Port of Long Beach 2016 Air Emissions Inventory

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

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: www.polb.com/emissions. Port of Long Beach July 2017

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES-1 2016 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... 16 Data and Information Acquisition... 17 Emission Estimates... 17 Operational Profiles... 20 SECTION 3 HARBOR CRAFT... 22 Source Description... 22 Emissions Estimation Methodology... 22 Geographical Domain... 22 Data and Information Acquisition... 22 Emission Estimates... 23 Operational Profiles... 24 SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT... 26 Source Description... 26 Emissions Estimation Methodology... 26 Geographical Domain... 26 Data and Information Acquisition... 26 Emission Estimates... 26 Operational Profiles... 28 SECTION 5 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES... 31 Source Description... 31 Emissions Estimation Methodology... 31 Geographical Domain... 31 Data and Information Acquisition... 31 Emission Estimates... 32 Operational Profiles... 32 Port of Long Beach July 2017

SECTION 6 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES... 36 Source Description... 36 Emissions Estimation Methodology... 36 Geographical Domain... 36 Data and Information Acquisition... 37 Emission Estimates... 37 Operational Profiles... 38 SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF 2016 EMISSION RESULTS... 42 SECTION 8 COMPARISON OF 2016 AND 2005 FINDINGS AND EMISSION ESTIMATES... 51 Ocean-Going Vessels... 53 Harbor Craft... 54 Cargo Handling Equipment... 56 Locomotives... 59 Heavy-Duty Vehicles... 59 SECTION 9 METRICS... 61 SECTION 10 CAAP PROGRESS... 62 APPENDIX A: REGULATORY AND SAN PEDRO BAY PORTS CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN (CAAP) MEASURES Port of Long Beach July 2017

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... 38 Figure 7.1: 2016 PM 10 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %... 43 Figure 7.2: 2016 PM 2.5 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %... 43 Figure 7.3: 2016 DPM Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %... 44 Figure 7.4: 2016 NO x Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %... 44 Figure 7.5: 2016 SO x Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %... 44 Port of Long Beach July 2017

LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1: 2005-2016 Air Emissions Comparison by Source Category... ES-1 Table ES.2: 2005-2016 Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison... ES-2 Table ES.3: 2005-2016 Emissions Efficiency Metric Comparison, tons per 10,000 TEU... ES-2 Table ES.4: 2005-2016 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: 2005-2016 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... 13 Table 2.7: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Vessel Type, tons... 17 Table 2.8: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Emissions Source, tons... 18 Table 2.9: 2016 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Mode, tons... 18 Table 2.10: 2016 Total OGV Activities... 19 Table 2.11: 2016 At-Berth Hotelling Times... 20 Table 2.12: 2016 At-Anchorage Hotelling Times... 21 Table 3.1: 2016 Harbor Craft Emissions by Vessel and Engine Type, tons... 23 Table 3.2: 2016 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Count... 24 Table 3.3: Harbor Craft Energy Consumption by Engine Tier, kw-hr and %... 24 Table 3.4: 2016 Main Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type... 25 Table 3.5: 2016 Auxiliary Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type... 25 Table 4.1: 2016 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tons and metric tons per year... 26 Table 4.2: 2016 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tons and metric tons per year... 27 Table 4.3: 2016 Engine Characteristics for All CHE Operating at the Port... 28 Table 4.4: 2016 CHE Engines by Fuel Type... 29 Table 4.5: 2016 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Equipment Type... 29 Table 4.6: 2016 Count of Diesel-Powered CHE by Type and Engine Standard... 30 Table 4.7: Equipment Energy Consumption by Engine Type and Diesel Engine Standard, kw-hr and %... 30 Table 5.1: 2016 Locomotive Estimated Emissions, tons and MT... 32 Table 5.2: CARB MOU Compliance Data, Megawatt-hours (MWhr) and g NO x /bhp-hr... 33 Table 5.3: Fleet MWhr and PM, HC, CO Emission Factors, g/hp-hr... 34 Table 5.4: Emission Factors for Line Haul Locomotives, g/hp-hr... 34 Table 5.5: 2016 Estimated On-Port Line Haul Locomotive Activity... 35 Table 5.6: 2016 Gross Ton-Mile, Fuel Use, and Horsepower-hour Estimate... 35 Table 6.1: 2016 HDV Emissions... 37 Table 6.2: 2016 HDV Emissions Associated with Container Terminals... 37 Port of Long Beach July 2017

Table 6.3: 2016 HDV Emissions Associated with Other Port Terminals... 37 Table 6.4: 2016 Summary of Reported Container Terminal Operating Characteristics... 39 Table 6.5: 2016 Summary of Reported Non-Container Facility Operating Characteristics... 39 Table 6.6: 2016 Estimated On-Terminal VMT and Idling Hours by Terminal... 40 Table 6.7: 2016 Speed-Specific Composite Exhaust Emission Factor, g/hr and g/mi... 41 Table 7.1: 2016 Emissions by Source Category... 42 Table 7.2: 2016 Emissions Percent Contributions by Source Category... 42 Table 7.3: 2016 PM 10 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons... 45 Table 7.4: 2016 PM 2.5 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and %... 46 Table 7.5: 2016 DPM Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and %... 47 Table 7.6: 2016 NO x Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and %... 48 Table 7.7: 2016 SO x Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, tons and %... 49 Table 7.8: 2016 CO 2 e Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, metric tons and %... 50 Table 8.1: 2005-2016 Port Emissions Comparison by Source Category, tons and %... 51 Table 8.2: 2005-2016 Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison... 52 Table 8.3: 2005-2016 Emissions Comparison, tons and %... 52 Table 8.4: 2005-2016 OGV Energy Consumption Comparison by Emission Source, kw-hrs... 53 Table 8.5: 2005-2016 OGV Emission Reduction Strategies... 54 Table 8.6: 2005-2016 Harbor Craft Count and Energy Consumption Comparison... 54 Table 8.7: 2005-2016 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Change, %... 55 Table 8.8: 2005-2016 Engine Power and Activity Change, %... 55 Table 8.9: 2005-2016 CHE Count and Energy Consumption Comparison... 56 Table 8.10: CHE Energy Consumption Comparison by Engine Tier, kw-hr... 56 Table 8.11: 2005-2016 CHE Emission Reduction Technology Equipment Count Comparison... 57 Table 8.12: 2005-2016 CHE Equipment Count by Fuel Type Comparison... 57 Table 8.13: 2005-2016 CHE Equipment Count and Change, %... 58 Table 8.14: 2005-2016 CHE Count of Electric Equipment... 58 Table 8.15: 2005-2016 CHE Average Model Year and Age Comparison, year... 59 Table 8.16: 2005-2016 Container Throughput Comparison, TEU and %... 59 Table 8.17: 2005-2016 HDV Total Idling Time Comparison, hours and %... 60 Table 8.18: 2005-2016 HDV Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison, miles and %... 60 Table 9.1: 2005-2016 Container and Cargo Throughput and Change, %... 61 Table 9.2: 2005-2016 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, annual tons per 10,000 TEU and %... 61 Table 9.3: 2005-2016 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, annual tons per 100,000 metric tons of cargo and %... 61 Table 10.1: 2005-2016 Emissions Reductions Compared to CAAP San Pedro Bay Emissions Reduction Standards... 63 Port of Long Beach July 2017

