Port of Long Beach 2016 Air Emissions Inventory

Transcription

1

2 Port of Long Beach 2016 Air Emissions Inventory Prepared for: July 2017 Prepared by: Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC Long Beach, CA

3 2016 Updates to Data and Emissions Estimation Methodologies The current annual emissions and activity levels are directly compared to the emissions and activity levels in 2005, the baseline year established in the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), just before several of the strategies to reduce air emissions from goods movement-related sources were implemented. In order to maintain the consistency between the years compared, the 2005 emissions are recalculated whenever new estimation methodologies or data are introduced. The emissions estimation methodology was updated for ocean-going vessels (OGV); therefore the 2005 emissions for OGV were re-estimated with the updated 2016 methodology. The updated emissions estimation methodology for OGV is described in Section 2 of this report. Except for OGV, there were no updates to the emission estimation methodologies for the other source categories: harbor craft, cargo-handling equipment, rail locomotives, and heavy-duty vehicles. Detailed emissions estimation methodologies are provided in the 2013 Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory Report, available online on the Port s website at: Port of Long Beach July 2017

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals and their respective companies and organizations assisted with providing the technical and operational information described in this report, or by facilitating the process to obtain this information. We truly appreciate their time, effort, expertise, and cooperation. The Port of Long Beach and Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC (Starcrest) would like to recognize all who contributed their knowledge and understanding to the operations of goods movement-related facilities, commercial marine vessels, locomotives, and off-road and on-road vehicles at the goods movement-related entities: Greg Bombard, Catalina Express Wilkin Mes, Carnival Cruise Lines Craig Smith, Chemoil Marine Terminal David Scott, Connolly-Pacific Hung Nguyen, Energia Logistics Javier Montano, Foss Maritime Eric Bayani, International Transportation Service Captain Thomas Jacobsen, Jacobsen Pilot Service Jim Jacobs, Long Beach Container Terminal Rob McIntosh, Marine Aggregate Terminal Joe Lockhart, Metro Cruise Services Robert Waterman, Metropolitan Stevedore (Metro Ports) Hun Nguyen, National Gypsum Joe Gregorio, PCMC Otis Cliatt, Pacific Harbor Line Greg Peters, Pacific Harbor Line Joe Gregorio, Jr., PCMC Grant Westmoreland, Pacific Tugboat Service Olenka Palomo, SA Recycling Emile Shiff, Sause Brothers Bob Kelly, SSA Melissa Rubio, SSA Jeremy Anthony, SSA Bulk Terminals Ken Pope, Total Terminals International Barbara Welter, Toyota Rakshita Dissanayake, Weyerhaueser Port of Long Beach July 2017

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (CONT'D) 2016 Air Emissions Inventory The Port of Long Beach and Starcrest would like to thank the following reviewers who contributed, commented, and coordinated the approach and reporting of the emissions inventory: Cory Parmer, California Air Resources Board Adewale Oshinuga, South Coast Air Quality Management District Francisco Dóñez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Starcrest would like to thank the following Port of Long Beach staff members for assistance during the development of the emissions inventory: Rose Siengsubcharti, Project Manager Renee Moilanen Allyson Teramoto Heather Tomley Authors: Contributors: Document Preparation: Cover: Photos: Archana Agrawal, Principal, Starcrest Guiselle Aldrete, Consultant, Starcrest Bruce Anderson, Principal, Starcrest Rose Muller, Consultant, Starcrest Joseph Ray, Principal, Starcrest Steve Ettinger, Principal, Starcrest Jill Morgan, Consultant, Starcrest Randall Pasek, Consultant, Starcrest Paula Worley, Consultant, Starcrest Denise Anderson, Consultant, Starcrest Melissa Silva, Principal, Starcrest Port of Long Beach Melissa Silva, Principal, Starcrest Port of Long Beach July 2017

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory Results... ES-1 Emissions Metrics... ES-2 Progress towards CAAP Goals... ES-3 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 Geographical Domain... 2 SECTION 2 OCEAN-GOING VESSELS... 4 Source Description... 4 Emissions Estimation Methodology... 4 Geographical Domain Data and Information Acquisition Emission Estimates Operational Profiles SECTION 3 HARBOR CRAFT Source Description Emissions Estimation Methodology Geographical Domain Data and Information Acquisition Emission Estimates Operational Profiles SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT Source Description Emissions Estimation Methodology Geographical Domain Data and Information Acquisition Emission Estimates Operational Profiles SECTION 5 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES Source Description Emissions Estimation Methodology Geographical Domain Data and Information Acquisition Emission Estimates Operational Profiles Port of Long Beach July 2017

7 SECTION 6 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES Source Description Emissions Estimation Methodology Geographical Domain Data and Information Acquisition Emission Estimates Operational Profiles SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF 2016 EMISSION RESULTS SECTION 8 COMPARISON OF 2016 AND 2005 FINDINGS AND EMISSION ESTIMATES Ocean-Going Vessels Harbor Craft Cargo Handling Equipment Locomotives Heavy-Duty Vehicles SECTION 9 METRICS SECTION 10 CAAP PROGRESS APPENDIX A: REGULATORY AND SAN PEDRO BAY PORTS CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN (CAAP) MEASURES Port of Long Beach July 2017

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Port of Long Beach Emissions Inventory Domain... 2 Figure 1.2: Port of Long Beach Terminals... 3 Figure 6.1: 2016 Model Year Distribution of the Heavy-Duty Truck Fleet Figure 7.1: 2016 PM 10 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Figure 7.2: 2016 PM 2.5 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Figure 7.3: 2016 DPM Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Figure 7.4: 2016 NO x Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Figure 7.5: 2016 SO x Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Port of Long Beach July 2017

