THE PORT OF LONG BEACH

Transcription

1

2

3 ADDENDUM PORT OF LONG BEACH AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY 2007 Prepared for: THE PORT OF LONG BEACH December 2009 Prepared by: Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC P.O. Box 434 Poulsbo, WA 98370

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 SECTION 2 RESOLUTION OF DISCREPANCIES OGV Revisions Harbor Craft and Cargo Handling Equipment Revisions HDV Revisions SECTION 3 NEW REPORT TABLES LIST OF TABLES Table 1: 2007 Port-wide Published vs. Revised Emissions Comparison, tpy... 2 Table 2: Discrepancy Resolutions Inventory... 3 Table 3: 2007 OGV Emission Differences due to Revisions, tpy... 4 Table 4: 2007 Harbor Craft Emissions Differences... 9 Table 5: 2007 Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions Differences... 9 Table 6: 2007 HDV Emissions Differences Port of Long Beach December 2009

6

7 2007 Air Emissions Inventory SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The emission estimates presented in the Port's emissions inventory reports are prepared from a diverse collection of data sources using the calculation methods detailed in the individual reports. The datasets are maintained within a database system developed by the Port; the database system also performs the calculations that produce the emission estimates. The calculation methods are updated and improved from year to year as new information becomes available and as improvements are made to the "state of the science" of developing emissions inventories. As part of a continuous process of quality control/quality assurance, the data files and calculation routines used to estimate emissions are reviewed to identify and resolve differences that may exist between the published Inventory of Air Emissions for a given year and the latest database emissions and activity estimates for that year. This Addendum will be used to highlight and explain the nature of the differences in emission estimates that have been caused by resolving the inconsistencies. Port of Long Beach 1 December 2009

8 Table 1 summarizes the overall changes in emission estimates resulting from the review and improvement processes. Table 1: 2007 Port-wide Published vs. Revised Emissions Comparison, tpy 2007 Published PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Ocean-going vessels ,072 4, , Harbor craft , , Cargo handling equipment , , Rail locomotives , , Heavy-duty vehicles , , , Total ,923 4,513 3, ,274, Revised Ocean-going vessels ,019 5, , Harbor craft , , Cargo handling equipment , , Rail locomotives , , Heavy-duty vehicles , , , Total ,438 5,157 3, ,197, Difference Ocean-going vessels , Harbor craft , Cargo handling equipment , Rail locomotives Heavy-duty vehicles , Difference , % Difference Ocean-going vessels 4% 4% -2% -1% 14% 0% -1% 7% 9% -1% Harbor craft 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -29% -6% -14% Cargo handling equipment -1% -1% -1% -1% 0% -1% -1% -27% -6% -11% Rail locomotives 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Heavy-duty vehicles -7% -7% -7% -7% -2% -7% -6% -7% -7% -6% % Difference 0% -1% -4% -3% 14% -4% -3% -6% 2% -5% Port of Long Beach 2 December 2009

9 SECTION 2 RESOLUTION OF DISCREPANCIES This section details the inconsistencies between methodology and calculations that were identified and have been resolved as part of the detailed reviews discussed above. For each source category, a subsection will present the overall differences between the estimates. Table 2 summarizes the resolution of inconsistencies by source category; lists the qualitative magnitude and direction of the impact on estimated emissions; and lists which pollutants and (for OGVs and harbor craft) which engine types are impacted by the change. Low impact is considered less than 15% change in emissions. Medium impact is considered between 15% and 30% change in emissions. Table 2: Discrepancy Resolutions Inventory Source Item Impact on Increase/ Pollutants Engine Type Category Emissions Decrease Impacted Impacted OGV Changed vessel type classification rules Low Varies All All OGV Improved vessel activity allocation to port Low Increase All All OGV Some departures assigned to anchorage instead of port Low Increase All All OGV Limited activty data to calendar year (no carryover) Low Decrease All All OGV Minimum Main Engine Load of 2% Low Increase All Propulsion OGV Changed operator query from Marex to Lloyds for Fuel Switching Low Increase PM, NO x, SO x, N 2 O Prop and Aux OGV Changed west route, 40 nm, aux eng fuel from 0.5% to IFO 2.7% Low Increase PM, NO x, SO x, N 2 O Prop and Aux OGV Implemented 95% reduction for shore power rather than 100% reduction Low Increase All Auxiliary OGV Corrected low load adjustment factors Low Decrease HC, CH 4 Propulsion OGV Corrected miscalculated hoteling times Low Increase All Aux and Boilers HC Removed deterioration rates for GHG Medium Decrease CO 2, N 2 O, CH 4 Prop and Aux CHE Removed deterioration rates for GHG Medium Decrease CO 2, N 2 O, CH 4 Prop and Aux HDV Corrected minor calculation errors (SO 2 calc, # truck trips) Low Decrease All na Port of Long Beach 3 December 2009