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: 2005-2016 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 720 577 605 6,726 6,952 537 236 394,186 Harbor craft 45 41 45 1,107 5 294 70 44,746 Cargo handling equipment 47 44 47 1,289 11 398 65 103,710 Locomotives 43 40 43 1,273 76 179 66 60,579 Heavy-duty vehicles 205 196 205 5,273 37 1,523 318 387,056 Total 1,060 898 945 15,667 7,081 2,931 755 990,279 2016 Ocean-going vessels 82 77 61 3,966 202 336 149 282,915 Harbor craft 22 20 22 610 1 393 62 47,822 Cargo handling equipment 6 5 5 464 1 527 39 115,667 Locomotives 21 20 21 568 1 137 32 48,463 Heavy-duty vehicles 6 6 6 1,343 3 96 25 282,099 Total 137 128 115 6,951 208 1,490 307 776,967 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

Table ES.2 summarizes and compares vessel arrivals and containerized cargo throughput in twentyfoot equivalent units (TEU) at POLB in 2005 and 2016. 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: 2005-2016 Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison Container Year Throughput All Containership Average (TEU) Arrivals Arrivals TEU per call 2005 6,709,818 2,690 1,332 5,037 2016 6,775,170 2,016 919 7,372 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 2016. Table ES.3: 2005-2016 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 2005 1.58 1.34 1.41 23.35 10.55 4.37 1.13 1,476 2016 0.20 0.19 0.17 10.26 0.31 2.20 0.45 1,147 Change (%) -87% -86% -88% -56% -97% -50% -60% -22% Table ES.4: 2005-2016 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 2005 1.35 1.14 1.20 19.94 9.01 3.73 0.96 1,261 2016 0.18 0.17 0.15 8.95 0.27 1.92 0.40 1,001 Change (%) -87% -85% -88% -55% -97% -49% -58% -21% Port of Long Beach ES-2 July 2017

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 2023. 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 2016 2014 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

Table ES.6: 2005-2016 Emissions Reductions Compared to San Pedro Bay CAAP by Source Category Category 2005 2016 DPM (tons) Ocean-going vessels 605 Harbor craft 45 22 Cargo handling equipment 47 5 Locomotives 43 21 Heavy-duty vehicles 205 6 Total 945 115 Cumulative DPM Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2016 88% CAAP San Pedro Bay DPM Emissions Reduction Standards 2014 2023 72% 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 2016 56% CAAP San Pedro Bay NO x Emissions Reduction Standards 2014 22% 2023 59% 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 3,966 610 464 568 1,343 6,951 202 1 1 1 3 208 97% 2014 93% 2023 93% Port of Long Beach ES-4 July 2017

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 - 298 1 U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015, April 2017. Port of Long Beach 1 July 2017

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

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

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 www.polb.com/emissions. 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 2016. 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

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 1,284 622 Bulk 313 822 210 253 Bulk - Heavy Load 462 1,223 272 253 Bulk - Self Discharging 305 807 179 305 Container - 1000 957 2,245 720 1,000 Container - 2000 985 2,188 1,039 1,012 Container - 3000 747 2,562 641 694 Container - 4000 1,403 2,472 1,136 1,200 Container - 5000 1,333 4,487 1,107 967 Container - 6000 1,248 2,567 832 1,645 Container - 7000 1,220 2,721 845 1,000 Container - 8000 1,457 3,249 1,008 986 Container - 9000 1,458 2,323 924 968 Container - 10000 1,318 1,791 981 1,129 Container - 11000 1,618 3,210 1,500 2,000 Container - 12000 2,500 4,500 2,000 2,000 Container - 13000 2,246 4,254 1,317 1,015 Container - 17000 1,500 1,750 1,000 1,000 Cruise 5,445 8,711 5,445 7,782 General Cargo 421 1,060 572 180 Ocean Tug/ATB 76 202 99 76 Miscellaneous 793 2,100 467 200 Reefer 630 1,889 1,091 630 RoRo 132 396 229 132 Tanker - Chemical 611 833 967 402 Tanker - Handysize 559 768 605 560 Tanker - Panamax 596 801 679 379 Tanker - Aframax 576 719 724 474 Tanker - Suezmax 860 1,288 2,509 773 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

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 6,500+ 15,000 17,000 15,000 Port of Long Beach 6 July 2017

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 87 184 314 305 Bulk 35 94 125 125 Bulk - Heavy Load 35 94 125 125 Bulk - Self Discharging 44 103 132 132 Container - 1000 106 213 273 270 Container - 2000 141 282 361 358 Container - 3000 164 328 420 416 Container - 4000 195 371 477 472 Container - 5000 247 473 579 572 Container - 6000 182 567 615 611 Container - 7000 259 470 623 619 Container - 8000 228 506 668 673 Container - 9000 381 613 677 675 Container - 10000 384 458 581 581 Container - 11000 330 575 790 790 Container - 12000 330 575 790 790 Container - 13000 203 420 612 612 Container - 17000 216 485 647 647 Cruise 282 361 612 306 General Cargo 56 124 160 160 Ocean Tug/ATB 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 33 65 96 96 Reefer 104 237 304 304 RoRo 67 148 259 251 Tanker - Chemical 59 136 568 255 Tanker - Handysize 144 144 2,586 144 Tanker - Panamax 167 351 3,421 451 Tanker - Aframax 179 438 5,030 375 Tanker - Suezmax 144 191 5,843 503 Tanker - VLCC 240 720 6,000 840 Tanker - ULCC 240 720 6,000 840 Tankers (Diesel/Electric) 0 145 220 220 Port of Long Beach 7 July 2017

