxbas = 0.33%

soxdsl = 0.0015%

The sulphur emission factors were adjusted according to these parameters.




3.1.4.6 SPM adjustment factor

The SPM adjustment factor considers the difference in sulphur content and the adjusted BSFC.

For Tier 4 engines, the fuel sulphur content is assumed to be the same as the fuel sulphur content

currently in use at DP and therefore the adjustment factor is 0 for Tier 4 engines.

The SPM adjustment factors for Tier 1-3 engines are as follows:

Backhoe – Lo LF, 0.10; and

Crawler – Hi LF, 0.09

As per equation 2 listed in Table 3.6 above, this quantity is subtracted from the emission factor.

3.1.4.7 Revised Emission Factors

Emission factors were adjusted according to the parameters above. The average adjusted

emission factors by category are listed in Table 3.11. However, equipment-specific adjusted

emission factors were calculated for each piece of equipment, as applicable.

Table 3.11 – Adjusted Emission Factors, g/hp-hr

Contaminant Equipment 2010 2014 2017 2020 2025 2030

CO

cranes 4.807 4.807 4.807 4.451 1.964 1.964

stackers 2.136 2.136 1.634 0.966 0.299 0.299

yard trucks 1.144 0.930 0.645 0.360 0.360 0.360

NOx

cranes 7.523 7.523 7.523 7.240 4.510 4.510

stackers 4.380 4.380 3.128 1.671 0.581 0.581

yard trucks 4.179 3.175 1.835 0.896 0.896 0.896

SO2

cranes 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006

stackers 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004

yard trucks 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

VOC/HC

cranes 1.093 1.093 1.093 1.015 0.382 0.382

stackers 0.481 0.481 0.385 0.265 0.161 0.161

yard trucks 0.289 0.250 0.199 0.148 0.148 0.148

PM

cranes 0.605 0.651 0.685 0.567 0.071 0.078

stackers 0.508 0.549 0.541 0.569 0.073 0.080

yard trucks 0.412 0.448 0.437 0.421 0.074 0.082

NH3

cranes 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

stackers 0.100 0.100 0.097 0.092 0.087 0.087

yard trucks 0.086 0.086 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085

CO2

cranes 623.145 623.145 623.145 623.392 625.412 625.412

stackers 625.096 625.096 604.162 572.681 541.149 541.149

yard trucks 535.432 534.493 533.240 531.988 531.988 531.988




3.2 PROPOSED TERMINAL 2

The proposed Terminal 2 is anticipated to be in operation by 2020. PMV is currently examining

a number of different CHE scenarios. The primary difference between the proposed Terminal 2

and Deltaport is that much of the equipment for the proposed Terminal 2 would be electric

powered, thus with no local emissions. The assumption was made that the non-electric powered

equipment at the proposed Terminal 2 would meet Tier 4 emission standard requirements.

The calculation methodology uses the same approach and applicable emission factors for the

proposed Terminal 2 as was completed for Deltaport. The approach was to consider the most

equivalent equipment at Deltaport, and to ratio the calculated emissions by the change in cargo

throughput and the change in number of pieces of equipment.

The projected diesel equipment for the proposed Terminal 2 is presented in Table 3.12.

Table 3.12 – Proposed Terminal 2 Diesel Equipment

Equipment Quantity Category

Loaded Handlers(Top Picks/Reach Stackers) 3 stacker

Empty Handlers (Side Picks) 3 stacker

Shuttle Carriers @ Berth 40 yard truck - 215 HP

Shuttle Carriers @ IY 46 yard truck - 215 HP

Hostlers w/ Bomb Carts 3 yard truck - 215 HP

Repair Trucks 8 yard truck, 181 HP

Service/Pick-Up Vehicles 24 yard truck, 181 HP

Coning Vehicles 4 yard truck, 181 HP

3.3 WESTSHORE

Cargo handling equipment quantities are significantly lower at Westshore than at Deltaport and

lower than those that are projected for the proposed Terminal 2, primarily due to the difference

in materials stored at the facilities (bulk versus cargo handling). The SENES Westshore

assessment completed in 2006 (SENES 2006) indicated that three existing bulldozers represent

the most significant source of diesel emissions.

Previous SENES assessments conducted for Deltaport and Westshore indicate that emissions

from Westshore are approximately 10-20% of those from Deltaport (2005 base year).

Information on existing CHE at Westshore was not provided as part of the study. Because of the

low contribution of emissions from Westshore CHE relative to totals from the operations at

Roberts Bank, a simplified approach of pro-rating the 2011 emissions inventory previously




assessed was used to determine CHE emissions from each of the horizon years. This is a

conservative approach in that it assumes that the equipment is not upgraded over the horizon

years and that fuel changes do not occur.

The calculation methodology is as follows:

2011 emissions * coal throughput assessment year / coal throughput 2011.

Coal throughputs per horizon year were previously listed in Table 1.1 and are repeated in Table

3.13. The applicable ratios are also listed in the same table.

Table 3.13 – Coal Throughput, tonnes

Horizon

Year

Coal,

tonnes/year

Ratio to

2011

2011 25,400,000 1.00

2010 24,700,000 0.97

2014 25,000,000 0.98

2017 28,000,000 1.10

2020 31,000,000 1.22

2025 35,000,000 1.38

2030 35,000,000 1.38




4.0 RAIL LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS

The assessment of emissions from rail locomotives considered line-haul locomotives as well as

onsite switch locomotives. Emission projections from rail locomotives involved the

consideration of a number of variables including:

Power Rating;

Fuel Consumption;

Load Factors and Duty Cycle;

Fleet Tier Mixtures;

Locomotive Activities;

Traffic Counts; and

Emission Factors.

Some of these variables, such as the traffic counts, have been derived and projected into the

future using data from port records and are therefore considered to be accurate, site specific

parameters. For other variables, a number of assumptions were applied in order to complete the

calculations of emissions from locomotive operations. These include projections of how the fleet

of locomotives in use at the three terminals could change over time and typical line-haul

locomotive activities and switcher locomotive duty cycle. The locomotive parameters and

activities which form the basis of the emission estimates are described in detail in Sections 4.1

and 4.2, respectively.

Approaches to calculating emission rates varied depending on the contaminant being assessed.

In general, emission rates were defined for each contaminant based on emission factors and

locomotive parameters and varied based on the horizon year, locomotive type (line-haul or

switcher), and engine condition (idle or work). The locomotive emission rates are described in

detail in Section 4.3.

The general rail locomotive emissions calculation is as follows:

Emissions (kg/period) = [Traffic Count (trains/period) * Emission Factor (kg/hr-locomotive) *

Locomotives (locomotives/train) * Operating Time (hr)




Due to some of the assumptions that had to be applied in order to calculate rail locomotive

emissions, there is a possibility that future emissions are over-estimated. For instance, fuel

consumption rates were assumed to be constant over all assessment years, whereas more efficient

engines are anticipated to use less fuel in the future.

Emission increases over time were generally tracked to increased activity at the sites, while

decreases were generally noted when the quality of engines and fuel (e.g., sulphur content)

improved.

