Figure 4.1 presents the distribution of the 1,343 pieces of equipment inventoried at the Port for 2006.

SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT This section presents emissions estimates for the cargo handling equipment source category, including source description (4.1), geographical delineation (4.2), data and information acquisition (4.3), operational profiles (4.4), emissions estimation methodology (4.5), and the emission estimates (4.6). 4.1 Source Description Cargo handling equipment includes equipment used to move cargo (containers, general cargo, and bulk cargo) to and from marine vessels, railcars, and onroad trucks. The equipment typically operates at marine terminals or at rail yards and not on public roadways or lands. This inventory includes cargo handling equipment of 25 hp or greater using diesel, gasoline, or alternative fuels. Due to the diversity of cargo, there is a wide range of equipment types. The majority of the equipment can be classified into one of the following equipment types: Forklift Rubber tired gantry (RTG) crane Side handler Sweeper Top handler Yard tractor Other Figure 4.1 presents the distribution of the 1,343 pieces of equipment inventoried at the Port for 2006. Figure 4.1: Distribution of 2005 Port CHE by Equipment Type RTG Cranes 87 Top Handlers 6% 144 11% Side Handlers Other 41 62 3% 5% Sweepers 17 1% Forklifts 310 23% Yard Tractors 682 51% Port of Long Beach 101 June 2008

2006 Air Emissions Inventory Out of all CHE inventoried at Port facilities for 2006, 51% were yard tractors, 23% were forklifts, 11% were top handlers, six percent were RTG cranes, three percent were side handlers and five percent were other equipment (not typical cargo handling equipment). The Other category includes the following: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Bulldozer Excavator Loader Reach stacker Skid steer loader Truck (i.e. fuel, utility, water and vacuum trucks) 4.2 Geographical Delineation The 2006 CHE EI consist of equipment from the following terminals: container, dry bulk, break bulk, liquid bulk, auto and passenger. Figure 4.2 presents the geographical delineation for CHE. Figure 4.2: Port of Long Beach Terminals Port of Long Beach 102 June 2008

Following is the list of the terminals by cargo type inventoried in 2006: Container Terminals: California United Terminals (CUT) Horizon Lines International Transportation Service (ITS) Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT) Pacific Container Terminal (PCT) SSAT Pier A SSAT Pier C Total Terminals International (TTI) Break-Bulk Terminals: California United Terminals - Breakbulk Cooper/T. Smith SSAT Bulk Crescent Terminals Pacific Coast Recycling Fremont Forest Group Weyerhauser Norske Skog Conolly-Pacific Dry Bulk Terminals: Koch Carbon G -P Gypsum Metropolitan Stevedore Morton Salt Cemex Mitsubishi Cement National Gypsum Liquid Terminals: BP/ Arco Chemoil Baker Commodities Petro Diamond Equillon (Shell) Enterprise Vopak Auto Terminals: Toyota Passenger Terminals: Carnival Cruise Terminal 2006 Air Emissions Inventory Port of Long Beach 103 June 2008

4.3 Data and Information Acquisition The terminal s maintenance and/or CHE operating staff were contacted either in person or by telephone to obtain information on the CHE specific to their terminal s operation for the calendar year 2006. Information collected for each piece of equipment is listed below: Equipment type Equipment identification number Equipment make and model Engine make and model Rated horsepower Model year Type of fuel used (diesel, ULSD, gasoline or propane) Alternative fuel used, start date (O 2 diesel, emulsified fuel) Fuel consumption (information not readily available) Annual hours of operation (some terminals started using hour meters) Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) installed Date DOC installed Onroad engine installed Any other emissions control devices installed 4.4 Operational Profiles Table 4.1 summarizes the data collected in 2006 calendar year. The table includes equipment count, horsepower, model year, and annual operating hours for each equipment type. The average in the following tables is based on population and is not a weighted average based on activity. Port of Long Beach 104 June 2008