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% 7.29 7.29 7.29 4.63 3.30 9.68 21.18 3.28 4.63 21.18 3% 4.33 4.33 4.33 2.92 2.45 6.46 11.68 2.44 2.92 11.68 4% 3.09 3.09 3.09 2.21 2.02 4.86 7.71 2.01 2.21 7.71 5% 2.44 2.44 2.44 1.83 1.77 3.89 5.61 1.76 1.83 5.61 6% 2.04 2.04 2.04 1.60 1.60 3.25 4.35 1.59 1.60 4.35 7% 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.45 1.47 2.79 3.52 1.47 1.45 3.52 8% 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.35 1.38 2.45 2.95 1.38 1.35 2.95 9% 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.27 1.31 2.18 2.52 1.31 1.27 2.52 10% 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.22 1.26 1.96 2.20 1.25 1.22 2.20 11% 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.17 1.21 1.79 1.96 1.21 1.17 1.96 12% 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.14 1.17 1.64 1.76 1.17 1.14 1.76 13% 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.11 1.14 1.52 1.60 1.14 1.11 1.60 14% 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.08 1.11 1.41 1.47 1.11 1.08 1.47 15% 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.06 1.09 1.32 1.36 1.08 1.06 1.36 16% 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.06 1.24 1.26 1.06 1.05 1.26 17% 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.03 1.05 1.17 1.18 1.04 1.03 1.18 18% 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.03 1.11 1.11 1.03 1.02 1.11 19% 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.01 1.01 1.05 20% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 USEPA, Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, EPA420-R-00-002, February 2000, Table 3-5 Port of Long Beach 8 July 2017

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% 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.90 1.10 0.12 1.36 1.10 1.90 1.36 2% 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.86 1.10 0.12 1.32 1.10 1.86 1.32 3% 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.82 1.09 0.12 1.28 1.09 1.82 1.28 4% 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.78 1.09 0.12 1.24 1.09 1.78 1.24 5% 0.39 0.39 0.39 1.74 1.09 0.12 1.20 1.09 1.74 1.20 6% 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.70 1.08 0.12 1.17 1.08 1.70 1.17 7% 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.67 1.08 0.12 1.14 1.08 1.67 1.14 8% 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.63 1.08 0.12 1.11 1.08 1.63 1.11 9% 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.60 1.07 0.12 1.08 1.07 1.60 1.08 10% 0.43 0.43 0.43 1.57 1.07 0.12 1.05 1.07 1.57 1.05 11% 0.44 0.44 0.44 1.53 1.07 0.26 1.02 1.07 1.53 1.02 12% 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.50 1.07 0.39 0.99 1.07 1.50 0.99 13% 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.47 1.06 0.52 0.97 1.06 1.47 0.97 14% 0.46 0.46 0.46 1.45 1.06 0.64 0.94 1.06 1.45 0.94 15% 0.47 0.47 0.47 1.42 1.06 0.75 0.92 1.06 1.42 0.92 16% 0.48 0.48 0.48 1.39 1.06 0.85 0.90 1.06 1.39 0.90 17% 0.49 0.49 0.49 1.37 1.05 0.95 0.88 1.05 1.37 0.88 18% 0.49 0.49 0.49 1.34 1.05 1.04 0.86 1.05 1.34 0.86 19% 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.32 1.05 1.12 0.84 1.05 1.32 0.84 20% 0.51 0.51 0.51 1.30 1.05 1.20 0.82 1.05 1.30 0.82 21% 0.52 0.52 0.52 1.28 1.04 1.27 0.81 1.04 1.28 0.81 22% 0.53 0.53 0.53 1.26 1.04 1.34 0.79 1.04 1.26 0.79 23% 0.54 0.54 0.54 1.24 1.04 1.40 0.78 1.04 1.24 0.78 24% 0.54 0.54 0.54 1.22 1.04 1.46 0.76 1.04 1.22 0.76 25% 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.20 1.03 1.51 0.75 1.03 1.20 0.75 3 http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/documents/man-slide-valve-low-load-emissions-test.pdf Port of Long Beach 9 July 2017

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% 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.19 1.03 1.55 0.74 1.03 1.19 0.74 27% 0.57 0.57 0.57 1.17 1.03 1.59 0.73 1.03 1.17 0.73 28% 0.58 0.58 0.58 1.16 1.03 1.63 0.72 1.03 1.16 0.72 29% 0.59 0.59 0.59 1.14 1.03 1.66 0.71 1.03 1.14 0.71 30% 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.13 1.02 1.68 0.70 1.02 1.13 0.70 31% 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.12 1.02 1.70 0.70 1.02 1.12 0.70 32% 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.10 1.02 1.72 0.69 1.02 1.10 0.69 33% 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.09 1.02 1.74 0.69 1.02 1.09 0.69 34% 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.08 1.02 1.75 0.68 1.02 1.08 0.68 35% 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.07 1.02 1.75 0.68 1.02 1.07 0.68 36% 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.06 1.01 1.75 0.68 1.01 1.06 0.68 37% 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.05 1.01 1.75 0.67 1.01 1.05 0.67 38% 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.05 1.01 1.75 0.67 1.01 1.05 0.67 39% 0.68 0.68 0.68 1.04 1.01 1.74 0.67 1.01 1.04 0.67 40% 0.69 0.69 0.69 1.03 1.01 1.73 0.67 1.01 1.03 0.67 41% 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.03 1.01 1.72 0.67 1.01 1.03 0.67 42% 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.02 1.01 1.71 0.68 1.01 1.02 0.68 43% 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.02 1.01 1.69 0.68 1.01 1.02 0.68 44% 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.01 1.00 1.67 0.68 1.00 1.01 0.68 45% 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.01 1.00 1.65 0.69 1.00 1.01 0.69 46% 0.74 0.74 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.62 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.69 47% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.60 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.70 48% 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.57 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.70 49% 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.99 1.00 1.54 0.71 1.00 0.99 0.71 50% 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.99 1.00 1.51 0.71 1.00 0.99 0.71 Port of Long Beach 10 July 2017

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% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.99 1.00 1.48 0.72 1.00 0.99 0.72 52% 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.99 1.00 1.45 0.73 1.00 0.99 0.73 53% 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.99 1.00 1.41 0.74 1.00 0.99 0.74 54% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.99 1.00 1.38 0.75 1.00 0.99 0.75 55% 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.99 1.35 0.75 0.99 0.98 0.75 56% 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.98 0.99 1.31 0.76 0.99 0.98 0.76 57% 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.98 0.99 1.27 0.77 0.99 0.98 0.77 58% 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.98 0.99 1.24 0.78 0.99 0.98 0.78 59% 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.98 0.99 1.20 0.80 0.99 0.98 0.80 60% 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.98 0.99 1.16 0.81 0.99 0.98 0.81 61% 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.98 0.99 1.13 0.82 0.99 0.98 0.82 62% 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.99 1.09 0.83 0.99 0.98 0.83 63% 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.99 0.99 1.06 0.84 0.99 0.99 0.84 64% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.99 1.02 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.85 65% 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.87 0.99 0.99 0.87 66% 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.88 0.99 0.99 0.88 67% 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.89 0.99 0.99 0.89 68% 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.88 0.91 0.99 0.99 0.91 69% 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.85 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.92 70% 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.82 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 71% 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.79 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 72% 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.76 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.96 73% 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.99 0.99 0.74 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 74% 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.99 0.99 0.71 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 75% 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.99 0.99 0.69 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Port of Long Beach 11 July 2017