10 OGV Revisions The inconsistencies listed in Table 2 are further discussed and explained below for the OGV source category. Table 3 shows that the re-calculated 2005 criteria pollutant emissions are 0 to 9% lower than those in the published report. Table 3: 2007 OGV Emission Differences due to Revisions, tpy 2007 OGV PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH Report ,072 4, , Revised ,019 5, , Difference , % Difference 4% 4% -2% -1% 14% 0% -1% 7% 9% -1% Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Vessel Activity Estimates OGV All Minor The vessel activity data that is the primary basis of the OGV emission estimates is obtained from the Marine Exchange and consists of records of vessel arrivals and departures. The processing of this Marine Exchange data includes determining when and from where a vessel arrives at a berth (for example, directly from sea or in a shift from an anchorage berth), how long it stays at each location, when it departs, and to what destination it is headed (for example, to a Port of Long Beach berth, or back out to sea). Many vessels do not arrive at a berth directly from sea. Some vessels arrive at anchorage and move from one anchorage area to another prior to entering the port. Still others come into San Pedro Bay to refuel, be inspected, clean their holds, change crews, receive orders to go to a different port, lighter, take on provisions, undergo repairs, or may even be quarantined without ever reaching a terminal. In instances such as these, the task of assigning specific OGV activity to a port, terminal and/or berth can become complicated. The OGV activity data provided by the Marine Exchange consists of a series of records describing a single vessel movement such as an arrival, a shift (movement within the San Pedro Bay system of berths and anchorages), or a departure. Vessel activity related to both San Pedro Bay Ports is included and is not differentiated by the Marine Exchange. The emissions resulting from these activities are estimated on a row-by-row basis, so it is necessary to allocate the activities and emissions to one of the Ports or, if a vessel never actually berthed at either port, to a "port surrogate" designated "Anchorage" (this might occur in the case of vessels that call at an anchorage to take on fuel, for example). Because of the row-by-row nature of the Marine Exchange data, the methodology for allocating vessel activity and the associated emission to a port, terminal or berth requires tracing a vessel s movements back a number of steps. Three changes have been made regarding the process of allocating activities and emissions to the correct port or berth: Port of Long Beach 4 December 2009

11 For the published 2007 EI Report, the number of previous movements that were analyzed to assign an activity to a port or berth was not sufficient to correctly allocate all activities to the appropriate port or berth. The methodology in the new OGV calculation system has been improved such that the 2008 EI methodology traces a ship s movements back an indefinite number of steps, so all activities can be appropriately allocated. The prior system was designed to "look back" three records for the 2007 and 2006 estimates, and only two records for the 2005 estimates. This allowed a misallocation of a small number of vessel activities to the wrong port or to Anchorage. A limited amount of double counting of activity was found to exist in the 2007 EI OGV data import file and an adjustment was made in the database to delete this extraneous vessel arrival and departure activity. Four anchorages were not included in the berth list used to associate berths for the 2007 inventory, thus some activity associated with the Port and these anchorages was not allocated to the Port. In addition, some departures were assigned to Anchorage instead of the Port. Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Calendar Year Definition for Vessel Activity OGV All Minor The data file for the 2007 calendar year contained data on activities that occurred in the following year. The new OGV calculation system has been designed to limit this activity analysis strictly to the calendar year of study (1 January to 31 December). Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Vessel Type Classification OGV All Minor In the 2007 EI report, the vessel type classification was based on vessel types as reported by the Marine Exchange in the activity source data. Lloyd s vessel type classification system is believed to be a more consistent source of vessel-specific information. The new OGV calculation system uses the Lloyd s vessel type classification (based on IMO number) to classify the vessel types and subtypes. In addition, the tanker subtypes were re-assigned so that all tankers, with the exception of chemical tankers, were assigned to the Aframax, Handyboat, Panamax, or Suezmax classification. In the 2007 EI report, only tankers that were exclusively crude oil tankers were assigned to these tanker subtypes. Port of Long Beach 5 December 2009