4.1 LOCOMOTIVE PARAMETERS

The parameters used to estimate the rail locomotive emission factors include power rating, idle

and work fuel consumption, load factors and duty cycles, and projected locomotive fleet tier

mixtures for each horizon year.

The assumed power rating and fuel consumption of the locomotive fleet are summarized in Table

4.1. Since the switch locomotive fleet consists of more than one model, a weighted average

power rating of 2,700 hp was applied for calculation purposes. Similarly, weighted average fuel

consumptions for idle and work engine conditions of 4.72 and 128.8 L/hr, respectively, were

applied.

Table 4.1 – Power Rating and Fuel Consumption

Locomotive

Type

Locomotive

Model

Fleet

Content, %

Power

Rating, hp

Idle Fuel

Consumption,

L/hr

Work Fuel

Consumption,

L/hr

Line-haul AC4400 100 4,400 13.7 259.5

Switch GP38 30 2,000 3.50 95.4

SD40 70 3,000 5.25 143.1

Source: SENES 2007

Load factors and duty cycles used in the assessment are listed in Table 4.2, as well as the

calculated total effective power for each locomotive type. The Railway Association of Canada

(RAC 2008) duty cycle for switch locomotives was used for all such locomotives at Roberts

Bank; however, the load factors for the throttle settings were derived from the emission

inventory prepared for the Port of Long Beach, CA (Starcrest 2011). For the line-haul

locomotives, the RAC duty cycle was considered to be unrepresentative of the type of activity

that these locomotives would experience in the short distances (30 km) of track between the

eastern boundary of the Regional Study Area for DTRRIP and Roberts Bank. Instead, it was




assumed that the locomotives operate 50% in notch 3 and 50% in notch 4 and spend the rest of

their time at the yard in idle mode.

Table 4.2 – Locomotive Effective Power

Locomotive

Type

Throttle

Notch

Position

Idle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dynamic

Brake

Total

Effective

Power, hp

Line-haul

Load

Factor

(%)1,2

0.4 5.0 11.4 23.5 34.3 48.1 64.3 86.6 102.5 2.1 -

Idle Duty

Cycle (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18

Work

Duty

Cycle

0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,272

Switch

Load

Factor

(%)2

0.8 4.7 14.2 27.8 42.0 57.3 72.5 89.7 105.3 3.8 -

Duty

Cycle

(%)3

84.9 5.4 4.2 2.2 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 111

Sources: 1 Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions (Starcrest 2009)

2 Port of Long Beach 2010 Air Emissions Inventory (Starcrest 2011)

3 EC RAC Locomotive Emissions Monitoring (2008)

In the absence of any specific information about the age distribution of locomotive engines

operating at Deltaport and Westshore, it was assumed that, in 2010, all switch locomotives were

older engines meeting Tier 0 emission levels, while line-haul locomotives were split between

Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines. For future horizon years, line-haul locomotives were assumed

to be replaced through normal fleet turnover, but switch locomotives were conservatively

assumed to be replaced in 2014 with Tier 1 engines and remain unchanged as Tier 1 engines for

the balance of the horizon years. The projected locomotive fleet tier mixtures for each

locomotive type and each horizon year are summarized in Table 4.3.




Table 4.3 – Fleet Tier Mixtures

Horizon Year Locomotive Type Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

2010 Line-haul 50% 25% 25% - -

Switch 100% - - - -

2014 Line-haul 25% 25% 50% - -

Switch 100% - - -

2017 Line-haul - 50% 50% -

Switch 100% - - -

2020 Line-haul - - 100% -

Switch 100% - - -

2025 Line-haul - - 50% 50%

Switch 100% - - -

2030 Line-haul - - 50% 50%

Switch 100% - - -

4.2 LOCOMOTIVE ACTIVITIES

The number of line-haul locomotives operating (on-site and en route), as well as the number of

switch locomotives on-site, formed the basis of the calculation methodology as the emissions are

directly proportional to the number of locomotives. The emissions are also dependent on the

operational time of each locomotive at each engine condition.

4.2.1 Line-haul Locomotives

Each line-haul container train and each line-haul coal train contains three locomotives. The line-

haul train activities (on-site idle time, speed, and local and regional distances travelled) for each

port terminal were identical to those used for the Deltaport Third berth Project (SENES 2007)

and are summarized in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 also includes the assumed local and regional en-

route operational time of each locomotive.




Table 4.4 – Line-haul Train Activity Summary

Port

Terminal

On-site Idle

Time, hr

Train Speed,

km/hr

Local

Distance

Travelled, km

Local En-

route

Operational

Time, hr

Total

Regional

Distance

Travelled,

km

Total

Regional En-

route

Operational

Time, hr

DP 12 50 10 0.20 60 1.20

T2 12 50 10 0.20 60 1.20

WS 6 36 10 0.28 60 1.67

Traffic counts for Deltaport and Terminal 2 line-haul container trains and Westshore line-haul

coal trains were provided by PMV for each horizon year and each case. The traffic counts were

provided as a daily range. The annual and average hourly counts were determined based on 24

hours of operation, 365 days per year for each horizon year and each port terminal. The

maximum hourly counts are based on similar assumptions to those that were made for a

sensitivity analysis for activity at Roberts Bank in 2006 as part of the Deltaport Third Berth

Project (SENES 2006). The number of two-way line-haul train trips (i.e., to and from the port

terminal) for each of the horizon years and each case is presented in Table 4.5.

Similarly, the average and peak daily trains are presented in Table 4.6 and the peak hourly trains

are presented in Table 4.7. Note that rather than presenting fractional average hourly train

counts, the average hourly emissions were calculated by dividing the average daily emissions

over 24 hours of operation.




Table 4.5 – Annual Line-haul Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Annual Trains [trains/year]

Case 1 Case 2, 3

DP T2 WS DP T2 WS

2010 1,095 - 1,825 1,095 - 1,825

2014 1,460 - 1,825 1,460 - 1,825

2017 2,190 - 1,825 2,190 - 1,825

2020 2,190 1,095 2,190 2,555 730 2,190

2025 2,190 2,190 2,190 2,555 1,460 2,190

2030 2,190 2,190 2,190 2,555 2,555 2,190

Table 4.6 – Daily Line-haul Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Average Daily Trains [trains/day] Peak Daily Trains [trains/day]


DP T2 WS DP T2 WS DP T2 WS DP T2 WS

2010 3 - 5 3 - 5 3 - 6 3 - 6

2014 4 - 5 4 - 5 4 - 5 4 - 5

2017 6 - 5 6 - 5 6 - 6 6 - 6

2020 6 3 6 7 2 6 6 3 7 8 2 7

2025 6 6 6 7 4 6 6 6 7 8 4 7

2030 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 8 8 7

Table 4.7 – Hourly Line-haul Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Peak Hourly Trains

[trains/hour]

Case 1, 2, 3

DP T2 WS

2010 2 - 2

2014 2 - 2

2017 2 - 2

2020 2 1 2

2025 2 1 2

2030 2 1 2




4.2.2 Switch Locomotives

Each switch train contains one locomotive and each existing port terminal, Deltaport and

Westshore, has one switch train on-site. It is assumed that the proposed Terminal 2 will also

have one switch train. The switch trains operate 24 hours per day.

