CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY EFFECTS ASSESSMENT - Roberts Bank Terminal 2
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY
EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Prepared for:
Vancouver Port Authority
Container Development Group
100 The Pointe
999 Canada Place
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3T4
Prepared by:
Bohdan Hrebenyk, M.Sc.
Bryan McEwen, M.Sc.
SENES Consultants Limited
1275 West 6th Avenue, Suite 300
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 1A6
21 November 2005ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SENES Consultants Limited wishes to thank Robin Taylor of Acres International, Environmental Advisor to the Gateway Program administered through the Ministry of Transportation, and Robert Humphries of Levelton Consultants Limited for their assistance in providing traffic modelling data for Highway #17 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Similarly, SENES is grateful for the assistance provided by Marilyn McNamara, Manager, Corporate Services, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., in obtaining projections on future traffic levels for the Tsawwassen ferry terminal.
Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3
2.0 EMISSION INVENTORY ..................................................................................................6
2.1 Container Terminals.................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Container Vessel Traffic Emissions.............................................................8
2.1.2 Tugboat Emissions.....................................................................................15
2.1.3 Dockyard Equipment Emissions................................................................16
2.1.4 Container Train Emissions.........................................................................16
2.1.5 Emissions from Container Trucks On Site ................................................17
2.1.6 Emissions from Container Trucks on Roadway ........................................19
2.1.7 Emissions from Employee/Service Vehicles .............................................21
2.1.8 Summary of Container Terminal Emissions..............................................23
2.2 Westshore Terminal ...............................................................................................28
2.3 Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal ..................................................................................28
2.4 ‘Background’ Road Traffic....................................................................................30
3.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT.....................................................................33
4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................52
5.0 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................55
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................57
APPENDIX A: Derivation of Idle Emission Factors for Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks
38129 – 21 November 2005 i SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
2.1 Vessel Size and Call Forecast for Deltaport and Terminal 2...............................................7
2.2 Estimated Engine Power by Vessel Size .............................................................................8
2.3 Emission Factors (g/kWh) for Marine Vessel Underway and Manoeuvring Operations....9
2.4 Container Vessel Dockside Fuel Use per Vessel.................................................................9
2.5 Container Vessel Dockside Emission Factors ...................................................................10
2.6 Summary of Estimated Container Vessel Emissions for Deltaport and Terminal 2..........14
2.7 Tugboat Emission Factors..................................................................................................15
2.8 Estimated Emissions from Tugboat Operations at Deltaport and Terminal 2 ...................15
2.9 Estimated Emissions Due to Dockyard Equipment at Deltaport and Terminal 2..............16
2.10 Estimated Emissions Due to Train Hauling/Idling ............................................................16
2.11 Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Creep Cycle Emission Factors.................................................18
2.12 Creep Cycle Emission Factors for One Container Truck Operating On-Site....................18
2.13 Differences in Estimated Total On-Site Container Truck Emission Rates........................18
2.14 Road Segment Lengths and Percentage of Port Traffic Using Each Segment ..................19
2.15 Emission Factors for On Roadway Container Trucks .......................................................20
2.16 Estimated Emissions Due to Container Trucks on Roadway ............................................20
2.17 Composition of Employee/Service Vehicle Fleet by Vehicle Class..................................21
2.18 Emission Factors for Employee/Service Vehicles.............................................................22
2.19 Estimated Emissions Due to Employee/Service Vehicles on Roadway............................22
2.20 Summary of Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year) from Deltaport ......................................24
2.21 Summary of Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year) from Terminal 2....................................25
2.22 Summary of Upper and Lower Bound Emission Estimates for Deltaport
and Terminal 2 ...................................................................................................................25
2.23 Estimated Emissions from the Westshore Terminal (2003-2021).....................................28
2.24 Estimated Traffic Levels for the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal..........................................29
2.25 Estimated Emissions from Ferry Vessels at the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal ..................29
2.26 Estimated Traffic Levels on Highway #17 and SFPR .......................................................30
2.27 Adjusted ‘Background’ Traffic Levels on Highway #17 and SFPR .................................30
2.28 Adjusted ‘Background’ Average Fleet Composition by Vehicle Class.............................31
2.29 Distance Travelled by Vehicles on Highway #17 and SFPR ............................................31
2.30 Estimated ‘Background’ Traffic Emissions from Highway #17 and SFPR ......................32
3.1 Cumulative Emission Estimates for 2003 (Baseline) ........................................................33
3.2 Cumulative Emission Estimates for 2011..........................................................................34
3.3 Cumulative Emission Estimates for 2021..........................................................................35
3.4 Total Emissions and Percentage Differences in CEA-AQ Emission Estimates ................37
3.5 Primary CEA-AQ Emission Sources by Pollutant.............................................................51
38129 – 21 November 2005 ii SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows
Page No.
2.1 Container Vessel Underway Emissions .............................................................................11
2.2 Container Vessel Manoeuvring Emissions ........................................................................12
2.3 Container Vessel Dockside Emissions...............................................................................13
2.4 Estimated Total Annual Emissions of Common Gaseous Pollutants from Container
Terminal Operations at Roberts Bank................................................................................26
2.5 Estimated Total Annual Emissions of Particulate Matter from Container Terminal
Operations at Roberts Bank ...............................................................................................27
3.1 Cumulative Effects Assessment for Common Gaseous Pollutants....................................36
3.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment for Particulate Matter .....................................................36
3.3 2003 Baseline NOx and CO Emissions..............................................................................38
3.4 2003 Baseline SO2 and VOC Emissions............................................................................39
3.5 2003 Baseline PM10 and PM2.5 D Emissions .....................................................................40
3.6 2011 Upper and Lower Bound NOx Emissions .................................................................41
3.7 2011 Upper and Lower Bound CO Emissions...................................................................42
3.8 2011 Upper and Lower Bound SO2 Emissions..................................................................43
3.9 2011 Upper and Lower Bound PM10 Emissions................................................................44
3.10 2011 Upper and Lower Bound PM2.5 D Emissions............................................................45
3.11 2021 Upper and Lower Bound NOx Emissions .................................................................46
3.12 2021 Upper and Lower Bound CO Emissions...................................................................47
3.13 2021 Upper and Lower Bound SO2 Emissions..................................................................48
3.14 2021 Upper and Lower Bound PM10 Emissions................................................................49
3.15 2021 Upper and Lower Bound PM2.5 D Emissions............................................................50
38129 – 21 November 2005 iii SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) is currently in the process of evaluating plans for
expansion of container handling facilities at Roberts Bank. The VPA’s plans call for two
expansion projects: 1) the addition of a new berth to the existing Deltaport container terminal to
be completed by 2008, and 2) the addition of a second terminal sometime after 2011.