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% 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.99 0.99 0.66 1.02 0.99 0.99 1.02 77% 1.06 1.06 1.06 0.99 0.99 0.64 1.03 0.99 0.99 1.03 78% 1.07 1.07 1.07 0.99 0.99 0.63 1.05 0.99 0.99 1.05 79% 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.99 0.99 0.61 1.06 0.99 0.99 1.06 80% 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.99 0.99 0.60 1.08 0.99 0.99 1.08 81% 1.11 1.11 1.11 0.99 0.99 0.58 1.09 0.99 0.99 1.09 82% 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.99 0.99 0.57 1.10 0.99 0.99 1.10 83% 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.98 0.99 0.57 1.12 0.99 0.98 1.12 84% 1.14 1.14 1.14 0.98 0.99 0.56 1.13 0.99 0.98 1.13 85% 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.98 0.99 0.56 1.15 0.99 0.98 1.15 86% 1.16 1.16 1.16 0.98 0.99 0.56 1.16 0.99 0.98 1.16 87% 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.97 0.99 0.56 1.18 0.99 0.97 1.18 88% 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.97 0.99 0.57 1.19 0.99 0.97 1.19 89% 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.96 0.99 0.58 1.20 0.99 0.96 1.20 90% 1.21 1.21 1.21 0.96 0.99 0.59 1.22 0.99 0.96 1.22 91% 1.22 1.22 1.22 0.95 1.00 0.61 1.23 1.00 0.95 1.23 92% 1.23 1.23 1.23 0.95 1.00 0.63 1.24 1.00 0.95 1.24 93% 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.94 1.00 0.65 1.25 1.00 0.94 1.25 94% 1.26 1.26 1.26 0.93 1.00 0.67 1.27 1.00 0.93 1.27 95% 1.27 1.27 1.27 0.93 1.00 0.70 1.28 1.00 0.93 1.28 96% 1.28 1.28 1.28 0.92 1.00 0.73 1.29 1.00 0.92 1.29 97% 1.29 1.29 1.29 0.91 1.00 0.77 1.30 1.00 0.91 1.30 98% 1.31 1.31 1.31 0.90 1.00 0.81 1.31 1.00 0.90 1.31 99% 1.32 1.32 1.32 0.89 1.00 0.85 1.32 1.00 0.89 1.32 100% 1.33 1.33 1.33 0.88 1.00 0.90 1.34 1.00 0.88 1.34 Port of Long Beach 12 July 2017

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% 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.91 1.11 1.38 2.53 1.11 1.91 2.53 2% 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.86 1.11 1.36 2.45 1.11 1.86 2.45 3% 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.82 1.10 1.34 2.37 1.10 1.82 2.37 4% 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.77 1.10 1.33 2.30 1.10 1.77 2.30 5% 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.72 1.10 1.31 2.23 1.10 1.72 2.23 6% 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.68 1.09 1.29 2.16 1.09 1.68 2.16 7% 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.64 1.09 1.28 2.10 1.09 1.64 2.10 8% 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.60 1.09 1.26 2.03 1.09 1.60 2.03 9% 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.56 1.08 1.25 1.97 1.08 1.56 1.97 10% 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.52 1.08 1.24 1.91 1.08 1.52 1.91 11% 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.49 1.08 1.22 1.86 1.08 1.49 1.86 12% 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.45 1.07 1.21 1.80 1.07 1.45 1.80 13% 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.42 1.07 1.20 1.75 1.07 1.42 1.75 14% 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.39 1.07 1.19 1.70 1.07 1.39 1.70 15% 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.36 1.06 1.18 1.65 1.06 1.36 1.65 16% 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.33 1.06 1.17 1.61 1.06 1.33 1.61 17% 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.30 1.06 1.16 1.56 1.06 1.30 1.56 18% 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.28 1.06 1.15 1.52 1.06 1.28 1.52 19% 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.25 1.05 1.14 1.48 1.05 1.25 1.48 20% 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.23 1.05 1.13 1.44 1.05 1.23 1.44 21% 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.20 1.05 1.13 1.41 1.05 1.20 1.41 22% 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.18 1.05 1.12 1.37 1.05 1.18 1.37 23% 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.16 1.04 1.11 1.34 1.04 1.16 1.34 24% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.14 1.04 1.10 1.31 1.04 1.14 1.31 25% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.12 1.04 1.10 1.28 1.04 1.12 1.28 Port of Long Beach 13 July 2017

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% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.11 1.04 1.09 1.25 1.04 1.11 1.25 27% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.09 1.04 1.08 1.22 1.04 1.09 1.22 28% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.07 1.03 1.08 1.20 1.03 1.07 1.20 29% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.06 1.03 1.07 1.17 1.03 1.06 1.17 30% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.05 1.03 1.07 1.15 1.03 1.05 1.15 31% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.13 1.03 1.03 1.13 32% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.11 1.03 1.02 1.11 33% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.02 1.01 1.09 34% 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.08 35% 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.02 0.99 1.06 36% 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.98 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.02 0.98 1.05 37% 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.98 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.02 0.98 1.04 38% 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.97 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.02 0.97 1.02 39% 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.96 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.01 0.96 1.01 40% 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.96 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.01 0.96 1.00 41% 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.95 1.01 1.01 0.99 1.01 0.95 0.99 42% 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.95 1.01 1.01 0.99 1.01 0.95 0.99 43% 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.94 1.01 1.01 0.98 1.01 0.94 0.98 44% 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.94 1.01 1.00 0.97 1.01 0.94 0.97 45% 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.94 1.01 1.00 0.97 1.01 0.94 0.97 46% 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.94 1.01 0.99 0.96 1.01 0.94 0.96 47% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.94 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.94 0.96 48% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.93 0.96 49% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.93 0.96 50% 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.93 0.96 Port of Long Beach 14 July 2017

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% 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.94 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 52% 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 53% 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 54% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 55% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.94 0.96 56% 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.94 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.94 0.96 57% 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 58% 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 59% 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 60% 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.99 0.94 0.97 0.99 0.95 0.97 61% 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.96 0.99 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.97 62% 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.96 0.99 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.97 63% 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.99 0.93 0.98 0.99 0.96 0.98 64% 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.99 0.93 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.98 65% 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.99 0.92 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.98 66% 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 67% 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 68% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.99 0.91 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 69% 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.91 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 70% 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.91 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 71% 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.91 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 72% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.01 73% 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.01 74% 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.01 75% 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.01 0.99 0.90 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.01 Port of Long Beach 15 July 2017