9 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1: Air Emissions Comparison by Source Category... ES-1 Table ES.2: Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison... ES-2 Table ES.3: Emissions Efficiency Metric Comparison, tons per 10,000 TEU... ES-2 Table ES.4: Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, tons per 100,000 metric tons ES-2 Table ES.5: 2016 Emissions Reductions Compared to San Pedro Bay CAAP... ES-3 Table ES.6: Emissions Reductions Compared to San Pedro Bay CAAP by Source Category... 4 Table 2.1: 2016 Average Auxiliary Load Defaults (except Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessels) by Mode, kw... 5 Table 2.2: Diesel Electric Cruise Ship Average Auxiliary Engine Load Defaults, kw... 6 Table 2.3: 2016 Auxiliary Boiler Load Defaults (except Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessels) by Mode, kw... 7 Table 2.4: 2-Stroke non-man Propulsion Engines Low Load Adjustment Factors... 8 Table 2.5: Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Slide Valves... 9 Table 2.6: Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Conventional Valves Table 2.7: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Vessel Type, tons Table 2.8: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Emissions Source, tons Table 2.9: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Mode, tons Table 2.10: 2016 Total OGV Activities Table 2.11: 2016 At-Berth Hotelling Times Table 2.12: 2016 At-Anchorage Hotelling Times Table 3.1: 2016 Harbor Craft Emissions by Vessel and Engine Type, tons Table 3.2: 2016 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Count Table 3.3: Harbor Craft Energy Consumption by Engine Tier, kw-hr and % Table 3.4: 2016 Main Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type Table 3.5: 2016 Auxiliary Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type Table 4.1: 2016 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tons and metric tons per year Table 4.2: 2016 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tons and metric tons per year Table 4.3: 2016 Engine Characteristics for All CHE Operating at the Port Table 4.4: 2016 CHE Engines by Fuel Type Table 4.5: 2016 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Equipment Type Table 4.6: 2016 Count of Diesel-Powered CHE by Type and Engine Standard Table 4.7: Equipment Energy Consumption by Engine Type and Diesel Engine Standard, kw-hr and % Table 5.1: 2016 Locomotive Estimated Emissions, tons and MT Table 5.2: CARB MOU Compliance Data, Megawatt-hours (MWhr) and g NO x /bhp-hr Table 5.3: Fleet MWhr and PM, HC, CO Emission Factors, g/hp-hr Table 5.4: Emission Factors for Line Haul Locomotives, g/hp-hr Table 5.5: 2016 Estimated On-Port Line Haul Locomotive Activity Table 5.6: 2016 Gross Ton-Mile, Fuel Use, and Horsepower-hour Estimate Table 6.1: 2016 HDV Emissions Table 6.2: 2016 HDV Emissions Associated with Container Terminals Port of Long Beach July 2017

10 Table 6.3: 2016 HDV Emissions Associated with Other Port Terminals Table 6.4: 2016 Summary of Reported Container Terminal Operating Characteristics Table 6.5: 2016 Summary of Reported Non-Container Facility Operating Characteristics Table 6.6: 2016 Estimated On-Terminal VMT and Idling Hours by Terminal Table 6.7: 2016 Speed-Specific Composite Exhaust Emission Factor, g/hr and g/mi Table 7.1: 2016 Emissions by Source Category Table 7.2: 2016 Emissions Percent Contributions by Source Category Table 7.3: 2016 PM 10 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons Table 7.4: 2016 PM 2.5 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and % Table 7.5: 2016 DPM Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and % Table 7.6: 2016 NO x Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and % Table 7.7: 2016 SO x Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, tons and % Table 7.8: 2016 CO 2 e Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, metric tons and % Table 8.1: Port Emissions Comparison by Source Category, tons and % Table 8.2: Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison Table 8.3: Emissions Comparison, tons and % Table 8.4: OGV Energy Consumption Comparison by Emission Source, kw-hrs Table 8.5: OGV Emission Reduction Strategies Table 8.6: Harbor Craft Count and Energy Consumption Comparison Table 8.7: Harbor Craft Engine Tier Change, % Table 8.8: Engine Power and Activity Change, % Table 8.9: CHE Count and Energy Consumption Comparison Table 8.10: CHE Energy Consumption Comparison by Engine Tier, kw-hr Table 8.11: CHE Emission Reduction Technology Equipment Count Comparison Table 8.12: CHE Equipment Count by Fuel Type Comparison Table 8.13: CHE Equipment Count and Change, % Table 8.14: CHE Count of Electric Equipment Table 8.15: CHE Average Model Year and Age Comparison, year Table 8.16: Container Throughput Comparison, TEU and % Table 8.17: HDV Total Idling Time Comparison, hours and % Table 8.18: HDV Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison, miles and % Table 9.1: Container and Cargo Throughput and Change, % Table 9.2: Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, annual tons per 10,000 TEU and % Table 9.3: Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, annual tons per 100,000 metric tons of cargo and % Table 10.1: Emissions Reductions Compared to CAAP San Pedro Bay Emissions Reduction Standards Port of Long Beach July 2017

11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2016 Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory Results The Port of Long Beach 2016 Air Emissions Inventory results are presented in Table ES.1. They include a comparison to the Port s 2005 air emissions inventory. To provide a valid comparison between the 2016 and 2005 emissions estimates, the 2005 base year emissions presented in this table were recalculated using the most up-to-date methodologies and data, as needed. Except for OGV 2005 emissions, the 2005 emissions are the same as those in the published 2015 EI report. Greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) are reported in units of metric tons (MT) per year; all other pollutants are shown in tons per year. Table ES.1: Air Emissions Comparison by Source Category PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT 2005 Ocean-going vessels ,726 6, ,186 Harbor craft , ,746 Cargo handling equipment , ,710 Locomotives , ,579 Heavy-duty vehicles , , ,056 Total 1, ,667 7,081 2, , Ocean-going vessels , ,915 Harbor craft ,822 Cargo handling equipment ,667 Locomotives ,463 Heavy-duty vehicles , ,099 Total , , ,967 Change between 2005 and 2016 (percent) Ocean-going vessels -89% -87% -90% -41% -97% -37% -37% -28% Harbor craft -51% -51% -51% -45% -88% 33% -11% 7% Cargo handling equipment -88% -88% -89% -64% -88% 32% -40% 12% Locomotives -51% -50% -51% -55% -99% -23% -52% -20% Heavy-duty vehicles -97% -97% -97% -75% -91% -94% -92% -27% Total -87% -86% -88% -56% -97% -49% -59% -22% Port of Long Beach ES-1 July 2017

12 Table ES.2 summarizes and compares vessel arrivals and containerized cargo throughput in twentyfoot equivalent units (TEU) at POLB in 2005 and Relative to 2005 levels, containerized cargo throughput is up 1%, while overall containership arrivals to POLB are down 31%. Indicative of the larger vessels calling at POLB, the average number of TEU per vessel call is up 46%. Table ES.2: Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison Container Year Throughput All Containership Average (TEU) Arrivals Arrivals TEU per call ,709,818 2,690 1,332 5, ,775,170 2, ,372 Change (%) 1% -25% -31% 46% Emissions Metrics To track operational efficiency improvements and the effectiveness of the emissions reduction strategies and measures, emissions are also estimated in total emissions per unit of cargo handled through the Port. Since Port operations are varied with a mix of containerized and noncontainerized cargo, the metrics are based on TEU throughput and metric tons of cargo moved through the Port. Table ES.3 compares the tons of emissions per 10,000 TEU in 2005 and 2016, while Table ES.4 compares the tons of emissions per 100,000 metric tons in 2005 and Table ES.3: Emissions Efficiency Metric Comparison, tons per 10,000 TEU EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e , ,147 Change (%) -87% -86% -88% -56% -97% -50% -60% -22% Table ES.4: Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, tons per 100,000 metric tons EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e , ,001 Change (%) -87% -85% -88% -55% -97% -49% -58% -21% Port of Long Beach ES-2 July 2017