As part of that assessment, the VPA was asked by the Greater Vancouver Regional District
(GVRD) and the Environmental Protection Branch of Environment Canada (in a letter request to
Dave Carter of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency dated 22 July 2005) to prepare
a Cumulative Effects Assessment for air quality (CEA-AQ) that is to consider other
developments in the area which may affect future air quality levels. The CEA-AQ was to assess
air pollutant emissions for two periods (2011 and 2021), relative to baseline emissions in 2003.
The CEA-AQ presented in this report considers air pollutant emissions from marine vessels, road
and rail traffic that would be related to the following sources:
• the Deltaport Third Berth (DP3) expansion project when it reaches full capacity in 2011,
as well as in 2021;
• the Second Terminal (T2) expansion project which would reach full capacity by 2021;
• traffic levels on Highway #17 in 2011 and the proposed South Fraser Perimeter Road
(SFPR) in 2021;
• the Westshore Terminal in 2011 and 2021; and,
• the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal in 2011 and 2021.
The range of emission estimates presented in the CEA-AQ is based on a number of potential
operational scenarios for the DP3 and T2 projects. The emission estimates presented provide
bounding estimates of possible emissions that should be considered equally plausible projections
of future emission scenarios. The total estimated annual emissions from the sources considered
could change by the following percentages in 2011 and 2021:
CEA-AQ in 2011
• emission of CO, NOx and VOC would decrease for any emission scenario;
• SO2 emissions could increase by up to 8% for the upper bound estimate, but might also
decrease by 6% for the lower bound estimate;
• particulate matter emissions may increase by nearly 7% for the upper bound estimate, but
might also decrease by about 2%; and,
• diesel particulate matter (PM2.5 D) emissions might increase by up to 2%, but might also
decrease by 8%.
38129 – 21 November 2005 1 SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
CEA-AQ in 2021
• emission of CO and VOC would decrease for any conceivable CEA-AQ scenario;
• NOx emissions could increase by 14-38%;
• particulate matter emissions could increase by 28-67%; and,
• PM2.5 D would increase by a lower range of 7-48%.
No consideration has been given to potential emission reductions from port operations stemming
from a host of mitigation measures that the Vancouver Port Authority and the Deltaport terminal
operator, Terminal Systems Inc. (TSI), have committed to implementing in order to reduce future
air pollutant emissions. As such, extreme caution should be exercised in interpreting the
emission estimates presented in this report. The estimates reflect the types of assumptions used
in projecting future emissions. Many of these assumptions may prove to be either partially or
completely invalid as planning for the design and future operation of proposed facilities such as
the Deltaport Third Berth, Terminal 2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road are further refined.
Furthermore, the relative magnitude of the fractional change in CEA-AQ emissions would be
different if more sources of emission in the area were included in the calculations. This would
include emissions from sources such as:
• residential and commercial space heating;
• residential and ceremonial wood burning;
• lawn and garden equipment;
• agricultural equipment;
• traffic on other roads;
• recreational marine traffic;
• greenhouse operations.
Caution should also be exercised in interpreting the anticipated changes in emissions relative to
changes in ambient air quality levels for these common pollutants. No dispersion modelling has
been conducted as part of the CEA-AQ to estimate how the potential changes in emissions could
affect the concentration of those pollutants in the atmosphere. Such an analysis was beyond the
scope defined for the CEA-AQ. Without such modelling, no estimates of changes in air
pollutant levels at any given location in the study area are possible.
38129 – 21 November 2005 2 SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) is currently in the process of evaluating plans for
expansion of container handling facilities at Roberts Bank. The VPA’s plans call for two
expansion projects: 1) the addition of a new berth to the existing Deltaport container terminal to
be completed by 2008, and 2) the addition of a second terminal sometime after 2011.
SENES Consultants Limited (SENES) was retained by the VPA to provide technical assistance
in the air quality impact assessment for the Deltaport Third Berth expansion project. As part of
that assessment, the VPA was asked by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and
the Environmental Protection Branch of Environment Canada (in a letter request to Dave Carter
of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency dated 22 July 2005) to prepare a Cumulative
Effects Assessment for air quality (CEA-AQ) that is to consider other developments in the area
which may affect future air quality levels. The CEA-AQ was to assess air pollutant emissions
for two periods (2011 and 2021), relative to baseline emissions in 2003.
The CEA-AQ presented in this report considers air pollutant emissions from marine vessels, road
and rail traffic that would be related to the following sources:
• the Deltaport Third Berth (DP3) expansion project when it reaches full capacity in 2011,
as well as in 2021;
• the Second Terminal (T2) expansion project which would reach full capacity by 2021;
• traffic levels on Highway #17 in 2011 and the proposed South Fraser Perimeter Road
(SFPR) in 2021;
• the Westshore Terminal in 2011 and 2021; and,
• the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal in 2011 and 2021.
The scope of the CEA-AQ is limited to compiling an emission inventory of common air
pollutants (CACs) for 2011 and 2021 for comparison with the baseline level emissions in 2003
defined in the air quality assessment for the DP3 project. The CACs considered included
nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), total suspended particulate (TSP) matter, inhalable particulate matter (PM10),
respirable particulate matter (PM2.5) and respirable diesel particulate matter (PM2.5D).
The assessment of other emission sources in the Local Study Area (LSA)1 was considered
beyond the scope of this assessment. Such sources would include:
1
As defined in the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment prepared by RWDI Air Inc. for the Deltaport Third
Berth Project (2005)
38129 – 21 November 2005 3 SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
• residential and commercial space heating;
• residential and ceremonial wood burning;
• lawn and garden equipment;
• agricultural equipment;
• traffic on other roads;
• recreational marine traffic;
• greenhouse operations.
Dispersion modelling to estimate future ambient air concentrations of CACs was also beyond the
scope of the CEA-AQ presented in this report.
The range of emission estimates presented in the CEA-AQ is based on a number of potential
operational scenarios for the DP3 and T2 projects. Specifically, the trend in container vessel
activity over the past two decades has seen a shift towards the use of larger vessels.
Consequently, the forecasts of future emissions from the DP3 and T2 operations incorporate a
range in the distribution of vessel sizes that might call on the terminals in 2011 and 2021. As
such, the emission estimates presented in this CEA-AQ provide bounding estimates of possible
emissions that should be considered equally plausible projections of future emission scenarios.
Other sources of uncertainty in this CEA-AQ stem from the following:
1) No consideration has been given to any potential emission reduction strategies that the
VPA and other agencies concerned with marine vessel emissions are currently working
to define and implement. Thus, the emission estimates provided in this report are
conservative estimates that likely overestimate actual future emissions.