Table 4.1: CHE Characteristics for All Terminals, 2006 2006 Air Emissions Inventory Power (horsepower) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Equipment Count Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Boom truck 2 100 210 155 1989 2006 1998 520 520 520 Bulldozer 5 165 305 231 1993 2005 1999 100 800 480 Crane 3 100 150 133 1995 1998 1996 100 520 240 Electric Pallet Jack 2 0 0 0 1995 1995 1995 300 300 300 Excavator 7 362 439 426 1997 2005 2002 2,000 4,000 3,500 Forklift 310 0 280 117 1961 2007 1995 0 2,870 647 Fuel Truck 3 na na na 1986 1998 1992 499 2,007 1,035 Loader 18 150 375 275 1980 2006 1995 200 2,000 1,118 Man Lift 2 48 48 48 1995 2005 2000 400 416 408 Rail pusher 2 100 300 200 1997 2003 2000 449 1,467 958 Reach Stacker 4 330 375 341 1994 2001 1997 20 1,000 680 RMG crane 1 0 0 0 1980 1980 1980 na na na RTG crane 87 219 1,043 686 1979 2007 1999 0 4,321 2,054 Side pick 41 115 240 177 1982 2006 1999 47 2,500 1,355 Skid Steer Loader 4 27 85 45 1990 1996 1994 100 416 283 Sweeper 17 30 210 108 1982 2006 1999 52 1,820 519 Top handler 144 250 375 288 1989 2006 2001 0 5,250 2,165 Tractor 7 80 110 106 1996 2004 1997 275 936 842 Vacuum Truck 1 285 285 285 1998 1998 1998 1,000 1,000 1,000 Water Truck 1 170 170 170 1997 1997 1997 364 364 364 Yard tractor 682 173 245 184 1990 2006 2001 0 4,736 2,073 Total 1,343 Range / Average 80 285 212 1961 2007 1999 0 5,250 1,665 Over 3/4 of all CHE equipment at the Port are used by container terminals. Table 4.2 shows the percentage of container terminal CHE as compared to the total Port CHE. Table 4.2: Percentage of Container Terminal CHE as Compared to Total CHE Total Container Equipment Count Terminal Percent Count Forklift 310 96 31% RTG crane 87 87 100% Side pick 41 41 100% Top handler 144 142 99% Yard tractor 682 680 100% Sweeper 17 6 35% Other 62 8 13% Total 1,343 1,060 79% Port of Long Beach 105 June 2008

The equipment characteristics for the CHE found at the Port s container terminals are summarized in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: CHE Characteristics for Container Terminal, 2006 Container Terminals Power (horsepower) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Equipment Count Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Forklift 96 45 280 113 1968 2006 1995 4 2,870 857 Fuel Truck 2 na na na 1986 1998 1992 499 2,007 1,253 Rail pusher 2 100 300 200 1997 2003 2000 449 1,467 958 Reach Stacker 4 330 375 341 1994 2001 1997 20 1,000 680 RTG crane 87 219 1,043 686 1979 2007 1999 0 4,321 2,054 Side pick 41 115 240 177 1982 2006 1999 47 2,500 1,355 Sweeper 6 100 180 129 1994 2006 2001 298 539 428 Top handler 142 250 375 289 1989 2006 2001 0 5,250 2,168 Yard tractor 680 173 245 184 1990 2006 2001 0 4,736 2,075 Total 1,060 Range / Average 173 375 232 1968 2007 2000 0 5,250 1,929 Table 4.4 shows the equipment characteristics of break-bulk terminal equipment. Table 4.4: CHE Characteristics for Break-Bulk Terminals, 2006 Break Bulk Terminals Power (horsepower) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Equipment Count Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Bulldozer 3 165 305 252 1993 1998 1995 100 400 267 Crane 2 150 150 150 1995 1995 1995 100 100 100 Excavator 7 362 439 426 1997 2005 2002 2,000 4,000 3,500 Forklift 140 56 272 144 1963 2006 1995 2 1,040 307 Fuel Truck 1 na na na 1991 1991 1991 600 600 600 Loader 12 200 375 302 1980 2006 1994 250 2,000 1,248 Man Lift 2 48 48 48 1995 2005 2000 400 416 408 RMG crane 1 0 0 0 1980 1980 1980 na na na Skid Steer Loader 2 27 36 32 1993 1996 1995 416 416 416 Sweeper 4 135 210 182 1982 2006 1992 52 1,820 697 Vacuum Truck 1 285 285 285 1998 1998 1998 1,000 1,000 1,000 Water Truck 1 170 170 170 1997 1997 1997 364 364 364 Yard tractor 2 173 173 173 1998 2005 2002 1,000 2,340 1,670 Total 178 Range / Average 135 285 168 1963 2006 1996 0 4,000 523 Port of Long Beach 106 June 2008