4.3 EMISSION RATES

Emission rates for four of the six common air contaminants assessed, namely hydrocarbons,

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, were derived from US EPA emission

standards for line-haul and switch locomotives. The emission rates for sulphur dioxide were

based on the factor provided by the Railway Association of Canada. The emission rates for

ammonia were assumed to be 0.005 g/L, identical to the rate previously used for the Deltaport

Third Berth Project (SENES 2007). Common air contaminant emission rates are detailed in

Section 4.3.1 below.

Emission rates for greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were provided

by the Railway Association of Canada. Greenhouse gas emission rates are detailed in Section

4.3.2 below.

4.3.1 Common Air Contaminants

Table 4.8 summarizes the emission standards for the various tiers of line-haul and switch

locomotives as adopted by the US EPA (2008). It has been assumed that locomotive engines

purchased for Canadian railroads would be manufactured to the same emission standards.

Emission rates for all common air contaminants of concern are summarized in Table 4.9.




Table 4.8 – US EPA Locomotive Emission Factors

Tier Year of

Manufacture Date

Emission Factor (g/bhp-hr)

CO NOx HC PM

Line-haul Locomotives

0 1973 – 1992 2010 5.0 8.0 1.00 0.22

1 1993 – 2004 2010 2.2 7.4 0.55 0.22

2 2005 – 2011 2010 1.5 5.5 0.30 0.10

3 2012 – 2014 2012 1.5 5.5 0.30 0.10

4 2015 or later 2015 1.5 1.3 0.14 0.03

Switch Locomotives

0 1973 - 2001 2010 8.0 11.8 2.10 0.26

1 2002 – 2004 2010 2.5 11.0 1.20 0.26

2 2005 – 2010 2010 2.4 8.1 0.60 0.13

3 2011 – 2014 2011 2.4 5.0 0.60 0.10

4 2015 or later 2015 2.4 1.3 0.14 0.03

Emission rates were calculated for each locomotive type and each engine condition based on the

above emission factors and the locomotive total effective power. If two tiers of locomotives are

expected to be in use, the above emission factors were blended based on the fleet tier mixture.

As per the US EPA recommendations for estimating emissions from compression ignition

engines (US EPA 2010), the relative PM2.5 emissions are estimated to be 97% of PM emissions

while PM10 emissions are assumed to be equal to PM emissions.

Sulphur dioxide emissions are not dependent upon the locomotive tier rating but rather the

sulphur content in the fuel. Regulations will limit fuel sulphur content to 15 ppm by 2012. As a

result, the sulphur content was assumed to be 15 ppm for all subsequent horizon years (i.e. 2014

to 2030). A sulphur content of 147 ppm was conservatively assumed for the 2010 horizon year.

An SO2 emission factor of 0.25 g/L was applied for the 2010 horizon year, which is based on a

sulphur fuel content of 147 ppm as obtained from the Locomotive Emissions Monitoring

Program 2008 published by the Railway Association of Canada (RAC 2010). This emission

factor was scaled to 0.0255 g/L for all subsequent horizon years based on the relative sulphur

fuel content. Emission rates were calculated for each locomotive type and each engine condition

based on these emission factors and the locomotive fuel consumption.

Ammonia emissions are also dependent on fuel consumption rather than tier rating. An emission

factor of 0.005 g/L was applied for all horizon years, identical to the emission factor used for the

Deltaport Third Berth Project (SENES 2007).




Table 4.9 – Common Air Contaminant Emission Rates

Locomotive

Type

Horizon

Year(s)

Engine

Condition

Emission Rate (kg/hr)

NOx SO2 CO HC NH3 PM PM2.5

Line-haul

2010 Idle 0.13 0.0034 0.060 0.013 0.00007 0.0033 0.0032

Work 9.2 0.065 4.4 0.91 0.0013 0.24 0.23

2014 Idle 0.12 0.00035 0.045 0.0095 0.00007 0.0028 0.0027

Work 8.4 0.0066 3.2 0.68 0.0013 0.20 0.20

2017–2020 Idle 0.10 0.00035 0.026 0.0053 0.00007 0.0018 0.0017

Work 7.0 0.0066 1.9 0.38 0.0013 0.13 0.12

2025–2030 Idle 0.060 0.00035 0.026 0.0039 0.00007 0.0011 0.0011

Work 4.3 0.0066 1.9 0.28 0.0013 0.083 0.080

Switch 2010 Duty Cycle 1.3 0.0059 0.89 0.23 0.00012 0.029 0.028

2014–2030 Duty Cycle 1.2 0.00060 0.28 0.13 0.00012 0.029 0.028




4.3.2 Greenhouse Gases

Table 4.10 summarizes the Rail Association of Canada’s emission factors applicable to all tiers of both line-haul and switch locomotives.

Table 4.10 – Rail Association of Canada Emission Factors

Horizon

Year(s)

Emission Factor (kg/L)

CO2 CH4 N2O

2010–2030 2.663 0.00015 0.0011

Emission rates for all greenhouse gases, including CO2e, are summarized in Table 4.11 below.

As described in Section 2.3.2 for the ship emissions assessment, methane and nitrous oxide have

been converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using global warming potentials of 25 and

298, respectively.

Table 4.11 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Rates

Locomotive Type Horizon Year(s) Engine

Condition

Emission Rate (kg/hr)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Line-haul 2010–2030 Idle 36 0.0021 0.015 41

Work 691 0.039 0.29 777

Switch 2010–2030 Duty Cycle 62 0.0035 0.026 70




5.0 ON-ROAD VEHICLE EMISSIONS

The assessment of emissions from on-road vehicles considered container trucks (heavy-duty

diesel vehicles) as well as employee and visitor vehicles (light-duty gasoline vehicles). Emission

predictions from on-road vehicles involved the consideration of a number of parameters

including:

Traffic Routes;

Traffic Counts;

Vehicle Class;

Vehicle Speed; and

Emission Factors.

The general on-road vehicle emissions calculation is as follows:

En Route Emissions (kg/period) = [Traffic Count (trips/period) * Mobile Emission Factor (g/km)

* Route Distance (km/vehicle) * (kg/g)]

On-site Emissions (kg/period) = [Traffic Count (trips/period) * Creep Emission Factor (g/hr) *

Creep Time (hr/on-site) * (kg/g)]

The parameters considered when calculating the on-road vehicle emission predictions are

discussed in detail in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.

5.1 VEHICLE ACTIVITIES

Traffic counts formed the basis of the calculation methodology as the on-road vehicle emissions

are directly proportional to the number of trips. The emissions are also dependent on the

distance travelled of each vehicle at each speed travelled and the container truck and employee

and visitor vehicle traffic slits. The on-road vehicle activities for each route travelled are

summarized in Table 5.1.

Traffic counts for on-road vehicles were provided by PMV for each horizon year and case and

are summarized in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 below for container trucks (inbound/outbound and

intra-terminal) and employee and visitor vehicles, respectively. Inbound/outbound traffic refers

to trucks that come in along the causeway and drop off/pick up a container and leave. Intra-

terminal traffic refers to traffic moving on site between gates at the terminals which is assumed

to spend twice as long in stop and go movements than inbound / outbound traffic.