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% 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.01 0.99 0.90 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.01 77% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.90 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.01 78% 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.01 79% 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.01 80% 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.02 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.01 81% 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.02 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.01 82% 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.02 0.99 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.01 83% 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.02 0.99 0.92 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.01 84% 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.02 0.99 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.02 1.00 85% 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.02 0.99 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.02 1.00 86% 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.02 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 1.02 0.99 87% 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.02 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 1.02 0.99 88% 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.02 0.99 0.94 0.98 0.99 1.02 0.98 89% 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.01 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 0.97 90% 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.01 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 0.97 91% 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.99 1.01 0.96 92% 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.99 1.00 0.94 93% 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.93 0.99 1.00 0.93 94% 1.22 1.22 1.22 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.92 95% 1.23 1.23 1.23 0.99 0.99 1.01 0.91 0.99 0.99 0.91 96% 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.98 0.99 1.02 0.89 0.99 0.98 0.89 97% 1.26 1.26 1.26 0.97 1.00 1.03 0.87 1.00 0.97 0.87 98% 1.28 1.28 1.28 0.97 1.00 1.05 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 99% 1.29 1.29 1.29 0.96 1.00 1.07 0.84 1.00 0.96 0.84 100% 1.31 1.31 1.31 0.95 1.00 1.08 0.82 1.00 0.95 0.82 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

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 2.8 2.6 2.6 161.1 5.3 14.3 6.3 7,354 Bulk 3.6 3.4 3.2 200.6 7.9 16.9 5.4 11,008 Containership 29.8 28.0 24.6 1,742.8 67.7 141.4 74.8 94,796 Cruise 8.7 8.2 8.2 432.2 16.3 36.2 14.5 22,769 General Cargo 0.7 0.7 0.7 36.0 1.4 3.2 1.3 1,969 Ocean Tug 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 78 Miscellaneous 4.2 3.9 3.9 213.4 8.3 17.1 6.3 11,515 Reefer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 33 RoRo 0.6 0.6 0.0 8.8 2.7 0.9 0.4 3,782 Tanker 31.5 29.7 18.3 1,169.2 92.7 105.6 40.3 129,610 Total 81.9 77.1 61.5 3,966.4 202.5 335.8 149.4 282,915 Port of Long Beach 17 July 2017

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 38.8 36.5 38.8 1,859.3 69.7 169.7 61.3 96,815 Auxiliary Boiler 20.3 19.1 0.0 294.4 91.1 29.8 14.9 127,722 Main Engine 22.8 21.5 22.6 1,812.7 41.7 136.3 73.2 58,378 Total 81.9 77.1 61.5 3,966.4 202.5 335.8 149.4 282,915 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 7.8 7.4 7.8 385.4 14.0 33.8 12.3 19,389 Transit Auxiliary Boiler 0.4 0.4 0.0 6.1 1.9 0.6 0.3 2,652 Transit Main Engine 20.1 18.9 19.9 1,630.7 38.2 117.8 57.9 53,455 Total Transit 28.3 26.7 27.8 2,022.3 54.1 152.3 70.5 75,496 Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine 2.8 2.6 2.8 134.0 5.0 12.1 4.4 6,919 Maneuvering Auxiliary Boiler 0.2 0.2 0.0 3.4 1.1 0.3 0.2 1,482 Maneuvering Main Engine 2.7 2.6 2.7 182.0 3.5 18.5 15.3 4,923 Total Maneuvering 5.8 5.4 5.5 319.5 9.6 30.9 19.8 13,324 Hotelling at-berth Auxiliary Engine 20.1 18.9 20.1 967.0 36.3 88.8 31.9 50,480 Hotelling at-berth Auxiliary Boiler 16.5 15.5 0.0 239.0 73.9 24.2 12.1 103,670 Hotelling at-berth Main Engine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Total Hotelling at-berth 36.5 34.4 20.1 1,206.0 110.2 113.0 44.0 154,150 Hotelling at-anchorage Auxiliary Engine 8.1 7.6 8.1 372.8 14.5 35.0 12.7 20,028 Hotelling at-anchorage Auxiliary Boiler 3.2 3.0 0.0 45.9 14.2 4.7 2.3 19,918 Hotelling at-anchorage Main Engine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Total Hotelling at-anchorage 11.3 10.6 8.1 418.7 28.7 39.6 15.0 39,946 Total 81.9 77.1 61.5 3,966.4 202.5 335.8 149.4 282,915 Port of Long Beach 18 July 2017

Table 2.10 presents the numbers of arrivals, departures, and shifts associated with vessels at the Port in 2016. Table 2.10: 2016 Total OGV Activities Vessel Type Arrival Departure Shift Total Auto Carrier 184 183 22 389 Bulk 179 182 194 555 Bulk - Heavy Load 2 2 2 6 Bulk - Self Discharging 18 18 2 38 Container - 1000 103 103 8 214 Container - 2000 106 106 22 234 Container - 3000 67 66 7 140 Container - 4000 123 123 19 265 Container - 5000 96 96 7 199 Container - 6000 2 3 1 6 Container - 7000 5 5 0 10 Container - 8000 185 182 27 394 Container - 9000 59 61 2 122 Container - 10000 86 85 5 176 Container - 11000 56 54 1 111 Container - 12000 30 30 0 60 Container - 13000 1 1 0 2 Cruise 258 258 0 516 General Cargo 34 39 23 96 Ocean Tug 1 1 5 7 Miscellaneous 0 0 2 2 Reefer 1 1 1 3 RoRo 2 2 2 6 Tanker - Chemical 99 99 141 339 Tanker - Handysize 7 7 9 23 Tanker - Panamax 69 79 155 303 Tanker - Aframax 117 119 203 439 Tanker - Suezmax 82 85 139 306 Tanker - VLCC 17 17 50 84 Tanker - ULCC 27 27 75 129 Total 2,016 2,034 1,124 5,174 Port of Long Beach 19 July 2017

Operational Profiles Hotelling times at-berth and at-anchorage during 2016 are shown in Tables 2.11 and 2.12. 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 3.6 36.3 12.4 Bulk - General 8.4 235.3 55.1 Bulk - Heavy Load 118.2 455.9 238.4 Bulk - Self Discharging 13.9 46.6 26.8 Container - 1000 0.3 139.9 30.8 Container - 2000 4.6 175.0 42.4 Container - 3000 1.9 68.6 35.8 Container - 4000 10.0 122.7 42.5 Container - 5000 9.4 346.2 43.4 Container - 6000 12.0 84.2 55.2 Container - 7000 49.2 106.0 89.9 Container - 8000 3.6 142.3 81.7 Container - 9000 10.0 114.4 69.1 Container - 10000 14.8 124.8 86.7 Container - 11000 70.1 132.3 95.5 Container - 12000 58.4 98.2 81.6 Container - 13000 139.4 139.4 139.4 Cruise 6.8 15.7 11.6 General Cargo 9.7 175.4 44.7 Ocean Tug 25.8 30.7 27.5 Miscellaneous 8,783.8 8,783.8 8,783.8 Reefer 4.4 4.4 4.4 RoRo 1,953.6 5,629.4 3,772.5 Tanker - Chemical 6.0 140.6 32.6 Tanker - Handysize 17.0 70.7 35.8 Tanker - Panamax 13.5 171.9 46.2 Tanker - Aframax 16.4 292.0 49.1 Tanker - Suezmax 13.3 60.9 24.8 Tanker - VLCC 14.0 38.7 27.5 Tanker - ULCC 19.2 45.0 28.5 Port of Long Beach 20 July 2017