2) The T2 project is currently only available in the form of a conceptual design. No details
are available as to how this terminal might operate. As such, the emission estimates for
T2 largely reflect the design of the current Deltaport terminal.
3) There are several options currently under consideration for the alignment of the SFPR
under the Gateway Program. For the purposes of this CEA, SENES has chosen only
one of those options to represent the emissions from traffic on this major roadway. The
extent to which emission estimates might change for any of the other options has not
been evaluated.
4) The operators of the Westshore coal terminal have indicated that the amount of coal
shipped through this terminal may increase by about 10% in the future due to a rise in
demand for coal. The increase in coal throughput is within the design capacity of the
38129 – 21 November 2005 4 SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
existing terminal, and has been added to the upper bound estimate of emissions in 2011
and 2021.
5) The British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (BC Ferries) has provided SENES with
projections of future vehicle traffic levels using the Tsawwassen ferry terminal.
However, it is not clear how those traffic levels would affect emissions from ferry
vessels operating out of the ferry terminal in 2011 and 2021. BC Ferries is currently
commissioning new ferries that may, or may not, operate out of this terminal. The size
and operational characteristics of any new vessels that may affect emission estimates is
presently unknown. Furthermore, it is uncertain how the increase in vehicular traffic
levels would translate into the frequency of vessel arrivals/departures from the terminal.
For all of these reasons, extreme caution should be exercised in interpreting the emission
estimates presented in this report. The estimates reflect the types of assumptions used in
projecting future operations of these emission sources. Many of these assumptions may prove to
be either partially or completely invalid in the near future as planning for the design and
operation of each of these facilities is refined.
38129 – 21 November 2005 5 SENES Consultants LimitedCumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.0 EMISSION INVENTORY
2.1 CONTAINER TERMINALS
In 2003, the Deltaport container terminal handled a total of 0.89 million twenty-foot equivalent
units (TEU) of containerized cargo. The addition of a third berth in 2011 under the DP3 project
is expected to increase the capacity of the Deltaport (DP) terminal to handle up to 1.3 million
TEUs, although the throughput for 2011 used in the air quality and human health assessment for
the DP3 project was only 1.2 million TEUs. The conceptual design of the T2 terminal would
increase the container handling capacity at Roberts Bank by 1.7 million TEU, for a total capacity
of 3.0 million TEU at Roberts Bank by 2021.
Although the total cargo throughput is expected to more than triple by 2021 compared with the
baseline in 2003, emissions are not expected to increase by equivalent amounts due to the shift
towards the use of fewer, but larger, container vessels. Table 2.1 lists the total number of
container vessels calling at Deltaport (DP) in 2003, as well as forecasts of the types of vessels
that may be expected to call at both DP and T2 in 2011 and 2021. The forecasts were developed
for the VPA by Moffatt & Nichol (2004, 2005).
For Deltaport, the total number of vessel calls in 2003 was 365 container vessels for 0.89 million
TEU. For the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment of the DP3 project, the baseline
estimate for the number of vessels required to handle 0.89 million TEU in 2011 using the
existing facilities was assumed to be 327 vessels. However, Moffatt & Nichol projected that the
total number of vessel calls in 2011 could range between an upper bound estimate of 389 vessels
and a lower bound estimate of 306 vessels for a cargo handling throughput of 1.2 million TEU
(i.e., for the existing facilities plus the additional capacity provided by the DP3 project). Thus,
the maximum number of additional new vessels resulting from the addition of the Third Berth at
Deltaport was estimated at 62 vessels (i.e., the upper bound estimate of 389 vessels less the
baseline estimate of 327 vessels). Note, however, that the number of additional vessels modelled
in the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment by RWDI Air Inc. (2005) for the DP3 project
was 66 vessels, providing a very conservative estimate of future emissions from the DP3 project.
An alternative interpretation of the forecasted vessel calls would have projected a decrease in the
total number of vessel calls, based on 306 vessels for the combined operations of the existing
Deltaport operations plus the addition of the Third Berth compared with 365 vessel calls in 2003.
For Terminal 2, there are three potential scenarios for vessel calls, ranging from a low of 237
vessels to a high of 462 vessels for the 1.7 million TEU that the new terminal would be expected
to handle. For the purposes of this CEA, all three potential scenarios were evaluated.
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
6Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Table 2.1: Vessel Size and Call Forecast for Deltaport and Terminal 2
2003 2011 2021
0.89
Million 0.89 Million
Vessel TEUs TEUs 1.2 Million TEUs 1.3 Million TEUs 1.7 Million TEUs
Capacity DP DP Baseline DP Total DP T2
(TEU) Modelled Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Modelled Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
8000 0 14 17 63 17 24 59 31 73 65
Total 365 327 389 306 393 347 177 462 367 237
2011
Vessel
Scenario 1 DP3 2011
Capacity
minus Modelled
(TEU)
DP Baseline
8000 3 3
Total 62 66
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
7Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.1.1 Container Vessel Traffic Emissions
Container vessel traffic emissions are subdivided into three separate modes of operation:
underway, manoeuvring and dockside operations. The emission rates for each mode of operation
were calculated separately for each vessel call scenario listed in Table 2.1, as described below.
Underway emissions were calculated using the following formula2:
Emission (tonnes) = Average Engine Power (kW) x Time (h) x Engine Load Factor (%) x Emission Factor (g/kWh)
1,000,000 (g/tonne)
Average engine power (Table 2.2) was estimated using the formula developed from a regression
of horsepower versus deadweight and speed:
Horsepower (HP) = DWTCoeff*(DWT)0.667 + SpeedCoeff*(Speed)3 + Intercept
where
DWT is the deadweight tonnage of the vessel
DWTCoeff is 20.06
SpeedCoeff is 2.342
Intercept is –13,924
Table 2.2: Estimated Engine Power by Vessel Size
Vessel Average Engine Power
Average
Capacity
DWT
(TEU) HP kW
8000 100,000 43,119 32,154
2
Levelton Engineering Ltd. 2002. Marine Vessel Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley for the Year 2000.
Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Environment Canada, Vancouver, B.C.
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
8Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Total distance travelled in underway mode was 17.2 km at 18 knots, for a total travel time of
0.516 hours. The engine load factor was assumed to be 80%. The average sulphur content was
assumed to be 2.88%, based on a survey of fuel usage conducted by the B.C. Chamber of
Shipping in the Port of Vancouver in 2003. Emission factors for the CACs are listed in Table
2.3.