12 Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Minimum 2% Cap for low loads OGV All Minor The established methodology includes the assumption that main engines do not operate below 2% load. The calculations behind the published 2007 EI report did not include a provision for setting a minimum load of 2% for the transiting zones, so some main engine loads were estimated below 2%. The low load adjustment factors were implemented for loads between 2% and 20%, so the emissions calculated for loads below 2% were not assigned a low load adjustment factor. The impact of this was minor because few loads were calculated below 2%. Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Operator Query for Company Policy on Fuel Switching OGV PM, NO x, SO x, N 2 O Minor In processing the OGV activity data, the Marine Exchange "operator" field was used to determine which vessels switched fuels, due to a company policy, to a lower sulfur fuel than the CARB rule required in The Lloyd's "operator" designation is considered to be a more complete source of vessel operator information, as some vessels operated by a company with a fuel switch policy were not identified in the Marine Exchange data field. The fuel switching activity assumptions were revised based on Lloyd's as the data source rather than the Marine Exchange data. This resulted in a minor decrease in estimated emissions because of the additional vessels that were identified. Port of Long Beach 6 December 2009

13 Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Standardized Fuel Switching Hierarchy OGV PM, NO x, SO x, N 2 O Minor There are multiple sources of information regarding which vessels switched fuels and when. Individual vessels might be known to switch from a vessel boarding or from company statements; the company may have notified the Port of a blanket policy for all their vessels to switch fuels; many operators participated in the Port's fuel switch incentive program; and at various times a state regulation has required the use of different fuels. In comparing the two calculation systems, there were inconsistent determinations of which vessels participated in fuel switching during the inventory year. As a result, the two calculation systems were not producing consistent results. To resolve this, a hierarchy was developed to consistently apply the fuel switching information in the same manner. The hierarchy for fuel switching considers the available information in the following order of precedence: 1. Operator Fuel Switch Policy 2. Port Incentive Fuel Switch Program 3. Vessel Fuel Switch Policy 4. CARB Fuel Switch Regulation 5. Default IFO 2.7% Sulfur Fuel During the standardization of both systems to this hierarchy five cruise ships with direct drive or gas turbine propulsion systems were found to be erroneously assigned the wrong fuel for their main engines. Changing the modeled fuel type had a minor effect on the overall vessel emission estimates. Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Western Route and CARB Aux Engine Rule OGV PM, NO x, SO x, N 2 O Minor Three of the four shipping lanes into and out of San Pedro Bay are within 24 nm of the coastline for their entire extent while within the geographical boundaries of the Port's emissions inventory. Therefore, the CARB Auxiliary Engine Rule applied to the entire lengths of these routes within the inventory boundary. The calculations that produced the published 2007 emission estimates erroneously assigned the CARB Rule to the whole of the western route as well, although the area of the rule's applicability did not cover the whole of the nm segment of the western route since its direction is westward, away from the coastline. The outer part of the western route should have been modeled with the vessels auxiliary engines burning the default 2.7% IFO fuel instead of the CARB compliant fuel. The western route is not a major shipping route, as are the northern and southern routes, so the effect of the discrepancy was not significant to the overall emission estimates. Port of Long Beach 7 December 2009