13 Progress towards CAAP Goals Table ES.5 and ES.6 summarize the cumulative air emissions reductions of DPM, NO x, and SO x associated with good movement sources and compared to the established CAAP San Pedro Bay (SPB) Emissions Reduction Standards for 2014 and As a result of the implementation of CAAP measures and regulations, 2016 emission reduction levels of DPM, NO x, and SO x surpassed the respective 2014 SBP Emission Reduction Standards. The emission reductions achieved in 2016 also surpassed the 2023 DPM and SO x SBP Emission Reduction Standards. Table ES.5: 2016 Emissions Reductions Compared to San Pedro Bay CAAP Emission 2023 Emission Pollutant Actual Reduction Reduction Reductions Standard Standard DPM 88% 72% 77% NO x 56% 22% 59% SO x 97% 93% 93% Port of Long Beach ES-3 July 2017

14 Table ES.6: Emissions Reductions Compared to San Pedro Bay CAAP by Source Category Category DPM (tons) Ocean-going vessels 605 Harbor craft Cargo handling equipment 47 5 Locomotives Heavy-duty vehicles Total Cumulative DPM Emissions Reduction Achieved in % CAAP San Pedro Bay DPM Emissions Reduction Standards % 77% NO x (tons) Ocean-going vessels 6,726 Harbor craft 1,107 Cargo handling equipment 1,289 Locomotives 1,273 Heavy-duty vehicles 5,273 Total 15,667 Cumulative NO x Emissions Reduction Achieved in % CAAP San Pedro Bay NO x Emissions Reduction Standards % % SO x (tons) Ocean-going vessels 6,952 Harbor craft 5 Cargo handling equipment 11 Locomotives 76 Heavy-duty vehicles 37 Total 7,081 Cumulative SO x Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2016 CAAP San Pedro Bay SO x Emissions Reduction Standards 61 3, ,343 6, % % % Port of Long Beach ES-4 July 2017

15 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The Port of Long Beach (Port or POLB) annual activity-based emissions inventories serve as the primary tool to track the Port s efforts to reduce air emissions from goods movement-related sources through implementation of measures identified in the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) and regulations promulgated at the state and federal levels. To quantify the annual air emissions, the Port relies on operational information provided by Port tenants and operators. Development of the annual air emissions estimates is coordinated with a technical working group (TWG) comprised of representatives from the Port, the Port of Los Angeles, and the air regulatory agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Through collaboration with the TWG, the ports seek the consensus of the air regulatory agencies regarding the methodologies and information used to develop the emissions estimates. Emissions from the following goods movement-related emission source categories are evaluated: Ocean-going vessels (OGV) Harbor craft Cargo handling equipment (CHE) Rail locomotives Heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) Exhaust emissions of the following pollutants, including greenhouse gases, are quantified in the inventory: Particulate matter (PM) (10-micron, 2.5-micron) Diesel particulate matter (DPM) Oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) Oxides of sulfur (SO x ) Hydrocarbons (HC) Carbon monoxide (CO) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) Greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of metric tons (MT or tonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalents, which weight each gas by its global warming potential (GWP) value relative to CO 2. To normalize these values into a single greenhouse gas value, CO 2 e, the GHG emission estimates are multiplied by the following values and summed. 1 CO 2 1 CH 4 25 N 2 O U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: , April Port of Long Beach 1 July 2017

16 Geographical Domain For OGV and harbor craft, the geographical domain lies within the harbor and up to the study area boundary; comprised of an over-water area bounded in the north by the southern Ventura County line at the coast and in the south with the southern Orange county line at the coast. For rail locomotives and on-road trucks, emissions are estimated from the Port to the cargo s first point of rest within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) or up to the basin boundary, whichever comes first. CHE and on-terminal HDV emissions are estimated for activities within Port terminals and facilities. Figure 1.1: Port of Long Beach Emissions Inventory Domain Port of Long Beach 2 July 2017

17 Emissions are estimated for activities within Port terminals and facilities. Figure 1.2: Port of Long Beach Terminals 2016 Air Emissions Inventory Port of Long Beach 3 July 2017

18 SECTION 2 OCEAN-GOING VESSELS Source Description Vessels are grouped by the type of cargo they transport: Auto carrier Containership General cargo Ocean-going tugboat (ATBs) Miscellaneous vessel Bulk carrier Cruise vessel Reefer vessel Roll-on roll-off vessel (RoRo) Tanker Emissions are estimated from vessel main engines (propulsion), auxiliary engines, and auxiliary boilers (boilers). Based on their emissions contribution, the three predominant vessel types calling at the Port in order are: containerships, tankers, and cruise ships. Emissions Estimation Methodology The methodology to estimate 2016 emissions from OGVs is the same as described in Section 2 of the Port of Long Beach 2013 Emissions Inventory, which is available on the Port s website at The 2013 EI report is the last year that the methodology was provided in full before the reports were streamlined to the current format. The following improvements, which were reviewed with the TWG, were made in estimating 2016 OGV emissions: For propulsion engines, updated low load adjustment (LLA) factor table by adding SO x and CO 2 LLA factors for all non-man slow speed engines. These factors are applicable to loads less than 20%. For propulsion engines, updated load adjustment factors (LAF) tables by adding SO x and CO 2 LAF factors for all MAN slow speed engines. These factors are applicable to 0% to 100% load range. Added Vessel Boarding Program Data (VBP) related to vessel operation collected since the 2015 EI. Use of mode specific boiler load instead of average load at all modes. The VBP data was enhanced to include boiler loads by mode (e.g. transit, maneuvering, at-berth, and anchor). Past boiler data collection efforts resulted in average fuel consumption that helped calculate the boiler load value used to calculate emissions for all modes that was applied consistently across all modes when boilers are assumed to operate. Between 2014 and 2017, boiler-bymode data were collected for 80 vessels and an additional 162 sister vessels which made it possible to estimate boiler loads by mode as shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.1 presents the auxiliary engine load defaults by vessel type and by mode used to estimate emissions in Auxiliary engines are typically used to provide electricity to the vessel and are used more during maneuvering that at berth or during transit. As in past inventory reports, containerships are classified by TEU size. For example, a Container-2000 is a containership with a container capacity of 2,000 to 2,999 TEU. Values in this table are based on VBP data and some of the values changed in 2016 due to the specific vessel fleet that called in 2016 and also due to new Port of Long Beach 4 July 2017

19 VBP data collected over the past year. The methodology for calculating anchorage hotelling auxiliary engine load defaults for containerships was updated based on a better understanding of typical anchorage loads in the VBP data. Table 2.1: 2016 Average Auxiliary Load Defaults (except Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessels) by Mode, kw Vessel Type Transit Maneuvering Berth Anchorage Hotelling Hotelling Auto Carrier 1,079 2,391 1, Bulk Bulk - Heavy Load 462 1, Bulk - Self Discharging Container , ,000 Container ,188 1,039 1,012 Container , Container ,403 2,472 1,136 1,200 Container ,333 4,487 1, Container ,248 2, ,645 Container ,220 2, ,000 Container ,457 3,249 1, Container ,458 2, Container ,318 1, ,129 Container ,618 3,210 1,500 2,000 Container ,500 4,500 2,000 2,000 Container ,246 4,254 1,317 1,015 Container ,500 1,750 1,000 1,000 Cruise 5,445 8,711 5,445 7,782 General Cargo 421 1, Ocean Tug/ATB Miscellaneous 793 2, Reefer 630 1,889 1, RoRo Tanker - Chemical Tanker - Handysize Tanker - Panamax Tanker - Aframax Tanker - Suezmax 860 1,288 2, Tanker - VLCC 1,080 1,486 1,171 1,080 Tanker - ULCC 1,080 1,486 1,171 1,080 Port of Long Beach 5 July 2017