Table 2.3:
Emission Factors (g/kWh) for Marine Vessel Underway and Manoeuvring Operations
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP
18 1.6 12.096 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Emissions in manoeuvring mode were estimated based on the same emission formula used for
underway emissions, but assuming a vessel speed of 5 knots for 1 hour at 20% engine load. This
is considered to be a gross overestimation of emissions during manoeuvring operations as
observations by SENES staff of marine vessels operating in the Port of Vancouver indicate that
manoeuvring operations occur over much shorter time periods than 1 hour. However, as 1 hour
is the standard assumption that has been used to date for calculating the emissions from marine
vessels in the Lower Fraser Valley, as well as for the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment
prepared by RWDI Air Inc. for the DP3 project, the assumption has been retained for the CEA-
AQ calculation for consistency alone.
For container vessels at dockside, emissions were calculated based on fuel usage rates as
determined by the B.C. Chamber of Shipping fuel use survey in 2003. Table 2.4 lists the average
total tonnage of fuel used per vessel while at berth relative to container vessel size.
Table 2.4: Container Vessel Dockside Fuel Use per Vessel
Fuel Use (tonnes)
Vessel Capacity
Marine Diesel Fuel Oil
(TEU)
8000 5.46 17.91
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
9Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Table 2.5 lists the CAC emission factors used in estimating total emissions. The sulphur content
of fuel oil was assumed to be 2.88%, based on the B.C. Chamber of Shipping fuel usage survey
in 2003.
Table 2.5: Container Vessel Dockside Emission Factors
Emission Factor
CAC (kg/tonne of fuel burned)
Marine Diesel Fuel Oil
CO 4.7 4.7
NOx 53.4 53.4
SO2 2.6 57.6
VOC 2 2
PM 6.3 6.3
The resultant per vessel call emission rates for container vessels are depicted in Figures 2.1, 2.2
and 2.3 for underway, manoeuvring and dockside emissions, respectively. When applied to the
forecast distributions of vessels listed in Table 2.1, the emissions from each mode of operations
and each vessel call scenario indicate that, as the mix of vessels shifts away from more vessel
calls by smaller vessels towards fewer vessel calls by larger vessels, there is an overall decrease
in total emissions.
This shift towards lower emissions with fewer, but larger, container vessels is evident in the
estimated emissions from Deltaport and Terminal 2 operations presented in Table 2.6. For 2021
at Deltaport, estimated emissions for Scenario 1 with 347 vessel calls are approximately 40%
higher than for Scenario 2 with only 177 vessel calls, even though both scenarios are based on
the same quantity of cargo being handled (i.e., 1.3 million TEU). Similarly, the difference
between the emissions calculated for the T2 Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 in 2021 is about 42%.
It should be noted that the number of vessel calls for the 2011 Baseline in Table 2.6 (existing
Deltaport facility) plus the incremental increase in vessel calls for DP3 is 393 vessels. This is the
number of vessels that was modelled by RWDI Air Inc. for the Air Quality and Human Health
Assessment for the DP3 project. It is slightly higher than the total of 389 vessels listed in Table
2.1 for Scenario 1 in 2011.
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
10Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Figure 2.1: Container Vessel Underway Emissions
Container Vessel Underway Emissions for NOx and SO2
0.300
0.250
Emissions Per Vessel Call (tonnes)
0.200
NOx
0.150
SO2
0.100
0.050
0.000
8000
Vessel Capacity (TEUs)
Container Vessel Underway Emissions for CO, VOC and PM
0.0250
0.0200
Emissions per Vessel Call (tonnes)
0.0150
CO
VOC
PM
0.0100
0.0050
0.0000
8000
Vessel Capacity (TEUs)
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
11Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Figure 2.2: Container Vessel Manoeuvring Emissions
Container Vessel Manoeuvring Emissions for NOx and SO2
0.140
0.120
Emissions per Vessel Call (tonnes)
0.100
0.080
NOx
SO2
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
8000
Vessel Capacity (TEUs)
Container Vessel Manoeuvring Emissions for CO, VOC and PM
0.0120
0.0100
Emissions per Vessel Call (tonnes)
0.0080
CO
0.0060 VOC
PM
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
8000
Vessel Capacity (TEUs)
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
12Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Figure 2.3: Container Vessel Dockside Emissions
Container Vessel Dockside NOx and SO2 Emissions
1.400
1.200
Emission Rate per Dockside Call (tonnes)
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
8000
Vessel Capacity (TEUs)
Container Vessel Dockside CO, VOC and PM Emissions
0.1600
0.1400
0.1200
Emissions per Dockside Call (tonnes)
0.1000
CO
0.0800 VOC
PM
0.0600
0.0400
0.0200
0.0000
8000
Vessel Capacity (TEUs)
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
13Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Table 2.6:
Summary of Estimated Container Vessel Emissions for Deltaport and Terminal 2
Operational Total # of Emissions (tonnes/year)
Cargo Throughput Scenarios Vessel Calls Operating Mode
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
Period Deltaport
Underway 59.1 5.25 39.7 1.64 4.92 4.92 4.92 4.92
Manoeuvring 59.1 11.8 38.5 0.64 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
2003 0.89 million TEU 2003 Baseline 365
Dockside 256.0 22.5 214 9.6 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2
Total 374.2 39.55 292.2 11.88 39.57 39.57 39.57 39.57
Underway 55.3 4.91 37.2 1.54 4.61 4.61 4.61 4.61
0.89 million TEU 2011 Baseline 327 Manoeuvring 55.3 11 36.0 0.59 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16
Dockside 241 21.2 201.0 9.04 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5
Underway 11.3 1.01 7.63 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.31 million TEU DP3 66 Manoeuvring 11.4 2.26 7.38 0.12 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
2011 Dockside 49.5 4.36 41.2 1.85 5.84 5.84 5.84 5.84
1.2 million TEU Baseline + DP3 393 Total 423.8 44.74 330.41 13.46 44.91 44.91 44.91 44.91
Underway 54.9 4.9 36.92 1.53 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58
Manoeuvring 26.6 2.4 17.90 0.74 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22
1.2 million TEU Scenario 2 (DP+DP3) 306
Dockside 253.9 22.3 212.8 9.5 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Total 335.5 29.6 267.6 11.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8
Underway 58.9 5.2 39.6 1.64 4.91 4.91 4.91 4.91
Manoeuvring 28.6 2.5 19.2 0.79 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38
Scenario 1 347
Dockside 263.6 23.2 220.9 9.87 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10
Total 351.0 31.0 279.7 12.3 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4
2021 1.3 million TEU
Underway 33.5 3.0 22.5 0.93 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79
Manoeuvring 16.2 1.4 10.9 0.45 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35
Scenario 2 177
Dockside 159.0 14.0 133.2 6.0 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8
Total 208.7 18.4 166.7 7.3 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9
Terminal 2
Underway 78.4 7.0 52.7 2.18 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53
Manoeuvring 38.0 3.4 25.5 1.06 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17
Scenario 1 462
Dockside 350.6 30.9 293.9 13.1 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4
Total 467.0 41.2 372.1 16.4 51.1 51.1 51.1 51.1
Underway 65.8 5.8 44.2 1.83 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48
Manoeuvring 31.9 2.8 21.4 0.89 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66
2021 1.7 million TEU Scenario 2 367
Dockside 303.7 26.7 254.5 11.37 35.83 35.83 35.83 35.83
Total 401.4 35.4 320.2 14.1 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
Underway 43.8 3.9 29.4 1.22 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65
Manoeuvring 21.2 1.9 14.3 0.59 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77
Scenario 3 237
Dockside 205.4 18.1 172.1 7.7 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2
Total 270.4 23.9 215.8 9.5 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
14Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.1.2 Tugboat Emissions
Emissions from tugboat operations related to container vessels were calculated in the same
manner that was used for the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment by RWDI Air Inc. The
relevant assumptions used were as follows:
• Engine power rating: 978 hp
• Power loading: 60%
• Average time spent assisting vessel: 3 hr/vessel
• Number of tugboats per vessel:
o 2 per container vessel 6000 TEU.