Table 4.5 shows the equipment characteristics of dry bulk terminal equipment. 2006 Air Emissions Inventory Table 4.5: CHE Characteristics for Dry Bulk Terminals, 2006 Dry Bulk Terminals Power (horsepower) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Equipment Count Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Bulldozer 2 200 200 200 2005 2005 2005 800 800 800 Forklift 46 0 160 73 1981 2007 1999 0 2,000 1,234 Loader 5 166 375 244 1989 2002 1998 200 2,000 873 Skid Steer Loader 2 30 85 58 1990 1995 1993 100 200 150 Sweeper 7 30 175 65 1990 2005 2001 100 1,000 495 Top handler 2 260 260 260 2000 2000 2000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Tractor 1 80 80 80 2004 2004 2004 275 275 275 Total 65 Range / Average 0 375 95 1981 2007 1999 0 2,000 1,089 Table 4.6 shows the equipment characteristics of liquid bulk terminal equipment. Table 4.6: CHE Characteristics for Liquid Bulk Terminals, 2006 Liquid Terminals Power (horsepower) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Equipment Count Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Boom truck 2 100 210 155 1989 2006 1998 520 520 520 Crane 1 100 100 100 1998 1998 1998 520 520 520 Forklift 8 40 120 74 1961 1996 1988 15 624 231 Loader 1 150 150 150 1995 1995 1995 780 780 780 Total 12 Range / Average 40 210 96 1961 2006 1991 15 780 349 Table 4.7 shows the equipment characteristics of auto terminal equipment. Table 4.7: CHE Characteristics for Auto Terminal, 2006 Auto Terminals Power (horsepower) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Equipment Count Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Electric Pallet Jack 2 0 0 0 1995 1995 1995 300 300 300 Forklift 10 na 100 na 1995 1995 1995 600 600 600 Total 12 Range / Average 0 100 na 1995 1995 1995 300 600 550 Port of Long Beach 107 June 2008

Table 4.8 shows the equipment characteristics of passenger terminal equipment. Table 4.8: CHE Characteristics of Passenger Terminal, 2006 Cruise Terminals Power (horsepower) Model Year Annual Operating Hours Equipment Count Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Forklift 10 50 210 86 1981 1987 1985 1,053 1,170 1,076 Tractor 6 110 110 110 1996 1996 1996 936 936 936 Total 16 Range / Average 50 210 95 1981 1996 1989 936 1,170 1,024 The 2006 inventory includes 705 pieces of equipment installed with DOC, 54 new yard tractors with onroad certified engines and new equipment with cleaner offroad engines. In addition, 224 pieces of equipment used emulsified fuel and 114 pieces of equipment used oxygenated (O 2 ) diesel. All of the diesel equipment used ULSD in 2006. Table 4.9 is a summary of the emission reduction technologies by equipment type. It should be noted that some of these technologies may be used in combination with one another. For example, equipment using oxygenated diesel or emulsified fuel may also be equipped with onroad engines or DOCs. Table 4.10 is a summary of the emission reduction technologies by terminal type which shows the majority of the reduction initiatives are undertaken by container terminals which account for the majority (79%) of equipment at the port. Table 4.9: 2006 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Equipment Equipment Total DOC On-road Emulsified Oxygenated ULSD Count Installed Engine Fuel Diesel Forklifts 310 34 0 3 4 153 RTG cranes 87 11 0 16 12 87 Side handlers 41 39 0 4 7 41 Top handlers 144 87 0 10 10 144 Yard tractors 682 532 54 190 81 682 Sweepers 17 1 0 1 0 11 Other 62 1 0 0 0 53 Total 1,343 705 54 224 114 1,171 Port of Long Beach 108 June 2008