20 For diesel electric cruise ships, house load defaults are listed in Table 2.2. The auxiliary engine load defaults for the diesel electric cruise ships have changed from the previous EI reports. They were updated to account for larger cruise ship sizes and were obtained from the most recent VBP data and interviews with the cruise vessel industry. Table 2.2: Diesel Electric Cruise Ship Average Auxiliary Engine Load Defaults, kw Passenger Berth Range Transit Maneuvering Hotelling <1,500 3,500 4,000 3,000 1,500 < 2,000 7,000 8,000 6,500 2,000 < 2,500 10,500 11,500 9,500 2,500 < 3,000 11,000 12,000 10,000 3,000 < 3,500 11,500 13,000 10,500 3,500 < 4,000 12,000 13,500 11,000 4,000 < 4,500 12,500 14,000 12,000 4,500 < 5,000 13,000 14,500 13,000 5,000 < 5,500 13,500 15,500 13,500 5,500 < 6,000 14,000 16,000 14,000 6,000 < 6,500 14,500 16,500 14,500 6, ,000 17,000 15,000 Port of Long Beach 6 July 2017

21 Table 2.3 presents the 2016 load defaults for auxiliary boilers by vessel type and by mode. OGVs have one or more fuel-fired boilers used for fuel heating and producing hot water. Please note that the auxiliary boiler loads in 2016 have changed from previous EI reports in that there is a different value by mode as compared to the past in which one average boiler load value was used across all modes. The boiler load enhancement is due to more detailed boiler information acquired through VBP over the last few years. Auxiliary boiler load used for all tankers while being loaded at-berth is 875 kw, unless a vessel-specific boiler load for tanker loading is provided. Table 2.3: 2016 Auxiliary Boiler Load Defaults (except Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessels) by Mode, kw Vessel Type Berth Anchorage Transit Maneuvering Hotelling Hotelling Auto Carrier Bulk Bulk - Heavy Load Bulk - Self Discharging Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Cruise General Cargo Ocean Tug/ATB Miscellaneous Reefer RoRo Tanker - Chemical Tanker - Handysize , Tanker - Panamax , Tanker - Aframax , Tanker - Suezmax , Tanker - VLCC , Tanker - ULCC , Tankers (Diesel/Electric) Port of Long Beach 7 July 2017

22 The low load adjustment (LLA) factors applied to 2-stroke non-man propulsion engines were updated to include SO x and CO 2 LLA factors 2. The updated LLA factors for non-man propulsion engines are presented in Table 2.4. Low load adjustment factors are used due to the fact that vessels diesel propulsion engines traveling at lower speeds are less efficient. Table 2.4: 2-Stroke non-man Propulsion Engines Low Load Adjustment Factors Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 2% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % USEPA, Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, EPA420-R , February 2000, Table 3-5 Port of Long Beach 8 July 2017

23 Tables 2.5 and 2.6 present the load adjustment factors (LAF) used across the entire engine load range for MAN 2-stroke propulsion engines with slide valves (Table 2.5) and with conventional valves (Table 2.6). Revised CO 2 and SO x LAFs shown in the tables below are based on the test data from the San Pedro Bay Ports (SPBP) MAN Slide Valve Low-Load Emissions Test Final Report (Slide Valve Test). 3 Table 2.5: Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Slide Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 1% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Port of Long Beach 9 July 2017

24 Table 2.5 (continued): Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Slide Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 26% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Port of Long Beach 10 July 2017

25 Table 2.5 (continued): Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Slide Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 51% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Port of Long Beach 11 July 2017

26 Table 2.5 (continued): Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Slide Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 76% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Port of Long Beach 12 July 2017

27 Table 2.6: Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Conventional Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 1% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Port of Long Beach 13 July 2017

28 Table 2.6 (continued): Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Conventional Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 26% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Port of Long Beach 14 July 2017

29 Table 2.6 (continued): Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Conventional Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 51% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Port of Long Beach 15 July 2017

30 Table 2.6 (continued): Load Adjustment Factors for MAN 2-Stroke Propulsion Engines with Conventional Valves Load PM PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 76% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Geographical Domain The geographical domain or overwater boundary for OGVs includes the berths and waterways in the Port proper (see Figure 1.2) and all vessel movements within the forty nautical mile (nm) arc from Point Fermin and the SoCAB as shown in Figure 1.1. The northern boundary is the Ventura County line and the southern boundary is the Orange County line. It should be noted that although the overwater boundary extends further off the coast to incorporate the South Coast air quality modeling domain, most of the vessel movements occur within the 40 nm arc. Port of Long Beach 16 July 2017

31 Data and Information Acquisition The primary sources of data and operational information for OGV were obtained from: Marine Exchange of Southern California Vessel Speed Reduction Program Jacobsen Pilot Service IHS Maritime Data Port Vessel Boarding Program (VBP) Terminal shore power reports Port tanker loading information Terminal shore power activity data, including usage of alternative at-berth emission control technologies Emission Estimates Summaries of the 2016 OGV emissions estimates are presented in Tables 2.7 through 2.9. rounding, values may not add up to totals provided. Due to Table 2.7: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Vessel Type, tons Vessel Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT Auto Carrier ,354 Bulk ,008 Containership , ,796 Cruise ,769 General Cargo ,969 Ocean Tug Miscellaneous ,515 Reefer RoRo ,782 Tanker , ,610 Total , ,915 Port of Long Beach 17 July 2017

32 Table 2.8: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Emissions Source, tons Engine Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT Auxiliary Engine , ,815 Auxiliary Boiler ,722 Main Engine , ,378 Total , ,915 Table 2.9: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Mode, tons Mode Engine Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT Transit Auxiliary Engine ,389 Transit Auxiliary Boiler ,652 Transit Main Engine , ,455 Total Transit , ,496 Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine ,919 Maneuvering Auxiliary Boiler ,482 Maneuvering Main Engine ,923 Total Maneuvering ,324 Hotelling at-berth Auxiliary Engine ,480 Hotelling at-berth Auxiliary Boiler ,670 Hotelling at-berth Main Engine Total Hotelling at-berth , ,150 Hotelling at-anchorage Auxiliary Engine ,028 Hotelling at-anchorage Auxiliary Boiler ,918 Hotelling at-anchorage Main Engine Total Hotelling at-anchorage ,946 Total , ,915 Port of Long Beach 18 July 2017