Table 5.1 – On-Road Vehicle Activity Summary

Travel Route1

Local

Speed,

km/hr

Local

Distance

Travelled,

km

Regional

Speed,

km/hr

Total

Regional

Distance

Travelled,

km

Container

Truck

Percent

Traffic, %

Employee and

Visitor Vehicle

Percent Traffic,

%

On-site Creep2 4.0 / 8.0

3 - - 100 -

Route A

50 5.6 804

24.6 25 10

Route B 28.1 35 50

Route C 25.6 15 15

Route D 25.8 25 25

Notes: 1Route A – To or from Roberts Bank along Highway #17 in 2010 (or South Fraser Perimeter Road for 2014-

2030) to Highway #99, and along Highway #99 to River Road, then along River Road to Highway #91

Route B – To or from Roberts Bank along Highway #17 in 2010 (or South Fraser Perimeter Road for 2014-

2030) to Highway #99, and along Highway #99 north to Oak Street Bridge

Route C – To or from Roberts Bank along Highway #17 in 2010 (or South Fraser Perimeter Road for 2014-

2030) to Highway #99, and east along Highway #99 to Highway #91

Route D – To or from Roberts Bank along Highway #17 in 2010 (or South Fraser Perimeter Road for 2014-

2030) to Highway #99, and continuing along SFPR to Highway #91 2Creep is applicable to container trucks only; inbound / outbound and intra-terminal container trucks assumed

to creep on-site for 25 minutes and 50 minutes, respectively, per trip 3Inbound / outbound and intra-terminal container trucks assumed to creep on-site for 4 km and 8 km,

respectively, per trip when applying g/km creep emission factors

4The regional speed is not applicable for the entire regional distance travelled; the local speed is applicable for

the local distance travelled, which is common for routes A to D

Source: SENES 2007

5.1.1 Container Trucks

The container truck traffic counts were provided on an annual, average hourly, and peak hourly

basis. The number of two-way container truck trips (i.e., to and from the port terminal) for each

horizon year, case and port terminal is presented in Table 5.2. Note that there is no container

truck traffic to or from Westshore as all coal is moved to and from the main land via rail.




Table 5.2 – Annual Container Truck Traffic Counts

Horizon Year

Annual Container Trucks [1,000 trips/year]

Inbound / Outbound

Container Trucks

Intra-Terminal Container

Trucks


DP T2 DP T2 DP T2 DP T2

2010 313 - 313 - 156 - 156 -

2014 353 - 353 - 177 - 177 -

2017 480 - 480 - 240 - 240 -

2020 480 220 599 100 240 110 300 50

2025 480 480 599 372 240 240 300 186

2030 480 480 599 599 240 240 300 300

Similarly, the average and peak daily container truck trips are presented in Table 5.3 and Table

5.4, respectively, and the average and peak hourly container truck trips are presented in Table 5.5

and Table 5.6, respectively.

Table 5.3 – Average Daily Container Truck Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Average Daily Container Trucks [trips/day]

Inbound / Outbound Container Trucks Intra-Terminal Container Trucks



2010 1,202 - 1,202 - 601 - 601 -

2014 1,358 - 1,358 - 679 - 679 -

2017 1,846 - 1,846 - 923 - 923 -

2020 1,846 846 2,308 385 923 423 1,154 192

2025 1,846 1,846 2,308 1,431 923 923 1,154 715

2030 1,846 1,846 2,308 2,308 923 923 1,154 1,154




Table 5.4 – Peak Daily Container Truck Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Peak Daily Container Trucks [trips/day]




2010 1,659 - 1,659 - 830 - 830 -

2014 1,874 - 1,874 - 937 - 937 -

2017 2,548 - 2,548 - 1,274 - 1,274 -

2020 2,548 1,168 3,184 531 1,274 584 1,592 265

2025 2,548 2,548 3,184 1,974 1,274 1,274 1,592 987

2030 2,548 2,548 3,184 3,184 1,274 1,274 1,592 1,592

Table 5.5 – Average Hourly Container Truck Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Average Hourly Container Trucks [trips/hour]




2010 144 - 144 - 72 - 72 -

2014 163 - 163 - 81 - 81 -

2017 222 - 222 - 111 - 111 -

2020 222 102 278 46 111 51 139 23

2025 222 222 278 172 111 111 139 86

2030 222 222 278 278 111 111 139 139

Table 5.6 – Peak Hourly Container Truck Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Peak Hourly Container Trucks [trips/hour]




2010 199 - 199 - 100 - 100 -

2014 225 - 225 - 112 - 112 -

2017 306 - 306 - 153 - 153 -

2020 306 140 383 64 153 70 191 32

2025 306 306 383 237 153 153 191 119

2030 306 306 383 383 153 153 191 191




5.1.2 Employee and Visitor Vehicles

The employee and visitor vehicle traffic counts were provided on an annual, average hourly, and

peak hourly basis. The number of two-way vehicle trips (i.e., to and from the port terminal) for

each horizon year, case and port terminal is presented in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 – Annual Employee and Visitor Vehicle Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Annual Vehicles [1,000 trips/year]

Case 1 Case 2, 3

DP T2 WS DP T2 WS

2010 218 - 39 218 - 39

2014 246 - 40 246 - 40

2017 339 - 45 339 - 45

2020 339 155 49 424 71 49

2025 339 339 56 424 263 56

2030 339 339 56 424 424 56

Similarly, the average and peak daily vehicles are presented in Table 5.8 and the average and

peak hourly vehicles are presented in Table 5.9.

The average daily counts were determined based on 360 dock working days per year as per

PMV. The peak daily counts were assumed to be equivalent to the average daily counts since the

day-to-day employee and visitor activities are expected to be consistent.

Table 5.8 – Daily Employee and Visitor Vehicle Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Average Daily Vehicles [trips/day]

Case 1 Case 2, 3

DP T2 WS DP T2 WS

2010 604 - 109 604 - 109

2014 683 - 10 683 - 110

2017 942 - 124 942 - 124

2020 942 432 137 1,177 196 137

2025 942 942 155 1,177 730 155

2030 942 942 155 1,177 1,177 155




Table 5.9 – Hourly Employee and Visitor Vehicle Traffic Counts

Horizon

Year

Average Hourly Vehicles [trips/hour] Peak Hourly Vehicles [trips/hour]


DP T2 WS DP T2 WS DP T2 WS DP T2 WS

2010 71 - 13 71 - 13 230 - 50 230 - 50

2014 80 - 13 80 13 26 260 - 51 260 - 51

2017 111 - 15 111 - 15 358 - 57 358 - 57

2020 111 51 16 138 23 16 358 164 63 448 75 63

2025 111 111 18 138 86 18 358 358 71 448 278 71

2030 111 111 18 138 138 18 358 358 71 448 448 71

5.2 EMISSION FACTORS

Sierra Research, Inc. was retained to derive on-road vehicle emission factors for the purposes of

this air quality assessment. Although the emission factors are based on the U.S. EPA’s Mobile 6.2C model, the emission factors for container trucks have been adjusted to account for the

differences in vehicle age distributions between the typical fleet of trucks operating on the roads

in the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) and the specific fleet of trucks operating at the Port Metro

Vancouver container terminals through the Truck Licensing System (TLS) instituted by the Port.