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 0.8 45.6 17.0 18 Bulk - General 2.4 349.4 61.1 162 Bulk - Heavy Load 0 0 0 0 Bulk - Self Discharging 27.7 27.7 27.7 1 Container - 1000 14.5 32.1 19.7 6 Container - 2000 3.8 46.3 17.9 5 Container - 3000 2.7 23.2 13.2 7 Container - 4000 0.3 554.0 64.3 13 Container - 5000 11.8 89.9 36.6 4 Container - 6000 0 0 0 0 Container - 7000 0 0 0 0 Container - 8000 1.0 21.8 9.5 7 Container - 9000 37.8 37.8 37.8 1 Container - 10000 0.8 33.6 17.2 2 Container - 11000 7.1 7.1 7.1 1 Container - 12000 0 0 0 0 Container - 13000 0 0 0 0 Cruise 0 0 0 0 General Cargo 7.5 130.8 41.3 16 Ocean Tug 21.8 656.6 275.3 3 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 Reefer 5.6 5.6 5.6 1 RoRo 0 0 0 0 Tanker - Chemical 1.1 718.5 31.2 104 Tanker - Handysize 6.2 35.5 18.9 9 Tanker - Panamax 1.8 334.3 44.9 129 Tanker - Aframax 2.4 433.0 60.1 182 Tanker - Suezmax 1.6 409.1 68.0 120 Tanker - VLCC 3.3 468.2 91.6 41 Tanker - ULCC 3.8 389.1 77.6 58 Total 890 Port of Long Beach 21 July 2017

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 2016 4 www.polb.com/environment/air/emissions.asp Port of Long Beach 22 July 2017

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 0.6 0.5 0.6 19.9 0.0 17.6 2.9 2,012 Propulsion 6.5 6.0 6.5 182.0 0.2 126.1 18.5 14,640 Assist tugboat Total 7.0 6.5 7.0 201.9 0.2 143.7 21.4 16,652 Crew Boat Auxiliary 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.4 0.4 136 Propulsion 1.7 1.5 1.7 49.2 0.0 31.4 5.0 4,084 Crew boat Total 1.8 1.6 1.8 51.0 0.0 32.8 5.4 4,220 Excursion Auxiliary 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.0 1.2 0.3 130 Propulsion 0.3 0.3 0.3 11.0 0.0 8.5 1.2 947 Excursion Total 0.4 0.3 0.4 12.5 0.0 9.6 1.5 1,078 Ferry Auxiliary 0.2 0.1 0.2 3.5 0.0 2.7 0.8 298 Propulsion 5.4 5.0 5.4 148.9 0.1 101.3 15.1 11,794 Ferry Total 5.6 5.1 5.6 152.4 0.1 103.9 15.8 12,092 Government Auxiliary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.1 46 Propulsion 0.9 0.8 0.9 20.1 0.0 8.2 1.7 1,198 Government Total 1.0 0.9 1.0 20.8 0.0 8.6 1.8 1,244 Ocean tugboat Total Auxiliary 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.5 0.0 3.4 0.6 383 Propulsion 5.5 5.0 5.5 151.5 0.1 78.6 13.4 10,774 Ocean tugboat Total 5.6 5.2 5.6 156.0 0.1 82.0 14.0 11,156 Harbor tugboat Auxiliary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 0.2 73 Propulsion 0.4 0.3 0.4 12.2 0.0 9.5 1.3 1,065 Harbor tugboat Total 0.4 0.4 0.4 13.0 0.0 10.2 1.5 1,138 Work boat Auxiliary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 8 Propulsion 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 0.0 2.0 0.3 234 Work boat Total 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.7 0.0 2.1 0.3 242 Harbor Craft Total 21.8 20.1 21.8 610.3 0.5 393.0 61.8 47,822 Port of Long Beach 23 July 2017

Operational Profiles Table 3.2 lists the marine engine count by tier and engine type in 2016. Table 3.2: 2016 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Count Auxiliary Propulsion Total Engine Engine Engine Engine Tier Count Count Count Unknown 3 3 6 Tier 0 12 8 20 Tier 1 9 25 34 Tier 2 36 106 142 Tier 3 67 23 90 Total 127 165 292 2016 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 2016 2016 Tier kw-hr % of Total Unknown 64,557 0.1% Tier 0 204,295 0% Tier 1 13,550,287 19% Tier 2 43,763,857 60% Tier 3 14,754,473 20% Total 72,337,469 100% Tables 3.4 and 3.5 summarize the characteristics of main and auxiliary engines respectively, by vessel type operating at the Port in 2016. 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

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 15 31 1980 2014 2007 600 2,575 2,020 53 1,998 1,406 Crew boat 17 41 2003 2012 2008 290 1,450 587 52 1,677 777 Excursion 9 14 1982 2013 2006 70 450 290 100 3,153 1,115 Ferry 12 26 2003 2013 2009 180 3,110 1,884 594 1,635 1,219 Government 5 9 1985 2013 1997 645 2,012 1,089 40 1,081 500 Ocean tugboat 6 12 2001 2012 2006 805 3,385 1,837 250 2,129 1,243 Harbor tugboat 12 25 2008 2014 2010 250 1,500 799 34 1,088 409 Work boat 4 7 2005 2013 2009 210 675 473 42 828 401 Total 80 165 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 15 30 1980 2014 2010 107 557 208 23 2,245 1,573 Crew boat 17 20 1980 2015 2008 13 107 55 110 2,112 769 Excursion 9 6 2009 2012 2010 40 90 62 100 3,439 1,528 Ferry 12 18 2003 2016 2010 18 120 67 450 1,832 1,052 Government 5 10 1985 2013 1995 13 705 278 10 1,866 279 Ocean tugboat 6 13 2002 2013 2007 60 253 126 250 1,680 1,061 Harbor tugboat 12 22 1989 2014 2009 22 192 64 8 775 305 Work boat 4 8 1968 2013 1998 27 101 70 1 548 164 Total 80 127 Port of Long Beach 25 July 2016