14 Issue: Low Load Adjustment Affected Source Category: OGV Affected Pollutants: HC, CH 4 Impact on Emissions: Minor ADDENDUM 2007 Air Emissions Inventory The low load adjustment factor for the pollutant hydrocarbons (HC) was incorrectly calculated due to a typographical error. This had a minor impact on overall vessel emission estimates. Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Shore power control effectiveness OGV All Minor The use of shore power eliminates auxiliary engine emissions at berth once the auxiliary engines are shut down. For vessel calls known to have been shore powered, the methodology assumes a control effectiveness of 95%. This is less than 100% control to account for the time it takes to connect and disconnect the shore power apparatus on arrival or departure. In developing the emission estimates for the 2007 EI report, this aspect of the calculation methodology was not implemented as specified. The impact of this discrepancy on the total emission estimates is minor, because only 5% of auxiliary engine emissions at berth were erroneously removed for the few vessel calls that shore powered in Harbor Craft and Cargo Handling Equipment Revisions Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Erroneous Adjustment for Zero (0) Activity HC, CHE All Minor When information necessary to estimate emissions is missing, the logic in the emissions calculation system calls for the use of defaults or averages derived from similar equipment. Although this is the considered the proper procedure for missing values, in the published 2007 EI report this algorithm was also being used when the database encountered zeros in the engine or equipment activity field (which indicate no activity or zero hours of operation). This resulted in emissions being estimated for equipment that had not been used. This issue has since been resolved in the new database system by discriminating between zeros and missing values. The impact on the published 2007 EI report is minimal for harbor craft and cargo handling equipment. Port of Long Beach 8 December 2009

15 Issue: Affected Source Category: Affected Pollutants: Impact on Emissions: Erroneous Deterioration Rates for Greenhouse Gases HC, CHE CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O Significant The deterioration rate is the increase in emissions due to wear as equipment ages through use. In the emissions inventory, criteria pollutant emission deterioration rates increase as the cumulative hours of activity increase. In the development of the greenhouse gas emission calculation component of the 2006 EI report, these compounds were thought to increase as related criteria pollutants increased. That is, emissions of methane were modeled to increase as hydrocarbons increased and emissions of nitrous oxide were modeled to increase as emission of oxides of nitrogen increased. However, because there are currently no data sources available on greenhouse gas deterioration rates, this assumption should not have been made. Additionally, in the 2006 EI report, deterioration rates were inadvertently applied to the CO 2 emission estimates. In removing the estimates of deterioration from the calculation of these pollutants, the greenhouse gases emission estimates were reduced significantly. Table 4 shows the effect on the harbor craft emission estimates. Table 4: 2007 Harbor Craft Emissions Differences 2007 Harbor Craft PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH Report , , Revised , , Difference , % Difference 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -29% -6% -14% Table 5 shows the effect on the cargo handling equipment emission estimates. Table 5: 2007 Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions Differences 2007 CHE PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH Report , , Revised , , Difference , % Difference -1% -1% -1% -1% 0% -1% -1% -27% -6% -11% Port of Long Beach 9 December 2009

16 HDV Revisions The database calculation structure review resulted in changes that caused the results to differ from the published HDV emission estimates. The major change was to the way truck miles were allocated among terminals. The regional modeling on which the emission estimates are based estimates mileage for all trucks, those serving container terminals as well as those serving other types of terminals. In order to estimate the mileage associated with each terminal, the total miles are allocated among the terminals according to the number of truck trips to and from each terminal. The allocation to container terminals had been based on the total number of trips to and from the container terminals rather than the total to and from all terminals - this increased the percentage of miles allocated to each container terminal, which in turn caused an overestimate of emissions of all pollutants. Changing the basis of the allocation from container terminal trips to all trips reduced the estimates relative to the reported emissions. An additional change was made to the SO x calculations to resolve an underestimate of SO x emissions. The underestimate occurred because the equation that calculated SO x emissions in each direction of travel (on each roadway segment) was incorrectly written for one of the directions. This resulted in a lower estimate of emissions for that direction and, therefore, a lower overall emission estimate than should have been the case. Changing the equation so that both directions are calculated the same way increased the SO x estimates relative to the reported emissions. Table 6 shows the effect on the HDV emission estimates. Table 6: 2007 HDV Emissions Differences 2007 HDV PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH Report , , , Revised , , , Difference , % Difference -7% -7% -7% -7% -2% -7% -6% -7% -7% -6% Port of Long Beach 10 December 2009