The emission factors for light duty gasoline-powered vehicles were also adjusted to reflect the

unique characteristics of the LFV fleet due to the AirCare vehicle inspection and maintenance

program instituted by Metro Vancouver.

Emission factors for each contaminant were provided for:

two vehicles classes, namely Light Duty gasoline-powered vehicles (LDV) to represent

employee-owned vehicles and Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV as HDD8D class) to

represent container trucks;

three LD vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) cases comprised of:

o the current AirCare program,

o a no I/M scenario which assumes that the current AirCare program is discontinued

after 2014;

vehicle speeds of idle, 4 km/h, 10 km/h, 50 km/h, 80 km/h, 90 km/h and 100 km/h; and

six horizon years (2010, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2025 and 2030).

For the purposes of this assessment, container trucks were assumed to travel at 80 km/h on major

routes such as the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), Highway 99, and Deltaport Way, and 50

km/h along the Deltaport causeway. Emissions for stop-and-go and idling travel (referred to as

‘creep’) on-site at the terminals were calculated for 25-minute periods. For heavy duty diesel




trucks, use of the current version of MOBILE6.2C for estimates of idling emission rates is not

considered accurate, and produces lower estimates than those supported by emissions tests by the

CARB and the University of West Virginia. It should be noted that this approach to defining

creep cycle emission factors for container trucks was previously used to estimate emissions for

Deltaport operations in 2006 as part of an addendum to the air quality and human health risk

assessment for the Deltaport Third Berth Project.

The emission factors provided by Sierra Research which were applied in the on-road vehicle

emission calculations are summarized in Table 5.10. Creep cycle emission factors are listed in

Table 5.11. Because the creep cycle emission factors for NH3 and GHGs were not available

from the emission tests conducted from the CARB and the University of West Virginia, emission

factors provided by Sierra Research for the lowest vehicle speed category of 4 km/h were used

instead, and it was assumed that the vehicles travel for a total of 4 km on-site.




Table 5.10 – MOBILE6.2C On-Road Vehicle Emission Factors

Year I/M Class Vehicle Class Speed Emission Factor (g/km)

CO NOx SO2 VOC NH3 PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

2010 Current

LDV Gasoline 50 km/hr 6.954 0.448 0.00474 0.512 0.0570 0.0056 0.0056 246

80 km/hr 7.707 0.470 0.00474 0.502 0.0570 0.0056 0.0056 246

HDD8B Port

Truck

50 km/hr 1.153 4.288 0.00851 0.248 0.0152 0.0944 0.0916 921

80 km/hr 0.880 5.033 0.00851 0.173 0.0152 0.0944 0.0916 921

2014 Current


80 km/hr 6.248 0.339 0.00488 0.335 0.0569 0.0054 0.0054 233

HDD8B Port

Truck

50 km/hr 0.292 1.298 0.00851 0.161 0.0152 0.0299 0.0290 916

80 km/hr 0.223 1.543 0.00851 0.112 0.0152 0.0299 0.0290 916

2017

None,

Modified No

I/M Baseline


80 km/hr 7.936 0.361 0.00488 0.352 0.0569 0.0054 0.0054 235

HDD8B Port

Truck

50 km/hr 0.121 0.483 0.00851 0.148 0.0152 0.0177 0.0172 915

80 km/hr 0.092 0.574 0.00851 0.103 0.0152 0.0177 0.0172 915

2020

None,

Modified No

I/M Baseline


80 km/hr 7.950 0.351 0.00492 0.342 0.0568 0.0054 0.0054 215

HDD8B Port

Truck

50 km/hr 0.130 0.395 0.00851 0.159 0.0152 0.0183 0.0178 913

80 km/hr 0.099 0.469 0.00851 0.110 0.0152 0.0183 0.0178 913

2025

None,

Modified No

I/M Baseline


80 km/hr 7.577 0.301 0.00493 0.310 0.0568 0.0053 0.0053 199

HDD8B Port

Truck

50 km/hr 0.130 0.311 0.00851 0.159 0.0152 0.0183 0.0178 913

80 km/hr 0.099 0.369 0.00851 0.110 0.0152 0.0183 0.0178 913

2030

None,

Modified No

I/M Baseline


80 km/hr 7.458 0.282 0.00493 0.306 0.0568 0.0053 0.0053 191

HDD8B Port

Truck

50 km/hr 0.130 0.280 0.00851 0.159 0.0152 0.0183 0.0178 913

80 km/hr 0.099 0.332 0.00851 0.110 0.0152 0.0183 0.0178 913

Source: Sierra Research, Inc. 2011




Table 5.11 – Heavy-duty Creep Cycle Emission Factors

Year

Emission Rate

g/hra

g/kmb

CO NOx SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 NH3 CO2e

2010 36 116 0.079 16 5.04 4.66 0.0152 921

2014 36 116 0.079 14 2.19 2.03 0.0152 916

2017 33 116 0.079 14 2.19 2.03 0.0152 915

2020 33 116 0.079 14 2.19 2.03 0.0152 913

2025 33 116 0.079 14 2.19 2.03 0.0152 913

2030 33 116 0.079 14 2.19 2.03 0.0152 913

Notes: aAir Improvement Resources, Inc. (2005)

bSierra Research, Inc. (2011)

Table 5.11 also contains the assumed creep emission rates for the balance of the horizon years.

Although the MOBILE creep cycle emission factors derived by Sierra Research were not applied

for the six contaminants included in the emission tests conducted from the CARB and the

University of West Virginia, the ratios of MOBILE creep cycle emission factors between horizon

years were evaluated in order to determine the applicable creep cycle emission rates (i.e., 2003,

2011 or 2020 emission rates or a combination thereof).




6.0 SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY

The emission estimating techniques used in this report follow current established practices for

predicting impacts from present and future port-related activities. However, in any emission

inventory development, there are uncertainties that are inherent in the work and assumptions that

need to be made to complete the work. Different approaches may also be used to calculate

emissions from the same operations.

An accepted approach to mitigating uncertainties in a screening-level assessment is to use

estimates that may be considered conservative, such as higher sulphur content or larger engine

sizes. The result of using this approach is that actual emissions and associated air quality

impacts may be considerably lower in practice than has been estimated using conservative

methods.

This section provides a discussion of known sources of uncertainty pertaining to the compilation

of emissions from equipment and activity at Roberts Bank. The purpose of the discussion is to

provide information on alternative methods or sources of information which could result in

different estimates of emissions than those presented in the preceding sections of the report. It

should be emphasized that none of the alternative methods or data sources would result in

substantially different conclusions as to the overall estimates of current or future projected

emissions and impacts.

6.1 SHIPS

There are three recognized potential sources of uncertainty related to the emissions from marine

vessels in the DTRRIP assessment. These include:

1. Main engine size for newer, larger container ships;

2. Variability of emission factors with main engine load factor; and

3. Activity-based versus fuel-based emission factors.

The nature of these uncertainties is discussed below.