It should be noted that the assumption that up to 3 tugboats are required to assist vessels greater
than 6000 TEU is very conservative. In most instances, only two tugboats are likely to be
needed.
The emission factors used to estimate tugboat emissions are listed in Table 2.7. Total annual
emissions are listed in Table 2.8.
Table 2.7: Tugboat Emission Factors
Pollutant NOx CO SO2 VOC PM
Emission Factor (g/kWh) 12 1.6 420 0.5 0.2
Table 2.8: Estimated Emissions from Tugboat Operations at Deltaport and Terminal 2
Container Operational Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year)
Terminal Scenarios NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
Deltaport (2003) Baseline 12.30 1.64 0.56 0.51 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Scenario 1 12.20 1.63 0.21 0.51 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Deltaport (2011)
Scenario 2 11.25 1.50 0.20 0.47 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Scenario 1 12.41 1.66 0.22 0.52 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Deltaport (2021)
Scenario 2 6.81 0.91 0.12 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Scenario 1 16.10 2.15 0.28 0.67 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
Terminal 2 (2021) Scenario 2 13.44 1.79 0.24 0.56 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Scenario 3 8.92 1.19 0.16 0.37 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
15Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.1.3 Dockyard Equipment Emissions
Emissions from dockyard equipment in 2003 and 2011 were estimated by RWDI Air Inc. as part
of the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment for the DP3 project. No changes were
required for these estimates. For 2021, the dockyard equipment emissions were estimated by
prorating the emissions based on TEU cargo handling capacity (as listed in Table 2.1). Table 2.9
lists the total annual estimated emissions due to dockyard equipment operations by terminal and
time period.
Table 2.9:
Estimated Emissions Due to Dockyard Equipment at Deltaport and Terminal 2
Container Time Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year)
Terminal Period NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
2003 180.00 54.20 27.90 9.54 11.60 11.30 11.60 0.00
Deltaport 2011 241.40 94.80 28.01 14.14 15.59 15.17 15.59 0.00
2021 241.40 94.80 28.01 14.14 15.59 15.17 15.59 0.00
Terminal 2 2021 343.82 103.53 53.29 18.22 22.16 21.58 22.16 0.00
2.1.4 Container Train Emissions
Emissions from container trains in 2003 and 2011 were estimated by RWDI Air Inc. as part of
the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment for the DP3 project. No changes were required
for these estimates. In 2003, there were 6 trains per day, and the DP3 project would add two
more trains per day. For 2021, the container train hauling emissions were estimated by prorating
the emissions based on the total number of trains. Table 2.10 lists the total annual estimated
emissions due to container train hauling by terminal and time period.
Table 2.10:
Estimated Emissions Due to Train Hauling/Idling
Container Total # of Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year)
Time Period
Terminal Trains NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
2003 (Baseline) 6 118 11.9 6.93 5.5 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94
2011 (Baseline) 6 111 12.9 1.51 5.47 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95
Deltaport
2011 (DP3) 2 24.8 2.84 0.36 1.04 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66
2021 (Total) 8 135.8 15.74 1.87 6.51 3.61 3.61 3.61 3.61
Terminal 2 2021 10 124.0 14.2 1.8 5.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
16Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.1.5 Emissions from Container Trucks On Site
The total number of trucks either picking up or dropping off container loads at the Deltaport and
Terminal 2 facilities is estimated as follows:
Deltaport 2003 912 trucks
Deltaport 2011 1191 trucks (including 279 for DP3)
Deltaport 2021 1034 trucks
Terminal 2 2021 1352 trucks
Emissions from trucks on-site are those primarily associated with idling while waiting to pick up
or drop off loads. The VPA has implemented a program whereby truck operators are required to
shut off engines between truck movements. As such, it is difficult to estimate how much time
truck engines actually spend in idling mode. For the purposes of the DP3 air quality assessment,
RWDI Air Inc. assumed that trucks spent a total of 25 minutes at the site for each truck visit, and
that the engines were running for 50% of the time, for a total idling time of 12.5 minutes. The
emissions were estimated using the method suggested by the MOBILE6.2C model user guide of
using the emission factors for the lowest vehicle speed category of 4 km/h.
As described in Appendix A, a vehicle testing program completed for the Coodinating Research
Council’s (CRC) E55/57 testing program in the United States suggests that heavy duty diesel
truck idling emission factors are higher than those obtained using the method recommended by
the MOBILE6.2C model’s user guide. There is also a difference between idle emission factors
(i.e., when a truck is not moving with the engine running) compared with when a truck is
‘creeping’ forward in a long cue at a very low average speed cycle (i.e., between 0-8 mph and 0-
3 mph), with an idle period in between.
Table 2.11 lists the heavy duty diesel truck emission factors (in g/h) derived from the CRC data
for a creep cycle (see discussion in Appendix A), while Table 2.12 shows the creep cycle
emission factors for one truck on-site operating in a stop-and-go manner for 25 minutes at the
container terminal. For the purposes of the cumulative effects assessment, on-site truck emission
estimates have been based on the CRC test data using the emission factors listed in Table 2.12
above. The differences in estimated emissions using the two methods are summarized in Table
2.13.