17 SECTION 3 NEW REPORT TABLES The following is a list of published report table numbers that are affected due to the changes listed in the addendum. In this Addendum, all of the GHG tables are provided in metric tons per year instead of short tons per year which were the units used for some of the GHG tables in the published report. Additionally, since the published 2005 EI report values have changed with an addendum to that report, all the comparison tables in Chapter 8 had to be revised. Table ES.8: 2007 Port-related Emissions by Category, tpy Table ES.9: 2007 Port-related GHG Emissions by Category, metric tons per year Table ES.11: Port-wide Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change Table ES.12: Tons of Emissions per 10,000 TEU Comparison, tpy and % Change Table 2.17: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions by Vessel Type, tpy Table 2.18: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel GHG Emissions by Vessel Type, tpy Table 2.19: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions by Engine Type, tpy Table 2.20: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel GHG Emissions by Engine Type, tpy Table 2.21: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions by Mode, tpy Table 2.22: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel GHG Emissions by Mode, tpy Table 3.10: 2007 Commercial Harbor Craft GHG Emissions by Engine Type, tpy Table 4.16: 2007 CHE GHG Emissions by Terminal Type, tpy Table 4.18: 2007 CHE GHG Emissions by Equipment Type, tpy Table 7.1: 2007 Port-related Emissions by Category, tpy Table 7.2: 2007 Port-related GHG Emissions by Category, tpy Table 7.4: 2007 DPM Emissions Percentage Comparison, tpy and % Table 7.5: 2007 NO x Emissions Percentage Comparison, tpy and % Table 7.6: 2007 SO x Emissions Percentage Comparison, tpy and % Table 8.2: Port-wide Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change Table 8.3: Port-wide GHG Emissions Comparison, MT/yr Table 8.4: Tons of Emissions per 10,000 TEU Comparison, tpy and % Table 8.8: OGV Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change Table 8.11: Harbor Craft Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change Table 8.15: CHE Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change Table 8.20: Rail Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change Table 8.22: HDV Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change Port of Long Beach 11 December 2009

18 Table ES.8: 2007 Port-related Emissions by Category, tpy Category PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Ocean going vessels ,019 5, Harbor craft , Cargo handling equipment , Rail locomotives , Heavy-duty vehicles , , Total ,438 5,157 3, Table ES.9: 2007 Port-related GHG Emissions by Category, metric tons per year Category CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Equivalent Ocean going vessels 430, , Harbor craft 50,117 49, Cargo handling equipment 126, , Rail locomotives 73,746 73, Heavy-duty vehicles 421, , Total 1,102,531 1,088, Table ES.11: Port-wide Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC , ,036 16,345 7,212 3, ,438 5,157 3, Change (tpy) , Change (%)) -19% -18% -23% 1% -29% 6% 4% Port of Long Beach 12 December 2009

19 Table ES.12: Tons of Emissions per 10,000 TEU Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Change (%)) -26% -25% -30% -8% -34% -3% -4% Table 2.17: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions by Vessel Type, tpy Vessel Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Auto Carrier Bulk Bulk - Heavy Load Bulk - Self Discharging Bulk Wood Chips Container Container Container Container Container , Container Container Container Cruise General Cargo ITB MISC Reefer RoRo Tanker - Aframax Tanker - Chemical Tanker - Handyboat Tanker - Panamax Tanker - Suezmax Tanker - VLCC Total ,019 5, Port of Long Beach 13 December 2009

20 Table 2.18: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel GHG Emissions by Vessel Type, tpy Vessel Type CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Equivalent Auto Carrier 13,084 12, Bulk 10,711 10, Bulk - Heavy Load Bulk - Self Discharging Bulk Wood Chips Container ,329 18, Container ,997 19, Container ,381 11, Container ,539 26, Container ,009 59, Container ,569 7, Container ,131 15, Container ,400 29, Cruise 33,440 32, General Cargo 5,737 5, ITB 1,852 1, MISC 16,817 16, Reefer RoRo 5,105 4, Tanker - Aframax 16,650 16, Tanker - Chemical 24,123 23, Tanker - Handyboat 12,440 12, Tanker - Panamax 53,002 51, Tanker - Suezmax 19,768 19, Tanker - VLCC 24,619 24, Total 430, , Port of Long Beach 14 December 2009