6.1.1 Main Engine Size for Large Container Vessels

Main engine (ME) sizes for ships generally increase linearly relative to ship size for ships with

cargo capacities of up to about 7,000 TEU. However, larger ships start to demonstrate a

“levelling off” of engine size beyond 7,000 TEU as indicated in Figure 6.1.




According to Carlton (2006), for a given ship, there is no unique solution for determining the

propulsive power requirements of the vessel. Instead, “there is a cluster of solutions whose

acceptability is dependent upon the hull form and final choice of prime mover” (i.e., engine).

Tozer and Penfold (2001) state that, for ships over 9,000 TEU, it is necessary to equip ships with

twin screws and twin engines in order to achieve a design speed of 25 knots, and the choice of

twin screws affects the total kilowatt power available from MEs. However, the authors state that

there is a penalty in going to twin screw ships in terms of fuel consumption, daily operating cost,

and capital cost increase. Therefore, there is no simple relationship between ship size and ME

size for ships of a certain size.

MAN Diesel & Turbo data (2009) suggests that for each one knot increment change in design

speed for a ship, the change in engine size is approximately 10,000 kW for ship sizes greater

than 8500 TEU. Most modern container ships are being designed for average speeds of 24-26

knots, which implies a potential difference of up to 20,000 kW range in engine size for the same

vessel capacity.

For the purposes of the DTRRIP assessment, SENES relied on the relationship depicted in

Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2 shows the range of engine sizes by vessel size from data for three vessels provided by

PMV (June 2012), and a number of published sources (gCaptain 2011, Wang et al. 2009, Miller

et al. 2009, Man Diesel & Turbo (2009) Hanlon 2006, Carlton 2006, Tozer and Penfold 2001).

For ship sizes up to 7,500 TEU, engine size was selected to correspond with the values suggested

in Figure 6.1 (SMCR power curve). However, for future vessels up to 12,000 TEU that might

call at Roberts Bank, the upper bound range of engine sizes was used in order not to

underestimate potential emissions from the largest ships. The upper bound range of ship engine

sizes is exemplified by the 11,000 TEU container vessel Emma Maersk which has a main engine

of 109,000 kW and began service in 2011 (gCaptain 2011). Subjective curve fitting of the upper

bound range yielded an engine size of 102,800 kW for a 12,000 TEU container ship. Ships

greater than 12,000 TEU were not considered.




Figure 6.1 – Vessel Size and Main Engine Power Rating

(Source: Global Security 2011)

Figure 6.2 – Range of Possible Main Engine Sizes

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

0 5000 10000 15000

ME

Po

wer (

kW

)

ContainerVessel Size (TEU)

Global Security 2011

PMV 2012

Man Diesel & Turbo 2009

Tozer & Penfold 2001

Carlton 2006

Hanlon 2006

Miller et al. 2009

gCaptain 2011

upper bound

range of engine

sizes




Figure 6.2 shows that whereas the range of potential engine sizes for the smaller container

vessels (i.e., less than 5000 TEU) is fairly limited, the range in potential size on engines becomes

much broader for the newer, ultra-large container vessels. Because the DTRRIP assessment was

based on the upper bound estimates of potential engine sizes for the larger vessels, the emission

inventory for these emissions may overestimate actual emissions resulting from Deltaport and

the proposed Terminal 2 operations.

In a similar but related vein, it is also worth stating that the emissions from the Westshore coal

terminal were also based on the use of the largest vessels (i.e., >100,000 dead weight tonnage

[DWT]). During the period 2000-2005, vessels greater than 100,000 DWT accounted for only

41% of the total number of ships calling at the terminal (SENES 2006). For the DTRRIP

assessment, it was assumed that 100% of the bulk carriers calling at Westshore consisted of such

large vessels. This likely overstates potential emissions from this terminal.

6.1.2 Emission Factors and Load Factors

The DTRRIP assessment for marine vessels was based on the latest version of the MEIT which

assumes static emission factors for all engine loads. Emissions increase with increased engine

load, but the emission factors remain unchanged. While this assumption seems to hold true for

contaminants such as NOx and SO2, the same may not be true for CO and PM2.5 as determined

by Miller et al. (2009) for a Post-Panamax container ship.

Figure 6.3 shows:

NOx and SO2 emission factors are relatively insensitive to engine load;

CO decreases with engine load; and

PM2.5 increases with engine load.

The specific relationship in Figure 6.3 is for one ship; however, the trends demonstrated in the

Figure are consistent with what would be expected with fuel combustion in diesel engines.




Figure 6.3 – Container Vessel Emission Factors Relative to Engine Load

(Miller et al. 2009)

It should also be noted that the underway emissions in Georgia Strait for DTRRIP were

calculated for a slow cruise vessel speed of 12 knots for all vessels. The MEIT assumes engine

load factors of 50% for container vessels and 55% for bulk carriers under slow cruise conditions.

The study by Wang et al. (2009) of another in-use container ship indicated that main engine load

factors were more closely consistent with a 40% load factor, similar to that which was assumed

for the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia emission inventory completed in 2007 (COS

2007). Therefore, emissions for underway vessels in the DTRRIP inventory may have been

somewhat overestimated due to the use of a higher load factor than is actually used by vessels in

slow cruise mode. Wang et al. also reported that the load factor for main engines in

manoeuvring mode was assumed to be 3%, consistent with the Chamber of Shipping emission

inventory, but about one-third of the MEIT load factor of 10% used in the DTRRIP report based

on the MEIT. Load factors for auxiliary engines were similar to those in the MEIT in underway

and berthing mode, but higher for manoeuvring mode at 50% load factor compared with 33% in

the MEIT.

0

5

10

15

20

25

13% 25% 50% 75% 90%

Em

issi

on

Fa

cto

r (

g/k

Wh

)

ME Load Factor

NOx

SO2

CO

PM2.5




6.1.3 Activity-based versus fuel-based emission factors

The study by Wang et al (2009) indicated that, for underway modes of operation, there was little

difference between activity-based emissions estimated using engine load factors versus fuel-

based emission factors (i.e., based on the amount of fuel used in each mode). The agreement

between the two methods of calculating emissions was within 10% for underway emissions.

However, the authors noted large variations in emission estimates for manoeuvring and berthing

mode operations for CO and SO2 which they attributed to deviations between power-based and

fuel-based emission factors. The differences were on the order of up to 50% in SO2 emissions

during manoeuvring and 30% for berthing, and greater than 75% in CO emissions for

manoeuvring and 50% for berthing. Wang et al. concluded that emission estimates derived using

either power-based or fuel-based methods are “largely representative of the real emission performance for in-service container vessel. However, because of the use of published emission

factors rather than engine-specific emission rates, the accuracy and reliability of the emission

estimates remain uncertain until they can be validated with actual monitored data.”