Table 4.10: 2006 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Terminal Type 4.5 Methodology Terminal DOC On-road Emulsified Oxygenated Type Installed Engine Fuel Diesel Auto 0 0 0 0 Break Bulk 22 0 0 0 Container 683 54 224 114 Cruise 0 0 0 0 Dry Bulk 0 0 0 0 Liquid 0 0 0 0 Total 705 54 224 114 CARB adopted their CHE Regulation in December, 2005. During the development of the rule, CARB s staff estimated the emissions of CHE using a methodology that was different than what was traditionally used in their OFFROAD model. The most significant change from the OFFROAD methodology was the calculation of deterioration rates for CHE equipment. At the time of this CHE emissions inventory development, CARB was not ready to make public the revised CHE emissions inventory calculation tool. However, during the 2005 port-wide emissions inventory process, in order to be consistent with CARB s latest methodology, CARB staff volunteered to estimate the emissions for the cargo handling equipment operating at the Port. The same methodology is used to update the 2006 CHE EI. The basic equation used to estimate CHE emissions in tons is as follows. Where: E = Pop x EF x HP x LF x Act x FCF x CF Equation 4.1 E = emissions, tons Pop = population of equipment EF = emission factor, grams of pollutant per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) HP = rated horsepower for the equipment LF = load factor (ratio of average load used during normal operations as compared to full load at maximum rated horsepower) Act = equipment activity, hours of use FCF = fuel correction factor to reflect changes in fuel properties that have occurred over time CF = control factor to reflect changes in emissions due to installation of emission reduction technologies or use of alternative fuels not originally included in the emission factors Port of Long Beach 109 June 2008

The emission factor is a function of the zero hour emission rate for the equipment model year (g/hp-hr) in the absence of any malfunction or tampering of engine components that can change emissions, plus a deterioration rate. The deterioration rate reflects the fact that base emissions of engines change as the equipment is used due to wear of various engine parts or reduced efficiency of emission control devices. The emission factor is calculated as: EF = ZH + (DR x Cumulative Hours) Equation 4.2 Where: ZH = emission rate when the engine is new and there is no component malfunctioning for a given horsepower category and model year DR = deterioration rate (rate of change of emissions as a function of equipment age) Cumulative hours = number of hours the equipment has been in use and calculated as annual operating hours times age of the equipment 4.5.1 Emission Factors CARB used the same zero hour emission rates as used in the OFFROAD model. The ZH emission rates are a function of fuel, model year and horsepower group as defined in the OFFROAD model. ZH emission rates vary by engine horsepower and model year to reflect the fact that depending upon the size of the engines, different engine technologies and emission standards are applicable. CARB s ZH emission factors by horsepower and engine year were used for: diesel engines certified to offroad diesel engine emission standards diesel engines certified to onroad diesel emission standards gasoline and LPG engines certified to large spark ignited engine (LSI) emission standards LNG engines emission factors are based on recent testing of LNG yard tractors 39 39 Dr. Wayne Miller, University of California, Riverside, A Study of Emissions from Yard Tractors Using Diesel and LNG Fuel, July 2007. Port of Long Beach 110 June 2008