21 Table 2.19: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions by Engine Type, tpy Engine Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Auxiliary Engine , Auxiliary Boiler , Main Engine ,153 1, Total ,019 5, Table 2.20: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel GHG Emissions by Engine Type, tpy Engine Type CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Equivalent Auxiliary Engine 173, , Auxiliary Boiler 141, , Main Engine 115, , Total 430, , Port of Long Beach 15 December 2009

22 Table 2.21: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions by Mode, tpy Mode Engine Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Transit Auxiliary Engine Transit Auxiliary Boiler Transit Main Engine ,945 1, Total Transit ,271 1, Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine Maneuvering Auxiliary Boiler Maneuvering Main Engine Total Maneuvering Hotelling - Berth Auxiliary Engine , Hotelling - Berth Auxiliary Boiler , Hotelling - Berth Main Engine Total Hotelling - Berth ,714 2, Hotelling - Anchorage Auxiliary Engine Hotelling - Anchorage Auxiliary Boiler Hotelling - Anchorage Main Engine Total Hotelling - Anchorage Total ,019 5, Port of Long Beach 16 December 2009

23 Table 2.22: 2007 Ocean-Going Vessel GHG Emissions by Mode, tpy Mode Engine Type CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Equivalent Transit Auxiliary Engine 15,831 15, Transit Auxiliary Boiler Transit Main Engine 112, , Total Transit 127, , Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine 10,373 10, Maneuvering Auxiliary Boiler 2,491 2, Maneuvering Main Engine 3,193 3, Total Maneuvering 16,058 15, Hotelling - Berth Auxiliary Engine 118, , Hotelling - Berth Auxiliary Boiler 120, , Hotelling - Berth Main Engine Total Hotelling - Berth 239, , Hotelling - Anchorage Auxiliary Engine 28,308 27, Hotelling - Anchorage Auxiliary Boiler 18,911 18, Hotelling - Anchorage Main Engine Total Hotelling - Anchorage 47,219 46, Total 430, , Port of Long Beach 17 December 2009

24 Table 3.10: 2007 Commercial Harbor Craft GHG Emissions by Engine Type, tpy Vessel Type Engine Type CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Assist Tug Auxiliary 1, Propulsion 19, Assist Tug Total 20, Crewboat Auxiliary Propulsion 2, Crewboat Total 3, Excursion Auxiliary Propulsion 1, Excursion Total 2, Ferry Auxiliary Propulsion 9, Ferry Total 9, Government Auxiliary Propulsion 6, Government Total 7, Ocean Tug Auxiliary Propulsion 5, Ocean Tug Total 5, Harbor Tugboat Auxiliary Propulsion 4, Harbor Tugboat Total 5, Work Boat Auxiliary Propulsion Work Boat Total Harbor Vessel Total 54, Port of Long Beach 18 December 2009

25 Table 4.15: 2007 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tpy Terminal Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Auto Break-Bulk Container , Cruise Dry Bulk Liquid Total , Table 4.16: 2007 CHE GHG Emissions by Terminal Type, tpy Terminal Type CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Equivalent Auto Break-Bulk 6,214 6, Container 118, , Cruise Dry Bulk 1,773 1, Liquid Total 126, , Port of Long Beach 19 December 2009

26 Table 4.17: 2007 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tpy Port Equipment Engine PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Type Boom Truck Diesel Bulldozer Diesel Crane Diesel Excavator Diesel Forklift Diesel Forklift Propane Fuel Truck Diesel Loader Diesel Man Lift Diesel Rail Pusher Diesel Reach Stacker Diesel RTG Crane Diesel Side Pick Diesel Skid Steer Loader Diesel Sweeper Diesel Sweeper Gasoline Sweeper Propane Top Handler Diesel Tractor Diesel Tractor Propane Vacuum Truck Diesel Water Truck Diesel Yard Tractor Diesel Total , Port of Long Beach 20 December 2009