6.2 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT

Emissions from CHE in the DTRRIP assessment were based on the methods developed for the

NONROAD model. The methodology applies emission factors to each category of engine type,

scaled by power level and adjusted for in-use operation (i.e., hours of operation and transient

load adjustment factors), engine deterioration and fuel sulphur content. Only a limited number

of verifications have so far been completed for non-road emission factors, and none of these have

been completed for equipment used in port operations. Typical examples of non-road emission

verifications include Frey and Bammi (c.2003) for landscape and garden equipment, and Frey et

al. (2010) and Reid et al. (2009) for construction equipment.

Chi (2004) completed an uncertainty analysis of the NONROAD model following the release of

an updated version of the model in 2004. The uncertainty analysis, completed on the state-level

emission inventory for Georgia, estimated the 95% confidence intervals about the mean emission

estimate as follows:

CO -43% to +75% HC -34% to +61%

NOx -46% to +68% PM -48% to +75%

The NONROAD model has been updated since the Chi (2004) study was completed and

therefore some of the uncertainty identified by Chi could have been addressed and reduced in

subsequent versions of the model. For example, studies have been conducted at the ports of

Long Beach and Los Angeles in 2006 and 2009 (Starcrest 2010, Starcrest 2011) which indicated




that load factors for yard trucks as defined in the California OFFROAD model (a model similar

to the NONROAD model) were too high and were revised by CARB for the emission inventories

at these ports.

An earlier study by Kean et al. (2000) had compared NOx and PM10 emissions derived from the

NONROAD activity-based measurements to emissions based on fuel consumption. Total

emissions of these two pollutants from non-road diesel equipment (excluding locomotives and

marine vessels) was estimated to be 2.3 times higher when based on the NONROAD methods for

emission inventories compared with fuel-based methods. In a review of port-related emission

inventories, ICF Consulting (2004) noted that the differences between activity-based estimation

methods and fuel-based methods are related to the in-use duty cycles for much of the port

equipment and does not necessarily match the emission test duty cycles on which the

NONROAD model emission factors are based. Port equipment tends to idle for a much greater

percentage of the time than is assumed by the test duty cycles. As a consequence, emission

factors derived from test duty cycles may overstate overall emission factors from port-related

CHE operations.

For example, the land side emission inventory for Port Metro Vancouver (SENES 2008), which

considered CHE, trucks and rail operations on port lands, noted that NONROAD emission

estimating methods tended to overestimate emissions by a factor of 1.6 to 1.8 when compared

with fuel consumption records. Since the DTRRIP analysis was conducted using the

NONROAD estimation methods, it is likely that the DTRRIP analysis overstates actual CHE

emissions to some degree. Future studies of CHE at ports may indicate that the load factors

currently in use in the NONROAD model are also set too high and would need to be adjusted

downward as was done for the California OFFROAD model, which could lower the

discrepancies between activity-based emission inventories and fuel-based emission inventories.

6.3 RAIL LOCOMOTIVES

The single largest source of uncertainty related to locomotive emissions is the rate of fleet

turnover to newer engines that meet more stringent emissions standards. At present, there are no

standards for locomotive engines in Canada, but there are also no engines manufactured in

Canada any more either. Any engines purchased by Canadian rail companies in the future will

be purchased from U.S. manufacturers. Transport Canada outlined its intention of regulating

emissions from locomotives in a consultation paper issued in December 2010. The consultation

paper states that:




“The Minister of Transport will develop and implement new emissions regulations, under the Railway Safety Act, to take effect when its current Memorandum of Understanding with the

rail industry ends. Developing these regulations will be done in two phases:

1. Regulations aligned with those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be

developed to limit the release of criteria air contaminants from the rail sector, to be

implemented in 2011.

2. Regulations to limit the release of greenhouse gases will be developed in step with the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

In the consultation paper, Transport Canada states that it plans to:

“...implement regulations that are based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as applicable to the Canadian context. This is because:

their strict criteria air contaminant regulations aimed at reducing air emissions that

can lead to smog and acid rain apply to U.S. locomotive manufacturers, which supply

Canadian railways with new locomotives; and

these standards are set to become increasingly strict for future model years as better

and more efficient technology is developed.”

Transport Canada has stated that the Canadian regulations will ensure that Canadians receive the

full benefits of these new technologies.

The implications of the stated policy intentions in the Transport Canada consultation paper is that

any new locomotives purchased for use in Canada in the future will meet US EPA emission

standards. Moreover, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

rail companies all operate on both sides of the border and do not switch line-haul locomotives

when they cross the border. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that, in future, all of their

line-haul locomotives will have to be capable of operating on either side of the border when

necessary. It would be counterintuitive to assume that the companies will operate two separate

fleets meeting different sets of emission standards in each country when the stated goal of

Transport Canada is to harmonize regulations between the two countries. Therefore, for the

purposes of the DTRRIP/CEA assessments, SENES has assumed that normal fleet turnover of

engines will result in line-haul locomotives operating at Roberts Bank as meeting US EPA

standards.

On the other hand, for yard work, SENES has assumed that the rail companies will continue to

use the oldest locomotives. However, it has been assumed that as the older Tier 1 line-haul




engines are replaced by newer engines, the Tier 1 line-haul engines will then be used as switcher

engines for yard work for horizon years 2014 to 2030.

However, it must be acknowledged that, other than the Transport Canada consultation paper,

there is no other documentary basis to support these assumptions such that alternative scenarios

for the fleet turnover of locomotives are also possible.

6.4 ON-ROAD VEHICLES

As noted in Section 5.2, Sierra Research, Inc. was retained to derive on-road vehicle emission

factors for the container truck fleet specific to port activities and employee-owned vehicles as

part of the general light-duty vehicle fleet in the LFV. Sierra completed this work by building on

previous work completed in converting the US EPA version of the MOBILE6.2 model to

Canadian conditions as MOBILE6.2C for Environment Canada and updating that work in 2009,

as well as further work on modelling on-road emissions in the LFV as part of the review of the

AirCare I/M program in 2010.

Since 2010, the US EPA has introduced the MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator) Model

as a replacement emission inventory tool to the MOBILE6.2C model. According to J. Heiken at

Sierra (personal communication, December 2011), who worked on the coding of both the

MOBILE and MOVES models, the MOVES model does not utilize over 98% of all emissions

test data gathered to date because the model is restricted to only second-by-second data. This is

potentially problematic to the model's accuracy and therefore to any categorical description of

MOVES as being an "improvement" over the MOBILE model.

Given this limitation, Heiken characterizes MOVES as being, at best, "different" than MOBILE

due to the paucity of supporting data and the increased uncertainty with the second-by-second

method. For light-duty exhaust emissions in MOVES, all data come from an Arizona Inspection

and Maintenance lane with unknown fuel properties and ambient temperatures on an individual

vehicle basis (as well as some questions as to warm-up status). Because these are I/M data, the

operation modes do not include all of the higher vehicle specific power (VSP) bins where the

majority of exhaust emissions occur. MOVES is based on an extrapolation technique to populate

emission rates at higher VSP bins and, as such, is not supported by actual second-by-second

data. In short, MOVES represents a new way to perform the emissions calculations, but the

method is not wholly supported yet by a robust underlying amount of data.