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 20 Break-Bulk 0.2 0.2 0.2 10.4 0.0 10.2 0.9 2,282 Container 5.4 4.9 4.7 446.0 1.3 489.7 35.9 111,884 Cruise 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 17.4 0.3 411 Dry Bulk 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.9 0.0 7.0 1.2 443 Liquid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.1 0.1 46 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 583 Total 5.9 5.4 5.1 463.5 1.4 527.4 38.6 115,667 5 CARB, Appendix B: Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California at www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/cargo11/cargoappb.pdf, viewed 22 July 2016 Port of Long Beach 26 July 2017

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 106 Cone vehicle Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 36 Crane Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 11 Excavator Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Forklift Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.9 0.0 8.1 0.7 1,321 Forklift Gasoline 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.3 0.0 436 Forklift Propane 0.1 0.1 0.0 7.2 0.0 30.0 3.2 662 Loader Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.8 0.0 3.2 0.5 1,365 Man lift Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 52 Material handler Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 85 Miscellaneous Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Miscellaneous Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 6 Rail pusher Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 105 RTG crane Diesel 1.0 0.9 1.0 106.6 0.1 24.3 6.1 11,115 Side handler Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 1.7 0.4 746 Skid steer loader Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 33 Sweeper Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 340 Sweeper Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.1 46 Top handler Diesel 1.3 1.2 1.3 217.3 0.5 89.1 18.1 40,405 Tractor Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Tractor Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 15.5 0.3 189 Truck Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4 0.0 1.1 0.2 528 Yard tractor Diesel 2.3 2.1 2.3 100.2 0.6 134.6 8.5 50,928 Yard tractor Gasoline 0.6 0.6 0.0 3.6 0.1 205.4 0.3 7,115 Yard tractor Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 34 Total 5.9 5.4 5.1 463.5 1.4 527.4 38.6 115,667 Port of Long Beach 27 July 2017

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 2 92 200 146 2004 2012 2008 400 1,500 950 Crane Diesel 2 177 334 256 1985 1991 1988 0 245 123 Cone vehicle Diesel 5 35 35 35 2016 2016 2016 499 884 709 Excavator Diesel 2 322 371 347 2002 2005 2004 0 0 0 Forklift Diesel 103 50 215 133 1990 2015 2008 0 2,813 541 Loader Diesel 14 50 418 320 1985 2015 2009 6 2,000 1,008 Man Lift Diesel 6 62 75 68 2008 2014 2011 270 582 433 Material handler Diesel 3 371 717 505 2001 2008 2005 0 578 222 Miscellaneous Diesel 2 13 13 13 2010 2010 2010 6 45 26 Rail pusher Diesel 3 150 260 202 2013 2013 2013 0 1,192 503 RTG crane Diesel 71 250 1,043 653 1998 2016 2008 0 4,251 1,974 Side handler Diesel 14 152 240 211 2000 2011 2004 0 1,682 734 Skid steer loader Diesel 3 49 67 58 2008 2015 2011 569 569 569 Sweeper Diesel 6 114 230 187 2002 2014 2008 189 2,247 792 Top handler Diesel 193 174 382 306 1979 2016 2008 0 4,937 2,081 Tractor Diesel 1 59 59 59 2009 2009 2009 80 80 80 Truck, offroad Diesel 3 270 525 440 2009 2016 2011 502 1,277 879 Truck, onroad Diesel 4 210 300 260 1998 2011 2005 0 1,142 518 Yard tractor, offroad Diesel 289 173 225 198 2001 2016 2011 0 2,636 838 Yard tractor, onroad Diesel 427 173 250 211 2005 2015 2009 0 4,548 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 1980 2006 1993 na na na Electric pallet jack Electric 2 na na na 2013 2013 2013 25 116 71 Forklift Electric 9 na na na 1995 2013 2002 0 731 256 Material handler Electric 1 na na na 1995 1995 1995 na na na Miscellaneous Electric 3 na na na 2000 2008 2001 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 2008 2016 2010 71 181 131 Forklift Gasoline 14 na na na 2012 2013 2013 159 1,930 1,019 Yard tractor, gasoline Gasoline 85 335 335 335 2011 2011 2011 5 3,146 866 Forklift Propane 111 45 122 86 1983 2015 2005 0 3,767 383 Miscellaneous Propane 1 na na na 1998 1998 1998 0 0 0 Sweeper Propane 6 47 135 82 1982 2016 2004 30 600 173 Tractor Propane 5 101 101 101 1996 1997 1996 592 1,356 1,015 Yard tractor, propane Propane 7 173 173 173 2009 2009 2009 0 388 107 Total 1,565 Port of Long Beach 28 July 2017

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 2016. 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 9 111 14 103 237 RTG crane 0 0 0 71 71 Side handler 0 0 0 14 14 Top handler 0 0 0 193 193 Yard tractor 0 7 85 716 808 Sweeper 1 6 0 6 13 Other 173 6 0 50 229 Total 183 130 99 1,153 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 1 0 72 0 11 RTG crane 0 0 31 6 0 Side handler 0 0 13 0 0 Top handler 1 0 97 0 0 Yard tractor 68 427 0 0 0 Sweeper 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 4 10 0 5 Total 70 431 223 6 16 Port of Long Beach 29 July 2017

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 5 0 0 119 3 0 162 427 716 Forklift 10 5 11 29 20 16 12 0 103 Top handler 9 1 10 61 20 66 26 0 193 Other 4 3 2 5 9 10 13 4 50 RTG crane 1 0 26 10 0 27 7 0 71 Side handler 0 0 4 7 2 1 0 0 14 Sweeper 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 6 Total 29 9 54 233 56 120 221 431 1,153 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 2016 2016 Type Tier kw-hr % of Total Diesel Tier 0 61,179 0.04% 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 148,456,592 100% Port of Long Beach 30 July 2017

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 www.polb.com/emissions. 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

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 0.2 0.2 0.2 20 0.03 8.4 1.1 2,843 Line Haul 5.6 5.3 5.6 146 0.13 34.1 8.3 12,050 On-Port Subtotal 5.8 5.5 5.8 166 0.16 42.5 9.4 14,892 Off-Port (Regional) Emissions Switching 0.1 0.1 0.1 5 0.01 2.2 0.1 770 Line Haul 15.2 14.5 15.2 397 0.4 92.8 22.5 32,801 Off-Port Subtotal 15.3 14.6 15.3 402 0.4 95.0 22.6 33,571 Total 21.1 20.1 21.1 568 0.5 137.5 32.0 48,463 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 www.polb.com/emissions. 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. www.epa.gov/oms/locomotives.htm. 2. Number of locomotives is the sum of all individual locomotives that visited or operated within the SCAB at any time during 2014. Port of Long Beach 32 July 2017