27 Table 4.18: 2007 CHE GHG Emissions by Equipment Type, tpy Port Equipment Engine CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Type Equivalent Boom Truck Diesel Bulldozer Diesel Crane Diesel Excavator Diesel 3, , Forklift Diesel 2, , Forklift Propane 1, , Fuel Truck Diesel Loader Diesel 1, , Man Lift Diesel Rail Pusher Diesel Reach Stacker Diesel RTG Crane Diesel 30, , Side Pick Diesel 2, , Skid Steer Loader Diesel Sweeper Diesel Sweeper Gasoline Sweeper Propane Top Handler Diesel 29, , Tractor Diesel Tractor Propane Vacuum Truck Diesel Water Truck Diesel Yard Tractor Diesel 53, , Total 126, , Port of Long Beach 21 December 2009

28 Table 7.1: 2007 Port-related Emissions by Category, tpy Category PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Ocean going vessels ,019 5, Harbor craft , Cargo handling equipment , Rail locomotives , Heavy-duty vehicles , , Total ,438 5,157 3, Table 7.2: 2007 Port-related GHG Emissions by Category, tpy Category CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Equivalent Ocean going vessels 430, , Harbor craft 50,117 49, Cargo handling equipment 126, , Rail locomotives 73,746 73, Heavy-duty vehicles 421, , Total 1,102,531 1,088, Port of Long Beach 22 December 2009

29 Table 7.4: 2007 DPM Emissions Percentage Comparison, tpy and % DPM Percent DPM Emissions of Total Category Subcategory Emissions Category Port SoCAB AQMP CHE RTG crane, crane 8 21% 1% 0% CHE Forklift 1 4% 0% 0% CHE Top handler, side pick 7 19% 1% 0% CHE Other 3 7% 0% 0% CHE Yard tractor 19 50% 2% 0% CHE Subtotal % 5% 0% OGV Auto carrier 18 5% 2% 0% OGV Bulk vessel 15 4% 2% 0% OGV Containership % 31% 3% OGV Cruise 19 5% 2% 0% OGV General cargo 7 2% 1% 0% OGV Ocean tugboat 1 0% 0% 0% OGV Miscellaneous 9 2% 1% 0% OGV Reefer 1 0% 0% 0% OGV RoRo 2 0% 0% 0% OGV Tanker 68 18% 9% 1% OGV Subtotal % 48% 4% Harbor Craft Assist tug 19 38% 2% 0% Harbor Craft Harbor tug 5 10% 1% 0% Harbor Craft Ferry 7 14% 1% 0% Harbor Craft Line haul tug 6 12% 1% 0% Harbor Craft Government 7 15% 1% 0% Harbor Craft Excursion 2 4% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Crewboat 3 7% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Work boat 0 0% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Subtotal % 6% 1% HDV On-Terminal 21 8% 3% 0% HDV On-road % 32% 3% HDV Subtotal % 35% 3% Rail Switching 4 8% 0% 0% Rail Line haul 45 92% 6% 0% Rail Subtotal % 6% 1% Port Total % 9% Port of Long Beach 23 December 2009

30 Table 7.5: 2007 NO x Emissions Percentage Comparison, tpy and % NO x Percent NO x Emissions of Total Category Subcategory Emissions Category Port SoCAB AQMP CHE RTG crane, crane % 2% 0% CHE Forklift 49 4% 0% 0% CHE Top handler, side pick % 2% 0% CHE Other 78 6% 0% 0% CHE Yard tractor % 3% 0% CHE Subtotal 1, % 8% 0% OGV Auto carrier 289 4% 2% 0% OGV Bulk vessel 226 3% 1% 0% OGV Containership 3,815 54% 23% 1% OGV Cruise 654 9% 4% 0% OGV General cargo 123 2% 1% 0% OGV Ocean tugboat 40 1% 0% 0% OGV Miscellaneous 318 5% 2% 0% OGV Reefer 15 0% 0% 0% OGV RoRo 47 1% 0% 0% OGV Tanker 1,490 21% 9% 0% OGV Subtotal 7, % 43% 2% Harbor Craft Assist tug % 3% 0% Harbor Craft Harbor tug 113 9% 1% 0% Harbor Craft Ferry % 1% 0% Harbor Craft Line haul tug % 1% 0% Harbor Craft Government % 1% 0% Harbor Craft Excursion 45 4% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Crewboat 83 7% 1% 0% Harbor Craft Work boat 4 0% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Subtotal 1, % 7% 0% HDV On-Terminal 387 7% 2% 0% HDV On-road 5,154 93% 31% 2% HDV Subtotal 5, % 34% 2% Rail Switching % 1% 0% Rail Line haul 1,179 88% 7% 0% Rail Subtotal 1, % 8% 0% Port Total 16, % 5% SoCAB AQMP Total 326,906 Port of Long Beach 24 December 2009