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
17Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Table 2.11: Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Creep Cycle Emission Factors
Creep Cycle Emission Rate (g/h)
Year
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5
2003 105.00 36.00 1.65 17.00 6.94 6.42
2011 116.00 36.00 0.07 16.00 5.04 4.66
2020 116.00 33.00 0.07 14.00 2.19 2.03
Table 2.12: Creep Cycle Emission Factors for One Container Truck Operating On-Site
Creep Cycle Emission Rate* (g/truck visit)
Year
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5
2003 43.8 15.0 0.7 7.1 2.9 2.7
2011 48.3 15.0 0.03 6.7 2.1 1.9
2020 48.3 13.8 0.03 5.8 0.9 0.8
* assumes each truck is on-site for 25 minutes
Table 2.13: Differences in Estimated Total On-Site Container Truck Emission Rates
Estimated Total Annual Emissions
Terminal (tonnes/year)
Year
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
Deltaport
RWDI Method 2003 4.7 2.8 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
CRC Creep Cycle 2003 14.6 5.0 0.23 2.4 0.96 0.89 0.96 0.89
RWDI Method* 2011 2.7 1.96 0.00 0.3 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04
CRC Creep Cycle 2011 21.01 6.52 0.01 2.9 0.91 0.84 0.91 0.84
CRC Creep Cycle 2021 18.24 5.19 0.01 2.2 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.32
Terminal 2
CRC Creep Cycle 2021 23.85 6.79 0.01 2.88 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.42
* Includes emissions from Deltaport baseline trucks plus additional DP3 truck emissions
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
18Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.1.6 Emissions from Container Trucks on Roadway
For trucks travelling on roadways in the Local Study Area (LSA)3, emissions for the Deltaport
and Terminal 2 were based on the MOBILE6.2C input files provided by the Gateway Program
for the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR). The SFPR input files assumed an average vehicle
speed of 55 km/h, compared to 80 km/h that was used by RWDI Air Inc. for the Air Quality and
Human Health Assessment for the DP3 project. SENES chose to calculate on-road truck
emission estimates at 55 km/h in order to maintain consistency with the Gateway Program
estimates. However, the road segment lengths and percentage of port traffic trucks using each
segment was maintained consistent with the DP3 project for 2033 and 2011. For 2021, all
container terminal trucks were assumed to turn from Deltaport Way onto the relocated Highway
#17 (i.e., SFPR) instead of using the old Highway #17 route. The road segment lengths and
percentage of trucks using each segment are summarized in Table 2.14.
Table 2.14: Road Segment Lengths and Percentage of Port Traffic Using Each Segment
Distance Travelled Percentage of Total
Road Segments (km) Port Traffic
2003 & 2011
Terminal to Deltaport Way & 41B Street 5.555 100%
Deltaport Way & 41B Street to Highway #17 3.8 100%
Highway #17 to Ladner Trunk Road 3.4 100%
Highway #17 to Highway #99 2.06 90%
Ladner Trunk Road to end of modelling domain 11.686 10%
Highway #99 North 10.991 54%
Highway #99 South 12.415 18%
River Road 10.885 18%
2021
Terminal to Deltaport Way & 41B Street 5.555 100%
Deltaport Way & 41B Street to SFPR 4.0 100%
SFPR to Ladner Trunk Road 5.0 100%
SFPR to Highway #99 0.693 90%
Ladner Trunk Road to end of modelling domain 11.686 10%
Highway #99 North 10.991 54%
Highway #99 South 12.415 18%
River Road 10.885 18%
3
The extent of the Local Study Area is as defined in the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment prepared by
RWDI Inc. for the DP3 project.
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
19Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
The Gateway Program MOBILE6.2C input files were provided for 2003 and 2021. In these
files, there was no differentiation made between the two sizes of trucks that were estimated by
RWDI to be calling on the container terminal (i.e., HDDV8A and HDDV8B). RWDI estimated
that 30.25% of the container trucks visiting the terminal were of the HDDV8A class, while
69.75% were of the HDDV8B class. For the purposes of the CEA-AQ, the same emission
factors were used for both categories of trucks in 2003 and 2021 as derived from the Gateway
Program files for the heavy duty diesel truck category HDDV4-8B. For 2011, SENES ran the
MOBILE6.2C input files provided by the Gateway Program and extracted emission factors for
the same truck category. The emission factors used for the calculation of on-roadway truck
emission rates are summarized in Table 2.15.
Table 2.15: Emission Factors for On Roadway Container Trucks
Emission Rates (g/km)
Vehicle
Year NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 D
Type
2003 HDDV4-8B 5.48 1.1996 0.1252 0.27 0.1863 0.1599 0.1447
2011 HDDV4-8B 3.53 0.7212 0.0086 0.2158 0.1094 0.0849 0.0771
2021 HDDV4-8B 0.46 0.1128 0.0047 0.081 0.0255 0.0159 0.0116
Total estimated emissions from container trucks in each time period are summarized in Table
2.16.
Table 2.16: Estimated Emissions Due to Container Trucks on Roadway
Estimated Total Annual Emissions
Terminal Year (tonnes/year)
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
2003 234.9 51.4 5.4 11.7 8.0 6.9 8.0 5.0
Deltaport 2011 140.6 32.5 0.4 9.7 4.9 3.8 4.9 3.5
2021 18.3 4.5 0.2 3.2 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5
Terminal 2 2021 23.9 5.9 0.2 4.2 1.3 0.8 1.3 0.6
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
20Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.1.7 Emissions from Employee/Service Vehicles
The number of employee/service vehicles at the Deltaport and Terminal 2 facilities was
estimated based on information contained in the Air Quality and Human Health Assessment
report prepared by RWDI Air Inc. for the DP3 project, as well as information provided by the
VPA. The total number of vehicles travelling to/from each facility on a daily basis are estimated
as follows:
Deltaport (2003) 995 vehicles
Deltaport (2011) 1,367 vehicles (including those associated with DP3)
Deltaport (2021) 1,367 vehicles
Terminal 2 (2021) 1,860 vehicles
The distance travelled and the percentage of vehicles using each road segment are the same as
those listed in Table 2.14, consistent with the analysis for the DP3 project.
The composition of the vehicle fleet by vehicle class was also assumed to be similar to that used
for the DP3 project, as listed in Table 2.17.
Table 2.17: Composition of Employee/Service Vehicle Fleet by Vehicle Class
Vehicle Fraction of
Class Total Fleet
LDGV 0.615
LDGT1 0.0607
LDGT2 0.202
LDGT3 0.0651
LDGT4 0.03
LDDV 0.0052
LDDT12 0.0032
MC 0.0157
LDDT34 0.0033
Emission factors for each vehicle class, in each time period, were derived from the SFPR
MOBILE6.2C model input files, and are listed in Table 2.18. Total estimated emissions are
listed in Table 2.19.