33 Table 2.10 presents the numbers of arrivals, departures, and shifts associated with vessels at the Port in Table 2.10: 2016 Total OGV Activities Vessel Type Arrival Departure Shift Total Auto Carrier Bulk Bulk - Heavy Load Bulk - Self Discharging Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Cruise General Cargo Ocean Tug Miscellaneous Reefer RoRo Tanker - Chemical Tanker - Handysize Tanker - Panamax Tanker - Aframax Tanker - Suezmax Tanker - VLCC Tanker - ULCC Total 2,016 2,034 1,124 5,174 Port of Long Beach 19 July 2017

34 Operational Profiles Hotelling times at-berth and at-anchorage during 2016 are shown in Tables 2.11 and The miscellaneous vessels and RoRos have high hoteling time due to vessels that are home based in the Port, including ready reserve vessels. Table 2.11: 2016 At-Berth Hotelling Times Vessel Type Min Max Avg Hours Hours Hours Auto Carrier Bulk - General Bulk - Heavy Load Bulk - Self Discharging Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Cruise General Cargo Ocean Tug Miscellaneous 8, , ,783.8 Reefer RoRo 1, , ,772.5 Tanker - Chemical Tanker - Handysize Tanker - Panamax Tanker - Aframax Tanker - Suezmax Tanker - VLCC Tanker - ULCC Port of Long Beach 20 July 2017

35 Table 2.12: 2016 At-Anchorage Hotelling Times 2016 Air Emissions Inventory Anchorage Vessel Type Min Max Avg Activity Hours Hours Hours Count Auto Carrier Bulk - General Bulk - Heavy Load Bulk - Self Discharging Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Container Cruise General Cargo Ocean Tug Miscellaneous Reefer RoRo Tanker - Chemical Tanker - Handysize Tanker - Panamax Tanker - Aframax Tanker - Suezmax Tanker - VLCC Tanker - ULCC Total 890 Port of Long Beach 21 July 2017

36 SECTION 3 HARBOR CRAFT Source Description Emissions from the following types of diesel-fueled harbor craft were quantified: Assist tugboats Crew, supply and work boats Ferry vessels Excursion vessels Government vessels Harbor tugboats Ocean tugboats Emissions Estimation Methodology The methodology to estimate emissions from harbor craft is similar to that used in CARB s emissions inventory for commercial harbor craft emissions operating in California. 4 Geographical Domain Emissions are estimated for harbor craft operating within the South Coast Air Basin over-water boundary. Data and Information Acquisition Harbor craft owners and operators were contacted to obtain key physical and operational parameters, including: Type of harbor craft Engine count Engine horsepower (or kilowatts) for main and auxiliary engines Engine model year Operating hours in calendar year Port of Long Beach 22 July 2017

37 Emission Estimates Table 3.1 summarizes the estimated harbor craft vessel emissions by vessel type and engine type. Table 3.1: 2016 Harbor Craft Emissions by Vessel and Engine Type, tons Harbor Craft Engine PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e Type tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT Assist tugboat Auxiliary ,012 Propulsion ,640 Assist tugboat Total ,652 Crew Boat Auxiliary Propulsion ,084 Crew boat Total ,220 Excursion Auxiliary Propulsion Excursion Total ,078 Ferry Auxiliary Propulsion ,794 Ferry Total ,092 Government Auxiliary Propulsion ,198 Government Total ,244 Ocean tugboat Total Auxiliary Propulsion ,774 Ocean tugboat Total ,156 Harbor tugboat Auxiliary Propulsion ,065 Harbor tugboat Total ,138 Work boat Auxiliary Propulsion Work boat Total Harbor Craft Total ,822 Port of Long Beach 23 July 2017

38 Operational Profiles Table 3.2 lists the marine engine count by tier and engine type in Table 3.2: 2016 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Count Auxiliary Propulsion Total Engine Engine Engine Engine Tier Count Count Count Unknown Tier Tier Tier Tier Total Air Emissions Inventory Table 3.3 summarizes the energy consumption (kw-hr) per engine tier for 2016 harbor craft. Table 3.3: Harbor Craft Energy Consumption by Engine Tier, kw-hr and % Engine Tier kw-hr % of Total Unknown 64, % Tier 0 204,295 0% Tier 1 13,550,287 19% Tier 2 43,763,857 60% Tier 3 14,754,473 20% Total 72,337, % Tables 3.4 and 3.5 summarize the characteristics of main and auxiliary engines respectively, by vessel type operating at the Port in Averages of the model year, horsepower, or operating hours are used as default values when specific data is not available. A number of companies operate harbor craft in the harbors of both the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The activity hours for the vessels that are common to both ports reflect work performed during 2016 within the Port of Long Beach harbor only. For harbor vessels that share the work at both Ports in San Pedro Bay, the total hours are divided by two between the Ports. Port of Long Beach 24 July 2017

39 Table 3.4: 2016 Main Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type Propulsion Engines Harbor Vessel Engine Model year Horsepower Annual Operating Hours Craft Type Count Count Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Assist tugboat ,575 2, ,998 1,406 Crew boat , , Excursion ,153 1,115 Ferry ,110 1, ,635 1,219 Government ,012 1, , Ocean tugboat ,385 1, ,129 1,243 Harbor tugboat , , Work boat Total Table 3.5: 2016 Auxiliary Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type Auxiliary Engines Harbor Vessel Engine Model year Horsepower Annual Operating Hours Craft Type Count Count Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Assist tugboat ,245 1,573 Crew boat , Excursion ,439 1,528 Ferry ,832 1,052 Government , Ocean tugboat ,680 1,061 Harbor tugboat Work boat Total Port of Long Beach 25 July 2016

40 SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT Source Description Cargo handling equipment (CHE) typically operate at Port terminals or railyards to move cargo such as containers, general cargo, and bulk cargo to and from marine vessels, railcars, and on-road trucks. The majority of CHE are composed of off-road equipment not designed to operate on public roadways. This inventory includes CHE powered by engines fueled by diesel, gasoline, propane or electricity. Emissions Estimation Methodology The emissions calculation methodology used to estimate CHE emissions is consistent with CARB s latest methodology for estimating emissions from CHE. 5 For the newer diesel onroad engines with a certain horsepower range, the NO x emission rates were updated based on discussions with CARB. Geographical Domain Emissions are estimated for CHE operating within Port terminals and facilities. Data and Information Acquisition The maintenance and/or CHE operating staff of each terminal were contacted to obtain equipment count and activity information on the CHE specific to their terminal or facility operations for the 2016 calendar year. Emission Estimates A summary of CHE emissions by terminal type is presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: 2016 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tons and metric tons per year Terminal PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e Type tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT Auto Break-Bulk ,282 Container ,884 Cruise Dry Bulk Liquid Other Total ,667 5 CARB, Appendix B: Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California at viewed 22 July 2016 Port of Long Beach 26 July 2017