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 0 27 15 0.0% 13.0 0.00 Tier 0 166 6,049 2.7% 7.5 0.20 Tier 1 1,280 77,662 35% 6.2 2.15 Tier 2 1,107 92,689 41% 4.5 1.86 Tier 3 939 46,425 21% 4.3 0.89 Tier 4 132 1,336 0.6% 1.2 0.01 ULEL 0 0 0% - - Total BNSF 3,651 224,176 100% 5.1 UP Pre-Tier 0 73 374 0.2% 12.4 0.02 Tier 0/0+ 2,372 54,676 26.4% 7.7 2.03 Tier 1/1+ 1,887 30,358 15% 6.6 0.97 Tier 2/2+ 1,868 64,554 31% 5.0 1.56 Tier 3 1,111 50,817 25% 4.7 1.15 Tier 4 33 101 0.0% 1 0.00 ULEL 59 6,451 3% 2.6 0.1 Total UP 7,403 207,332 100% 5.8 ULEL Credit Used 0.3 UP Fleet Average 5.5 Both RRs, excluding ULELs and ULEL credits Pre-Tier 0 100 389 0% 12.4 0.01 Tier 0 2,538 60,726 14% 7.7 1.10 Tier 1 3,167 108,021 25% 6.3 1.60 Tier 2 2,975 157,244 37% 4.7 1.74 Tier 3 2,050 97,242 23% 4.5 1.03 Tier 4 165 1,437 0.34% 1.2 0.004 Total both 10,995 425,057 100% 5.48 Port of Long Beach 33 July 2017

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 0 389 0% 0.32 0.48 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tier 0 60,726 14% 0.32 0.48 1.28 0.05 0.07 0.18 Tier 1 108,021 25% 0.32 0.47 1.28 0.08 0.12 0.33 Tier 2 157,244 37% 0.18 0.26 1.28 0.07 0.10 0.47 Tier 3 97,242 23% 0.08 0.13 1.28 0.02 0.03 0.29 Tier 4 1,437 0.34% 0.015 0.04 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 425,057 100% 0.21 0.31 1.28 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 0.21 0.20 0.21 5.48 0.005 1.28 0.31 494 0.013 0.040 7 EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Factors for Locomotives EPA-420-F-09-025 April 2009. Port of Long Beach 34 July 2017

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 1 2.5 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 4,160 30 630 Central LA to Air Basin Boundary 84 4,160 30 2,520 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

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 www.polb.com/emissions. 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

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 2,426,675 0.2 0.2 0.2 133 0.2 19.9 5.9 19,456 On-Road 156,495,897 5.7 5.4 5.4 1,210 3.0 76.1 19.2 262,643 Total 158,922,572 5.9 5.6 5.6 1,343 3.1 96.0 25.1 282,099 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 2,381,781 0.2 0.2 0.2 131 0.2 19.5 5.8 19,131 On-Road 148,196,872 5.4 5.1 5.1 1,145 2.8 72.1 18.2 248,715 Total 150,578,653 5.6 5.3 5.3 1,275 3.0 91.6 23.9 267,846 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 44,895 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.3 0.1 325 On-Road 8,299,025 0.3 0.3 0.3 65 0.2 4.0 1.0 13,928 Total 8,343,920 0.3 0.3 0.3 67 0.2 4.4 1.1 14,253 Port of Long Beach 37 July 2017

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

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 15 1.5 0.10 0.9 0.08 Minimum 5 0.5 0.03 0.3 0.00 Average 7 0.8 0.09 0.6 0.03 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 10 0.5 0.08 0.5 0.08 Minimum 5 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 Average 7 0.2 0.01 0.1 0.01 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

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 235,872 235,872 Container 251,502 291,742 Container 907,043 761,916 Container 336,609 107,715 Container 213,213 439,219 Container 437,543 340,311 Auto 5,656 9,721 Break Bulk 3,566 2,995 Break Bulk 3,000 960 Break Bulk 1,500 0 Break Bulk 308 62 Break Bulk 20 0 Dry Bulk 13,025 686 Dry Bulk 40 440 Liquid Bulk 5,400 4,320 Liquid Bulk 3,125 375 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

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) 0.0062 0.0059 0.0059 33.6824 0.0474 2.8228 1.0224 5,063 0.1629 0.0601 g/hr 5 0.0697 0.0667 0.0662 20.0210 0.0173 5.1795 1.3412 3,461 0.0617 0.0789 g/mi 10 0.0628 0.0601 0.0596 16.9144 0.0173 4.1926 1.0840 3,082 0.0617 0.0638 g/mi 15 0.0540 0.0517 0.0513 12.9872 0.0173 2.9449 0.7579 2,603 0.0617 0.0446 g/mi 20 0.0482 0.0461 0.0458 10.3990 0.0173 2.1257 0.5448 2,286 0.0617 0.032 g/mi 25 0.0439 0.0420 0.0417 9.0039 0.0173 1.5606 0.3996 2,087 0.0617 0.0235 g/mi 30 0.0405 0.0387 0.0385 8.2115 0.0173 1.1542 0.2952 1,949 0.0617 0.0174 g/mi 35 0.0377 0.0361 0.0358 7.6443 0.0173 0.8548 0.2182 1,841 0.0617 0.0128 g/mi 40 0.0354 0.0338 0.0336 7.2118 0.0173 0.6345 0.1613 1,754 0.0617 0.0095 g/mi 45 0.0334 0.0319 0.0317 6.8656 0.0173 0.4724 0.1194 1,681 0.0617 0.0070 g/mi 50 0.0317 0.0303 0.0301 6.5815 0.0173 0.3533 0.0885 1,619 0.0617 0.0052 g/mi 55 0.0302 0.0289 0.0287 6.3460 0.0173 0.2661 0.0657 1,565 0.0617 0.0039 g/mi 60 0.0295 0.0283 0.0281 6.2447 0.0173 0.2317 0.0567 1,541 0.0617 0.0033 g/mi 65 0.0295 0.0283 0.0281 6.2697 0.0173 0.2317 0.0567 1,541 0.0617 0.0033 g/mi 70 0.0295 0.0283 0.0281 6.2889 0.0173 0.2317 0.0567 1,541 0.0617 0.0033 g/mi Port of Long Beach 41 July 2017

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 82 77 61 3,966 202 336 149 282,915 Harbor craft 22 20 22 610 1 393 62 47,822 Cargo handling equipment 6 5 5 464 1 527 39 115,667 Locomotives 21 20 21 568 1 137 32 48,463 Heavy-duty vehicles 6 6 6 1,343 3 96 25 282,099 Total 137 128 115 6,951 208 1,490 307 776,967 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% 202 97% 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 115 100% 6,951 100% 208 100% 776,967 100% Port of Long Beach 42 July 2017

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 2017. Port of Long Beach 43 July 2017

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