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
21Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Table 2.18: Emission Factors for Employee/Service Vehicles
Emission Factors (g/mile)
Vehicle 2003 Base Case
Class NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 D
LDGV 1.1336 16.2298 0.0068 1.3924 0.0252 0.0116 0
LDGT1 1.2062 18.2428 0.0087 1.2188 0.0259 0.0121 0
LDGT2 1.2062 18.2428 0.0087 1.2188 0.0259 0.0121 0
LDGT3 1.9368 30.2460 0.0113 2.1219 0.0446 0.0251 0
LDGT4 1.9368 30.2460 0.0113 2.1219 0.0446 0.0251 0
MC 1.5400 11.1448 0.0033 1.9068 0.0371 0.0206 0
LDDV 0.7227 1.0398 0.0493 0.2826 0.1199 0.0990 0.0891
LDDT 1-2 0.5565 0.7311 0.0717 0.3498 0.1276 0.1061 0.0951
LDDT 3-4 0.9811 0.8759 0.0930 0.5357 0.1316 0.1100 0.0978
2011
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 D
LDGV 0.4352 6.7642 0.0043 0.5855 0.0156 0.0071 0.0000
LDGT1 0.5353 7.4318 0.0055 0.4912 0.0156 0.0071 0.0000
LDGT2 0.7376 9.2287 0.0072 0.6349 0.0173 0.0083 0.0000
LDGT3 3.9525 1.1293 0.0100 0.3497 0.0324 0.0221 0.0000
LDGT4 6.9059 2.1646 0.0137 0.5638 0.0473 0.0283 0.0000
MC 0.2025 0.4744 0.0018 0.0981 0.0424 0.0319 0.0000
LDDV 2.8697 7.9583 0.0159 0.6731 0.0427 0.0282 0.0273
LDDT 1-2 0.5147 6.9836 0.0021 0.8866 0.0232 0.0129 0.0247
LDDT 3-4 0.2032 0.3281 0.0029 0.1652 0.0397 0.0293 0.0259
2021
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 D
LDGV 0.1811 6.1763 0.0043 0.2361 0.0154 0.0070 0
LDGT1 0.2501 6.5892 0.0055 0.2435 0.0154 0.0070 0
LDGT2 0.2501 6.5892 0.0055 0.2435 0.0154 0.0070 0
LDGT3 0.4148 7.3442 0.0072 0.3029 0.0154 0.0070 0
LDGT4 0.4148 7.3442 0.0072 0.3029 0.0154 0.0070 0
MC 0.9625 6.9646 0.0021 1.1297 0.0232 0.0129 0
LDDV 0.0429 0.4109 0.0018 0.0397 0.0220 0.0130 0.0083
LDDT 1-2 0.0458 0.2338 0.0027 0.0522 0.0205 0.0117 0.0070
LDDT 3-4 0.1143 0.2862 0.0035 0.1034 0.0220 0.0130 0.0083
Table 2.19: Estimated Emissions Due to Employee/Service Vehicles on Roadway
Estimated Total Annual Emissions (tonnes/year)
Terminal Year
NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
2003 10.0 147.4 0.06 11.6 0.24 0.1 0.2 0.008
Deltaport 2011 9.3 66.8 0.1 5.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.003
2021 3.4 93.7 0.1 3.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.001
Terminal 2 2021 5.2 141.6 0.1 5.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.002
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
22Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
2.1.8 Summary of Container Terminal Emissions
Table 2.20 provides a summary of the estimated emissions from the Deltaport terminal in 2003,
2011 and 2021. The emission estimates for 2003 form the baseline estimate for comparison with
two possible emission scenarios in both 2011 and 2021. Table 2.21 summarizes the estimated
emissions for the three possible scenarios for Terminal 2.
Table 2.22 lists the total estimated emissions from both terminals for each scenario, as well as
the percent difference from the 2003 baseline for the upper and lower bound estimates for 2011
and 2021 (referred to as High and Low estimates, respectively). The differences in total
emissions from both terminals individually and combined are graphically depicted in Figures 2.4
and 2.5.
The data in Table 2.22 and Figures 2.4 and 2.5 for Deltaport show that total estimated emissions
from the facility in 2011, including the additional emissions from the DP3 project, would be
either slightly higher than the 2003 baseline emissions (Scenario 1) or lower than the baseline
emissions (Scenario 2). It should be emphasized that only Scenario 1 was evaluated as part of
the DP3 project. The lower estimated emissions under Scenario 2 were not considered in the
DP3 application.
By 2021, total estimated emissions from the Deltaport Terminal under either the upper or lower
bound scenarios could be lower than the baseline emissions in 2003. However, when combined
with additional emissions from Terminal 2, the total emissions from container terminal
operations at Roberts Bank could approximately double for all pollutants at the upper bound
estimate. For the lower bound estimate, NOx emissions could increase by more than 50%, while
CO emissions could more than double. SO2 emissions could be up to 40% greater, while VOC
emissions could be approximately 75% higher than in 2003. Particulate matter emissions could
be close to 60% higher, although PM2.5 (diesel) emissions would only increase by about 26%.