41 Table 4.2 presents the CHE emissions by equipment and engine type. Emissions from boom lifts are included in the miscellaneous propane category. Emissions from rail car movers are included under the miscellaneous diesel category. Table 4.2: 2016 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tons and metric tons per year Port Equipment Engine PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e Type tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT Bulldozer Diesel Cone vehicle Diesel Crane Diesel Excavator Diesel Forklift Diesel ,321 Forklift Gasoline Forklift Propane Loader Diesel ,365 Man lift Diesel Material handler Diesel Miscellaneous Diesel Miscellaneous Propane Rail pusher Diesel RTG crane Diesel ,115 Side handler Diesel Skid steer loader Diesel Sweeper Diesel Sweeper Propane Top handler Diesel ,405 Tractor Diesel Tractor Propane Truck Diesel Yard tractor Diesel ,928 Yard tractor Gasoline ,115 Yard tractor Propane Total ,667 Port of Long Beach 27 July 2017

42 Operational Profiles Table 4.3 summarizes CHE data collected from the terminals for the 2016 calendar year. The average values shown in the following tables are population-weighted. For equipment without specific operational information available, default values associated with the specific type of CHE and engines are used. The miscellaneous equipment includes electric lifts and light towers. Table 4.3: 2016 Engine Characteristics for All CHE Operating at the Port Equipment Engine Count Power (hp) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Type Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Bulldozer Diesel , Crane Diesel Cone vehicle Diesel Excavator Diesel Forklift Diesel , Loader Diesel ,000 1,008 Man Lift Diesel Material handler Diesel Miscellaneous Diesel Rail pusher Diesel , RTG crane Diesel , ,251 1,974 Side handler Diesel , Skid steer loader Diesel Sweeper Diesel , Top handler Diesel ,937 2,081 Tractor Diesel Truck, offroad Diesel , Truck, onroad Diesel , Yard tractor, offroad Diesel , Yard tractor, onroad Diesel ,548 2,030 Automated guided vehicle Electric 57 na na na na na na na na na Automatic stacking crane Electric 32 na na na na na na na na na Crane Electric 3 na na na na na na Electric pallet jack Electric 2 na na na Forklift Electric 9 na na na Material handler Electric 1 na na na na na na Miscellaneous Electric 3 na na na na na na Ship to shore crane Electric 69 na na na na na na na na na Sweeper Electric 1 na na na na na na na na na Truck Electric 6 na na na Forklift Gasoline 14 na na na ,930 1,019 Yard tractor, gasoline Gasoline , Forklift Propane , Miscellaneous Propane 1 na na na Sweeper Propane Tractor Propane ,356 1,015 Yard tractor, propane Propane Total 1,565 Port of Long Beach 28 July 2017

43 Table 4.4 is a summary of the CHE engines by fuel type. In 2016, a more comprehensive inventory was conducted for electric equipment and ship-to-shore cranes were included. In addition, new electric equipment was added from the automated terminal that was fully operational for the first time in In 2016, 12% of the equipment were electric, 74% of CHE engines inventoried were diesel-powered, followed by 8% powered by propane and 6% by gasoline-fueled engines. Table 4.4: 2016 CHE Engines by Fuel Type Equipment Electric Propane Gasoline Diesel Total Forklift RTG crane Side handler Top handler Yard tractor Sweeper Other Total ,153 1,565 Percent of Total 12% 8% 6% 74% Table 4.5 is a summary of the emission reduction technologies utilized in cargo handling equipment, including diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), diesel particulate filters (DPF), and BlueCAT retrofit for large-spark ignition (LSI) engines. There is significantly less equipment with DOCs than in earlier years because the older equipment equipped with DOCs are being phased out of the terminal fleets and replaced by cleaner equipment. Table 4.5: 2016 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Equipment Type Equipment DOC On-Road DPF Vycon BlueCAT Installed Engines Installed Installed Forklift RTG crane Side handler Top handler Yard tractor Sweeper Other Total Port of Long Beach 29 July 2017

44 Table 4.6 summarizes the distribution of diesel-powered CHE equipped with off-road diesel engines by EPA non-road engine emission tier level and on-road diesel engines. On-road engines are generally lower in emissions than the off-road engines of the same model year. Table 4.6: 2016 Count of Diesel-Powered CHE by Type and Engine Standard Equipment Unknown Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4i Tier 4f On-road Total Type Tier Diesel Yard tractor Forklift Top handler Other RTG crane Side handler Sweeper Total ,153 Percent of Total 3% 1% 5% 20% 5% 10% 19% 37% Table 4.7 summarizes the energy consumption (kw-hr) for all of the equipment by engine tier. For diesel equipment, the equipment with higher tier levels (newer equipment) and those with onroad engines are generally used more than older equipment, which contributes to reduced emissions due to cleaner engine standards in newer equipment. Table 4.7: Equipment Energy Consumption by Engine Type and Diesel Engine Standard, kw-hr and % Engine Engine Type Tier kw-hr % of Total Diesel Tier 0 61, % Diesel Tier 1 10,670,312 7% Diesel Tier 2 21,793,583 15% Diesel Tier 3 8,644,303 6% Diesel Tier 4i 30,222,608 20% Diesel Tier 4f 16,537,719 11% Diesel Onroad 51,885,080 35% Gasoline 7,604,711 5% Propane 1,037,097 1% Total 148,456, % Port of Long Beach 30 July 2017

45 SECTION 5 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES Source Description Railroad locomotives are used to move trains transporting intermodal (containerized) freight and lesser amounts of dry bulk, liquid bulk, and car-load (box car freight) to, from, and within the Port. Railroad locomotive activities at the Port consist of two different types of operations: the initiation or termination of long-distance cargo movements, known as line haul, and the short-distance movement of rail cars, such as the assembling and disassembling of trains in and around the Port, known as switching. Rail operators Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) provide line haul service to and from the Port and also operate switching services at their off-port locations. Pacific Harbor Line (PHL) performs most of the switching operations within the Port. Emissions Estimation Methodology The methodology used to estimate 2016 emissions from rail locomotives is generally the same as described in Section 5 of the Port of Long Beach 2013 Air Emissions Inventory, which is available on the Port s website at Geographical Domain Generally, emissions from railroad locomotives are estimated for movements of cargo by rail locomotives within Port boundaries, directly to or from port-owned properties such as terminals and on-port rail yards, or to and from the SoCAB boundary. The inventory does not include rail movements of cargo that occur solely outside the Port, such as off-port rail yard switching, and movements that neither begin or end at a Port property, such as east-bound line hauls that initiate in central Los Angeles intermodal yards. For rail locomotives, emissions are estimated from the Port to the cargo s first point of rest within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) or up to the basin boundary, whichever comes first. Figure 1.1 in Section 1 of this report illustrates the geographical domain. Data and Information Acquisition To estimate emissions associated with Port-related activities of locomotives, information was obtained from: Previous emissions studies Port cargo statistics Input from railroad operators Published information sources California Air Resources Board Memorandum of Understanding (CARB MOU) line-haul fleet compliance data Port of Long Beach 31 July 2017