Given the uncertainty about how “real” the differences between the two models may be, the relatively low contribution of vehicular emissions to the overall DTRRIP inventory and the small

difference that might result from using MOVES instead of MOBILE, it was deemed that the




MOBILE model results would be sufficient for this assessment. While it may be desirable to use

the most recent emission inventory tools for estimating on-road vehicle emissions, the

application of the MOVES model to the LFV instead of the MOBILE6.2C model is not a simple

or straightforward exercise.

Perhaps the main reason for not using MOVES is that the model will require a number of

modifications to be applicable to Canadian operations (Heiken, personal communication, June

2012). Technical issues related to the direct application of the US EPA MOVES2010 model in a

Canadian context were identified by Heiken as follows:

Canadian fleet and activity data;

Canadian gasoline parameters;

Pre-1988 Model Year standards/controls;

Heavy-duty diesel Consent Decrees for engine rebuilds;

Light-duty On-board Diagnostics (OBD) requirement delay;

Imports on non-U.S. certified vehicles; and

Lack of Technical Support Documentation (TSD).

All of these issues would first have to be addressed before the application of the MOVES model

could be considered to be representative of Canadian-specific conditions. In particular, the two

most important parameters above are the Canadian Fleet and Activity Data and the Canadian

Gasoline Parameters.




7.0 REFERENCES

Air Improvement Resources, Inc. 2005. Personal communication. Memorandum on Idle

Emission Rates for Diesel Trucks.

Carlton, J.S. 2006. The propulsion of a 12500 TEU container ship. Journal of Marine

Engineering and Technology. No. A8:3-17.

Chamber of Shipping (COS) of British Columbia 2007. 2005-2006 BC Ocean-Going Vessel

Emissions Inventory. Vancouver, B.C.

Chi, T-R.R 2004. Uncertainty Analysis of the NONROAD Emissions Model for the State of

Georgia. Master of Science in Environmental Engineering Thesis, Achool of

Engineering, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of

Technology.

Frey, H.C., W. Rasdorf and P. Lewis 2010. Comprehensive Field Study of Fuel Use and

Emissions of Nonroad Diesel Construction Equipment. Transportation Research Record:

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2158, Transportation Research Board

of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 69-76.

Frey, H.C. and S. Bammi c2003. Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty for Selected

Nonroad Mobile Spurce Emission Factors.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei11/mobile/frey.pdf

gCaptain (2011) Emma Maersk Container Ship. http://gcaptain.com/emma-maersk-engine/

Global Security 2011. Container Ship Types.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/militari/systems/ship/container-types.htm

Hanlon, M. 2006. The World’s Largest Container Ship Launched. http://gizmag.com/5853/

ICF Consulting 2004. Port Emission Inventories and Modeling Port Emissions for Use in State

Implementation Plans (SIPs). White Paper #3. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-W-03-028. Work Assignment No. 18, Port

Regulation Issues.

http://gcaptain.com/emma-maersk-engine/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/militari/systems/ship/container-types.htm

http://gizmag.com/5853/




ICF International 2009. Current Methodologies for Preparing Mobile Source Port-related

Emission Inventories. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Policy, Economics and Innovation, Sector Strategies Program.

Kean, A.J., R.F. Sawyer and R.A. Harley 2000. A Fuel-based Assessment of Off-Road Diesel

Engine Emissions. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 50:1929-1939.

MAN Diesel & Turbo 2009. Propulsion Trends in Container Vessels.

http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof4672/5510-0040-01ppr_low.pdf

Marine Emission Inventory Tool, Version 3.50 (MEIT 3.5). 2010. Developed for Environment

Canada and Transport Canada.

Miller, J.W., H. Agarwal and W.A. Welch 2009. Criteria Emissions from the Main Propulsion

Engine of a Post-Panamax Class Container Vessel Using Distillate and Residual Fuels.

University of California, Riverside, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental

Research and technology, Riverside, CA

Miller, C.A., G. Hidy, J. Hales, C.E. Kolb, A. Werner, B. Haneke, D. Parrish, H.C. Frey, L.

Rojas-Bracho, M. Deslauriers, B. Pennell and J.D. Mobley 2008. Air Emission

Inventories in North America: A Critical Assessment. Journal of the Air & Waste

Management Association 56:1115-1129.

Railway Association of Canada. “Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2008.” Prepared in partnership with Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Pollution Probe. ISBN

number: 978-0-9809464-3-7

Reid, S.B., P.T. Roberts, D.S. Eisinger, and N.J.M. Wheeler 2009. The Arizona Construction

Equipment Field Study. Presented at the 8th

Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill,

NC, October 19-21, 2009.

SENES Consultants Limited 2006. Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Sensitivity Analysis.

Addendum to the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment Deltaport Third Berth

Project. Prepared for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (currently Port Metro

Vancouver), Vancouver, B.C.

SENES Consultants Limited 2006. Air Emissions Inventories for Westshore Terminals, 2005-

2011. Prepared for Westshore Terminals Limited Partnership, Delta, BC




SENES Consultants Limited 2007. Baseline Air Contaminant Emissions for Deltaport and

Terminal 2 in 2005 and 2021. Prepared for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

(currently Port Metro Vancouver), Vancouver, B.C.

SENES Consultants Limited 2008. Port Metro Vancouver Land Side Air Emissions Inventory.

Phase I: Burrard Inlet and Roberts Bank. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver,

Vancouver, BC.

Railway Association of Canada. “Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2008.” Prepared in partnership with Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Pollution Probe. ISBN

number: 978-0-9809464-3-7

Sierra Research, Inc. 2011. Personal communication November 9, 2011.

Simon, H., D.T. Allen and A.E. Wittig 2008. Fine Particulate Matter Emissions Inventories:

Comparisons of Emissions Estimates with Observations from Recent Field Programs.

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 58(2):320-343.

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC 2007. Maritime Emission Inventory. Prepared for the Puget

Sound Maritime Emissions Forum, Poulsbo, WA

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC 2010. Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions - 2009.

Prepared for the Port of Los Angeles, California.

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC 2011. Air Emissions Inventory 2010. Prepared for the Port of

Long Beach, California.

Tozer, D. And A. Penfold 2001. Ultra-Large Container Ships (ULCS): designing to the limit of

current and projected terminal infrastructure capabilities.

http://www.antiport.de/doku/gutachten/ulcs.pdf

Transport Canada 2010. Locomotive Emissions Regulations Consultation Paper.

www.tc.gc.ca/locomotive‐emissions

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1998. Locomotive Emission Standards Regulatory

Support Document. Office of Mobile Sources.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/locomotive‐emissions




U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions

of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines

Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment

and Standards Division. EPA420-R-08-001a

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for

Nonroad Engine Modeling - Compression-Ignition. Office of Transportation and Air

Quality, Assessment and Standards Division. EPA-420-R-10-018, NR-009d

Wang, F., H.P. Bao and T. Kleman 2009. Emission Inventory Assessment for a Container

Vessel. International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, IEEE, May

18-20, 2009.

Documents

Air Quality Assessment Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail ......Air Quality Assessment - Appendix A Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail Improvement Project 380220 - October 2012 iii SENES