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
23Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Table 2.20: Summary of Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year) from Deltaport
2003 NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
Container Trains DP 118.00 11.90 6.93 5.50 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94
Trucks On-Site 4.67 2.82 0.06 0.34 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07
Alternate DP Trucks On-Site 14.56 4.99 0.23 2.36 0.96 0.89 0.96 0.89
Trucks on Roadway (55 km/h) 234.90 51.44 5.37 11.68 7.99 6.86 7.99 5.00
Employee/Service Vehicles 5.73 83.19 0.06 6.62 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.004
Dockyard Equipment 180.00 54.20 27.90 9.54 11.60 11.30 11.60
Tugboat Operations 12.30 1.64 0.56 0.51 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Container Vessels Underway 59.10 5.25 39.70 1.64 4.92 4.92 4.92 4.92
Container Vessels Manoeuvring 59.10 11.80 38.50 0.64 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
Container Vessels Dockside 256.00 22.50 214.00 9.60 30.20 30.20 30.20 30.20
TOTAL 939.7 246.9 333.2 48.1 63.5 61.9 63.5 48.6
2011
Container Trains 111.00 12.90 1.51 5.47 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95
Container Trains 24.80 2.84 0.36 1.04 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66
Trucks On-Site 21.01 6.52 0.01 2.90 0.91 0.84 0.91 0.84
Trucks on Roadway 140.64 32.54 0.39 9.74 4.94 3.83 4.94 3.48
Employee/Service Vehicles 9.34 66.84 0.06 5.66 0.19 0.10 0.19 0.003
Dockyard Equipment 241.40 94.80 28.01 14.14 15.59 15.17 15.59 0.00
Tugboat Operations (Scenario 1) 12.20 1.63 0.21 0.51 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Container Vessels Underway (Scenario 1) 66.60 5.92 44.83 1.86 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56
Container Vessels Manoeuvring (Scenario 1) 66.70 13.26 43.38 0.71 5.01 5.01 5.01 5.01
Container Vessels Dockside (Scenario 1) 290.50 25.56 242.20 10.89 34.34 34.34 34.34 34.34
Tugboat Operations (Scenario 2) 11.25 1.50 0.20 0.47 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Container Vessels Underway (Scenario 2) 54.94 4.88 36.92 1.53 4.58 4.58 4.58 4.58
Container Vessels Manoeuvring (Scenario 2) 26.64 2.37 17.90 0.74 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22
Container Vessels Dockside Scenario 2 253.88 22.35 212.77 9.51 29.95 29.95 29.95 29.95
TOTAL (Scenario 1) 984.19 262.81 360.96 52.92 70.35 68.66 70.35 53.05
TOTAL (Scenario 2) 894.89 247.53 298.13 51.19 62.17 60.49 62.17 44.88
2021
Container Trains 135.80 15.74 1.87 6.51 3.61 3.61 3.61 3.61
Trucks on Site 18.24 5.19 0.01 2.20 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.32
Trucks on Roadway 18.31 4.51 0.19 3.22 1.02 0.64 1.02 0.46
Employee/Service Vehicles 3.43 93.67 0.07 3.79 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.00
Dockyard Equipment 241.40 94.80 28.01 14.14 15.59 15.17 15.59 0.00
Tugboat Operations (Scenario 1) 12.41 1.66 0.22 0.52 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Container Vessels Underway (Scenario 1) 58.89 5.23 39.58 1.64 4.91 4.91 4.91 4.91
Container Vessels Manoeuvring (Scenario 1) 28.55 2.54 19.19 0.79 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38
Container Vessels Dockside (Scenario 1) 263.60 23.20 220.93 9.87 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10
Tugboat Operations (Scenario 2) 6.81 0.91 0.12 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Container Vessels Underway (Scenario 2) 33.50 2.98 22.51 0.93 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79
Container Vessels Manoeuvring (Scenario 2) 16.24 1.44 10.91 0.45 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35
Container Vessels Dockside (Scenario 2) 158.98 13.99 133.24 5.95 18.76 18.76 18.76 18.76
TOTAL (Scenario 1) 780.65 246.54 310.06 42.68 59.39 58.43 59.39 42.99
TOTAL (Scenario 2) 632.71 233.23 196.93 37.48 43.81 42.85 43.81 27.41
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
24Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
Deltaport Third Berth Project
Table 2.21: Summary of Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year) from Terminal 2
2021 NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
Container Trains 124.00 14.20 1.80 5.20 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30
Trucks on Site 23.85 6.79 0.01 2.88 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.42
Trucks on Roadway 23.94 5.90 0.24 4.21 1.33 0.83 1.33 0.60
Employee/Service Vehicles 5.19 141.65 0.11 5.73 0.35 0.16 0.35 0.00
Dockyard Equipment 343.82 103.53 53.29 18.22 22.16 21.58 22.16
Tugboat Operations (Scenario 1) 16.10 2.15 0.28 0.67 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
Container Vessels Underway (Scenario 1) 78.38 6.97 52.67 2.18 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53
Container Vessels Manoeuvring (Scenario 1) 38.00 3.38 25.54 1.06 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17
Container Vessels Dockside (Scenario 1) 350.61 30.86 293.85 13.13 41.36 41.36 41.36 41.36
Tugboat Operations (Scenario 2) 13.44 1.79 0.24 0.56 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Container Vessels Underway (Scenario 2) 65.80 5.85 44.22 1.83 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48
Container Vessels Manoeuvring (Scenario 2) 31.90 2.84 21.44 0.89 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66
Container Vessels Dockside (Scenario 2) 303.68 26.73 254.51 11.37 35.83 35.83 35.83 35.83
Tugboat Operations (Scenario 3) 8.92 1.19 0.16 0.37 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Container Vessels Underway (Scenario 3) 43.79 3.89 29.43 1.22 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65
Container Vessels Manoeuvring (Scenario 3) 21.23 1.89 14.27 0.59 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77
Container Vessels Dockside (Scenario 3) 205.37 18.08 172.11 7.69 24.23 24.23 24.23 24.23
TOTAL (Scenario 1) 1003.89 315.41 427.80 53.28 78.92 77.62 78.92 55.65
TOTAL (Scenario 2) 935.63 309.26 375.87 50.89 71.79 70.49 71.79 48.52
TOTAL (Scenario 3) 800.11 297.10 271.42 46.11 57.39 56.09 57.39 34.12
Table 2.22:
Summary of Upper and Lower Bound Emission Estimates for Deltaport and Terminal 2
Operating Estimated Emissions (tonnes/year)
Terminal
Scenario NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM2.5 D
Scenario 1 939.7 246.9 333.2 48.1 63.5 61.9 63.5 48.6 2003
Scenario 1 984.2 262.8 361.0 52.9 70.3 68.7 70.3 53.0
2011
Deltaport Scenario 2 894.9 247.5 298.1 51.2 62.2 60.5 62.2 44.9
Scenario 1 780.6 246.5 310.1 42.7 59.4 58.4 59.4 43.0
2021
Scenario 2 632.7 233.2 196.9 37.5 43.8 42.9 43.8 27.4
Scenario 1 1003.9 315.4 427.8 53.3 78.9 77.6 78.9 55.7
2021
Terminal 2 Scenario 2 935.6 309.3 375.9 50.9 71.8 70.5 71.8 48.5
Scenario 3 800.1 297.1 271.4 46.1 57.4 56.1 57.4 34.1
Deltaport + High 1784.5 561.9 737.9 96.0 138.3 136.1 138.3 98.6
2021
Terminal 2 Low 1432.8 530.3 468.4 83.6 101.2 98.9 101.2 61.5
% Difference High 89.9% 127.6% 121.4% 99.6% 118.0% 120.0% 118.0% 102.9%
from 2003 Low 52.5% 114.8% 40.5% 73.8% 59.5% 60.0% 59.5% 26.6%
38129 – 21 November 2005 SENES Consultants Limited
25You can also read