46 Emission Estimates A summary of estimated emissions from locomotive operations related to the Port is presented in Tables 5.1. Table 5.1: 2016 Locomotive Estimated Emissions, tons and MT Activity PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e Component tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tonnes On-Port Emissions Switching ,843 Line Haul ,050 On-Port Subtotal ,892 Off-Port (Regional) Emissions Switching Line Haul ,801 Off-Port Subtotal ,571 Total ,463 Operational Profiles The goods movement rail system in terms of the activities that are carried out by locomotive operators is the same as described in detail in Section 5 of the Port s 2013 EI report available on the Port s website at Table 5.2 presents the CARB MOU compliance information submitted by BNSF and UP on pre- Tier 0 through Tier 4 locomotive fleet composition, showing a weighted average NO x emission factor of 5.48 g/hp-hr. 6 The 2015 reports were used instead of the 2016 because of the timing of the inventory data collection phase and of the posting of the compliance reports by CARB. The ultra-low emission locomotives (ULEL) are also included in the table. 6 Notes from railroads MOU compliance submissions: 1. For more information on the U.S. EPA locomotive emission standards please visit Number of locomotives is the sum of all individual locomotives that visited or operated within the SCAB at any time during Port of Long Beach 32 July 2017

47 Table 5.2: CARB MOU Compliance Data, Megawatt-hours (MWhr) and g NO x /bhp-hr Number of Megawatt- %MWhrs Wt'd Avg Tier Contribution Tier Locomotives hours by NOx to Fleet Average (MWhrs) Tier Level (g/bhp-hr) (g/bhp-hr) BNSF Pre-Tier % Tier , % Tier 1 1,280 77,662 35% Tier 2 1,107 92,689 41% Tier ,425 21% Tier , % ULEL 0 0 0% - - Total BNSF 3, , % 5.1 UP Pre-Tier % Tier 0/0+ 2,372 54, % Tier 1/1+ 1,887 30,358 15% Tier 2/2+ 1,868 64,554 31% Tier 3 1,111 50,817 25% Tier % ULEL 59 6,451 3% Total UP 7, , % 5.8 ULEL Credit Used 0.3 UP Fleet Average 5.5 Both RRs, excluding ULELs and ULEL credits Pre-Tier % Tier 0 2,538 60,726 14% Tier 1 3, ,021 25% Tier 2 2, ,244 37% Tier 3 2,050 97,242 23% Tier , % Total both 10, , % 5.48 Port of Long Beach 33 July 2017

48 Emission factors for particulate matter (PM 10, PM 2.5, and DPM), HC, and CO were calculated using the tier-specific emission rates for those pollutants published by EPA 7 to develop weighted average emission factors using the MWhr figures provided in the railroads submissions. These results are presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.3: Fleet MWhr and PM, HC, CO Emission Factors, g/hp-hr Engine % of EPA Tier-specific Fleet Composite Tier MW-hr MW-hr PM 10 HC CO PM 10 HC CO g/hp-hr g/hp-hr Pre-Tier % Tier 0 60,726 14% Tier 1 108,021 25% Tier 2 157,244 37% Tier 3 97,242 23% Tier 4 1, % Totals 425, % Table 5.4 summarizes the emission factors for line haul locomotives, presented in units of g/hp-hr. Table 5.4: Emission Factors for Line Haul Locomotives, g/hp-hr PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 EF, g/bhp-hr EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Factors for Locomotives EPA-420-F April Port of Long Beach 34 July 2017

49 On-Port Line Haul Activity As described in previous emissions inventories, estimates of the number of trains per year, locomotives per train, and on-port hours per train are multiplied together to calculate total locomotive hours per year. This activity information for 2016 is summarized in Table 5.5. Table 5.5: 2016 Estimated On-Port Line Haul Locomotive Activity Activity Measure Inbound Outbound Total Trains per Year 2,086 2,041 4,127 Locomotives per Train 3 3 N/A Hours on Port per Trip N/A Locomotive Hours per Year 6,258 15,308 21,566 Out-of-Port Line Haul Activity Table 5.6 lists the estimated total of out-of-port horsepower-hours, calculated by multiplying the fuel use by the fuel consumption conversion factor of 20.8 hp-hr/gal. Table 5.6: 2016 Gross Ton-Mile, Fuel Use, and Horsepower-hour Estimate MMGT- Distance Trains MMGT miles miles per year per year per year Alameda Corridor 21 4, Central LA to Air Basin Boundary 84 4, ,520 Million gross ton-miles 3,150 Estimated gallons of fuel (millions) 3.13 Estimated million horsepower-hours 65.1 Port of Long Beach 35 July 2017

50 SECTION 6 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES Source Description Heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs), or trucks, are used to move cargo, particularly containerized cargo, to and from the marine terminals. Trucks also transfer containers between terminals and off-port railcar loading facilities. The local activity is often referred to as drayage. In the course of their daily operations, trucks are driven onto and through the terminals, where they deliver and/or pick up cargo. They are also driven on the public roads within the Port boundaries and on the public roads outside the Port. The majority of trucks that service the Port s terminals are diesel-fueled vehicles. Alternative fuel trucks, primarily those fueled by liquefied natural gas (LNG), made approximately 5% of the terminal calls in 2016, according to the Port s Clean Trucks Program (CTP) activity records and the Port Drayage Truck Registry (PDTR). Vehicles using fuel other than diesel fuel do not emit diesel particulate matter, so the diesel particulate emission estimates presented in this inventory have been adjusted to take the alternative-fueled trucks into account. Emissions Estimation Methodology The methodology used to estimate 2016 emissions from HDVs is generally the same as described in Section 6.0 of the Port of Long Beach 2013 Air Emissions Inventory, which is available on the Port s website at HDV emission estimates are based on estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), average speeds, CARB s on-road vehicle emissions model EMFAC and HDV model year information specific to the San Pedro Bay ports. The most recent version of the model, EMFAC2014, reflects CARB s current understanding of motor vehicle travel activities and their associated emission levels. Methodology differences from 2013 resulting from the use of this updated version of the model are discussed in detail at the end of this section. Geographical Domain The two major geographical components of truck activities evaluated for this inventory are: On-terminal operations, which include waiting for terminal entry, transiting the terminal to drop off and/or pick up cargo, and departing the terminals. On-road operations, consisting of travel on public roads within the SoCAB. This also includes travel on public roads within the Port boundaries and those of the adjacent Port of Los Angeles. The activity of on-road trucks included within the geographical domain is from the Port to the cargo s first point of rest within SoCAB or up to the basin boundary, whichever comes first. Port of Long Beach 36 July 2017