31 Table 7.6: 2007 SO x Emissions Percentage Comparison, tpy and % SO x Percent SO x Emissions of Total Category Subcategory Emissions Category Port SoCAB AQMP CHE RTG crane, crane 0 23% 0% 0% CHE Forklift 0 2% 0% 0% CHE Top handler, side pick 0 24% 0% 0% CHE Other 0 5% 0% 0% CHE Yard tractor 1 46% 0% 0% CHE Subtotal 1 100% 0% 0% OGV Auto carrier 155 3% 3% 1% OGV Bulk vessel 166 3% 3% 1% OGV Containership 2,239 44% 43% 12% OGV Cruise 153 3% 3% 1% OGV General cargo 61 1% 1% 0% OGV Ocean tugboat 7 0% 0% 0% OGV Miscellaneous 102 2% 2% 1% OGV Reefer 5 0% 0% 0% OGV RoRo 71 1% 1% 0% OGV Tanker 2,144 42% 42% 12% OGV Subtotal 5, % 99.0% 28% Harbor Craft Assist tug 0 38% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Harbor tug 0 10% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Ferry 0 18% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Line haul tug 0 11% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Government 0 13% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Excursion 0 4% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Crewboat 0 6% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Work boat 0 0% 0% 0% Harbor Craft Subtotal 1 100% 0% 0% HDV On-Terminal 0 1% 0% 0% HDV On-road 5 99% 0% 0% HDV Subtotal 5 100% 0% 0% Rail Switching 0 0% 0% 0% Rail Line haul % 1% 0% Rail Subtotal % 1% 0% Port Total 5, % 29% SoCAB AQMP Total 18,037 Port of Long Beach 25 December 2009

32 Table 8.2: Port-wide Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC , ,036 16,345 7,212 3, ,438 5,157 3, Change (tpy) , Change (%)) -19% -18% -23% 1% -29% 6% 4% Table 8.3: Port-wide GHG Emissions Comparison, MT/yr Category CO 2 CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Equivalent ,034,789 1,008, ,102,531 1,088, Change (tpy) 67,741 79, Change (%)) 6% 7% -91% 8% Note: In 2005, the emission factor for the HDV N 2 O was estimated using an equation based on a correlation between N 2 O and NO x. Starting with the 2007 inventory, the EF was changed to reflect information released by CARB which correlates the N 2 O EF with fuel consumption. This new correlation produces lower EFs and therefore, lower emission estimates than the previous method. The 2005 HDV N 2 O emissions were not re-calculated, thus the large change in HDV N 2 O emissions as compared to Table 8.4: Tons of Emissions per 10,000 TEU Comparison, tpy and % EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Change (%)) -26% -25% -30% -8% -34% -3% -4% Port of Long Beach 26 December 2009

33 Table 8.8: OGV Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC ,026 7, ,019 5, Change (tpy) , Change (%)) -33% -33% -41% 0% -28% 8% 10% Table 8.11: Harbor Craft Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC , , Change (tpy) Change (%)) 7% 7% 7% 8% -88% 8% 8% Table 8.15: CHE Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC , , Change (tpy) Change (%)) -5% -5% -5% 1% -88% -13% -23% Port of Long Beach 27 December 2009

34 Table 8.20: Rail Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC , , Change (tpy) Change (%)) 13% 9% 13% 5% -39% 21% 13% Table 8.22: HDV Emissions Comparison, tpy and % Change EI Year PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC , , , , Change (tpy) Change (%)) 8% 8% 8% -1% -88% 7% 2% Port of Long Beach 28 December 2009