51 Data and Information Acquisition Information regarding on-terminal truck activity, such as average times and distances while on the terminals, is collected during in-person and/or telephone interviews with terminal personnel. For on-road operations, the volumes (number of trucks), distances, and average speeds on roadway segments between defined intersections are estimated using trip generation and travel demand models that have been developed for these purposes. The trip generation model is used to develop truck trip numbers for container terminals, while the terminal interviews are used to obtain trip counts associated with non-container terminals. The model year distribution of HDVs operating at the Port is developed using radio frequency identification (RFID) call information gathered at the Port and POLA container terminals and truck/engine model year data from the Port Drayage Truck Registry (PTDR). The RFID call information is only collected at container terminals, so it is assumed for the inventory that trucks calling at other Port terminals have the same general distribution of model years. Emission Estimates Tables 6.1 through 6.3 summarize the vehicle miles traveled and emissions associated with overall HDV activity, emissions associated with container terminal activity, and emissions associated with other Port terminals, respectively. Table 6.1: 2016 HDV Emissions Vehicle Activity Location Miles PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e Traveled tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT On-Terminal 2,426, ,456 On-Road 156,495, , ,643 Total 158,922, , ,099 Table 6.2: 2016 HDV Emissions Associated with Container Terminals Vehicle Activity Location Miles PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e Traveled tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT On-Terminal 2,381, ,131 On-Road 148,196, , ,715 Total 150,578, , ,846 Table 6.3: 2016 HDV Emissions Associated with Other Port Terminals Vehicle Activity Location Miles PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e Traveled tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT On-Terminal 44, On-Road 8,299, ,928 Total 8,343, ,253 Port of Long Beach 37 July 2017

52 Operational Profiles To estimate the 2016 emissions from HDVs, operational profiles were developed for on-terminal truck activity using data and information collected from terminal operators. The on-road truck activity profiles were developed using trip generation and travel demand models to estimate the number of on-road VMT. The model year distribution of HDVs was determined using RFID information collected at Port terminals to track the number of truck calls, and truck model year information from the PDTR. The distribution of the model years of the trucks that called at the Port and at the Port of Los Angeles terminals during 2016 is presented in Figure 6.1. The call weighted average age of the trucks in 2016 was approximately 6 years. Figure 6.1: 2016 Model Year Distribution of the Heavy-Duty Truck Fleet 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Port of Long Beach 38 July 2017

53 Table 6.4 shows the range and average of reported operating characteristics of on-terminal truck activities at Port container terminals, while Table 6.5 shows the same summary data for noncontainer terminals and facilities. Table 6.4: 2016 Summary of Reported Container Terminal Operating Characteristics Speed Distance Gate In Unload/Load Gate Out (mph) (miles) (hours) (hours) (hours) Maximum Minimum Average Table 6.5: 2016 Summary of Reported Non-Container Facility Operating Characteristics Speed Distance Gate In Unload/Load Gate Out (mph) (miles) (hours) (hours) (hours) Maximum Minimum Average In 2016, a total 3,161,417 truck calls were associated with container terminals and 258,243 truck calls were associated with non-container facilities. The total number of truck calls associated with container terminals is estimated by the trip generation model on which truck travel VMT estimates are based, while non-container terminal truck calls were obtained from the terminal operators. The non-container terminal number includes activity at the Port s temporary empty container depot and chassis support facility that operated in 2016, totaling 86,549 calls. The chassis yard is used for pickup, delivery and maintenance of chassis. Port of Long Beach 39 July 2017

54 Table 6.6 provides the on-terminal operating parameters, listing total estimated VMT and hours of idling on-terminal and waiting at entry gates. The idling times are likely to be over-estimated because the idling estimates are based on the entire time that trucks are on terminal (except for driving time), which does not account for times that trucks are turned off while on terminal. To date, there are no other known available data sources identified to provide a reliable estimate of the average percentage of time the trucks engines are turned off while on terminal. Table 6.6: 2016 Estimated On-Terminal VMT and Idling Hours by Terminal Total Total Terminal Miles Hours Idling Type Traveled (all trips) Container 235, ,872 Container 251, ,742 Container 907, ,916 Container 336, ,715 Container 213, ,219 Container 437, ,311 Auto 5,656 9,721 Break Bulk 3,566 2,995 Break Bulk 3, Break Bulk 1,500 0 Break Bulk Break Bulk 20 0 Dry Bulk 13, Dry Bulk Liquid Bulk 5,400 4,320 Liquid Bulk 3, Liquid Bulk 1,350 0 Other 3,703 6,294 Other 2,971 8,419 Other 1,232 0 Total 2,426,675 2,211,046 Port of Long Beach 40 July 2017

55 Table 6.7 summarizes the speed-specific emission factors used to estimate emissions. Table 6.7: 2016 Speed-Specific Composite Exhaust Emission Factor, g/hr and g/mi Speed PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Units (mph) 0 (Idle) , g/hr , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi , g/mi Port of Long Beach 41 July 2017

56 SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF 2016 EMISSION RESULTS The emission results for the Port of Long Beach 2016 Air Emissions Inventory are presented in this section. Table 7.1 summarizes the 2016 air emissions associated with the goods movement-related sources at the Port, by category. Table 7.1: 2016 Emissions by Source Category Category PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT Ocean-going vessels , ,915 Harbor craft ,822 Cargo handling equipment ,667 Locomotives ,463 Heavy-duty vehicles , ,099 Total , , ,967 Table 7.2: 2016 Emissions Percent Contributions by Source Category Source Category DPM NO x SO x CO 2 e tons % tons % tons % MT % Ocean-going vessels 61 53% 3,966 57% % 282,915 36% Harbor craft 22 19% 610 9% 1 0% 47,822 6% Cargo handling equipment 5 4% 464 7% 1 1% 115,667 15% Rail locomotives 21 18% 568 8% 1 0% 48,463 6% Heavy-duty vehicles 6 5% 1,343 19% 3 2% 282,099 36% Total % 6, % % 776, % Port of Long Beach 42 July 2017

57 The following figures and tables compare the Port s contribution of emissions to the total overall emissions in the SoCAB by major source category based on the 2016 AQMP 8. It should be noted that SoCAB PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions for on-road vehicles include brake and tire wear emissions whereas the Port s HDV emissions do not. Figure 7.1: 2016 PM 10 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Other Mobile 5.0% Port of Long Beach 0.2% On-Road 16.2% Stationary & Area 78.5% Figure 7.2: 2016 PM 2.5 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Other Mobile 10.4% Port of Long Beach 0.5% On-Road 18.4% Stationary & Area 70.7% 8 SCAQMD, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan Appendix III, Base & Future Year Emissions Inventories, March Port of Long Beach 43 July 2017

58 Figure 7.3: 2016 DPM Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Port of Long Beach 4.4% Stationary & Area 2.5% Other Mobile 54.2% On-Road 38.9% Figure 7.4: 2016 NO x Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Other Mobile 29.1% Port of Long Beach 4.5% Stationary & Area 15.4% On-Road 51.0% Figure 7.5: 2016 SO x Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % Port of Long Beach 3.3% Other Mobile 26.3% On-Road 11.1% Stationary & Area 59.3% Port of Long Beach 44 July 2017