Due to the absence of CHE specific emission data, CARB staff used onroad heavyduty diesel specific deterioration rates used in EMFAC 7G (an older version of the onroad emissions inventory model). Since the release of EMFAC 7G, CARB staff has updated EMFAC including onroad heavy-duty diesel deterioration rates. However, for OFFROAD engine emissions, CARB continue to use EMFAC 7G deterioration rates. The basic assumption used by CARB staff is that the emissions from diesel powered trucks remain stable in the absence of tampering and malmaintenance (T&M). In other words, diesel engine emissions do not increase over time if the equipment is well maintained. Over time, emissions may increase if the equipment is not maintained properly which causes various engine components affecting emissions to malfunction. CARB staff estimated emissions deterioration using the so called Radian Model 40 which identified various diesel engine components malfunctions, the frequency of malfunction and the related impact on emissions. Based on this information, staff calculated the change in onroad heavy-duty engine emissions over time. For CHE equipment, CARB staff estimated the emission factor increase over the useful life cumulative mileage of the onroad engines and assumed that the emissions for CHE will deteriorate in the similar manner over the equipment s useful life. This useful life estimate was determined through CHE surveys conducted by CARB staff. The equation for the deterioration rate is: Equation 4.3 DR = (DF x ZH) / cumulative hours at the end of useful life Where: DR = deterioration rate (expressed as g/hp-hr 2 ) DF = deterioration factor, percent increase in emissions at the end of the useful life (expressed as %) ZH = emission rate when the engine is new and there is no component malfunctioning for a given horsepower category and model year Cumulative hours at the end of useful life = annual operating hours times useful life in years The Port believes that the use of CARB s deterioration rates results in an overestimate of CHE emissions. In discussions with terminal operators, the Port determined that the CHE are well maintained compared to onroad heavy-duty trucks. CARB staff needs to further refine their methodology to properly account for the CHE maintenance practices of terminal operators. 40 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Study - Volume II - Quantifying the Problem. Port of Long Beach 111 June 2008

4.5.2 Load Factors, Useful Life, and Deterioration Rates Load factor is defined as the ratio of average load experienced by the equipment during normal operation as compared to full load at maximum rated horse power. It accounts for the fact that in their normal operations, engines are not used at their maximum horsepower rating. Equipment specific load factors used for the 2006 EI are the same as used by CARB to support their cargo handling regulation adopted in 2005, with the exception of yard tractors. A recent in-field study conducted by ports in consultation with CARB s staff indicated a lower load factor for the yard tractors operated at the ports. Based on supporting data collected during the yard tractor study, the Port is using a new load factor of 39% for yard tractors. Previously, load factor used for yard tractors was 65%. Table 4.11 lists the equipment type, the useful life and load factor used, respectively. Table 4.11: 2006 CHE Useful Life and Load Factors Port Equipment Useful Load Life Factor RTG crane, crane 24 0.43 Excavator 16 0.57 Forklift 16 0.30 Top handler, side pick, reach stacker 16 0.59 Aerial lift, truck, other with offroad engine 16 0.51 Truck, other with onroad engine 16 0.51 Sweeper 16 0.68 Loader, backhoe 16 0.55 Yard tractor with offroad engine 12 0.39 Yard tractor with onroad engine 12 0.39 Table 4.12 lists the new deterioration factors used by CARB by horsepower group. Table 4.12: Deterioration Factors by Horsepower Group Horsepower PM NO x CO HC Group 50 0.31 0.06 0.41 0.51 120 0.44 0.14 0.16 0.28 175 0.44 0.14 0.16 0.28 250 0.44 0.14 0.16 0.28 500 0.67 0.21 0.25 0.44 Port of Long Beach 112 June 2008

4.5.3 Control Factors Control factors were used to reflect the change in emissions due to the use of various emissions reduction technologies such as DOC and alternative fuels (emulsified fuel). Table 4.13 shows the emission reduction percentages used by CARB in the emissions estimates for the various technologies used by the Port equipment. In this table, a positive number is a reduction, while a negative number signifies an increase in emissions. The control factor is 1 minus the emission reduction in decimal. For example, 70% reduction has a control factor of 0.3; while a -10% has a control factor of 1.10. Table 4.13: CHE Control Measure Emission Reductions Percentages Technology PM NO x CO HC SO x CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 DOC 30% 0% 70% 70% na na 0% 70% Emulsified fuel 30% 15% -10% -23% na na 15% -23% DOC + emulsified fuel 50% 20% 67% 63% na na 20% 63% O2 Diesel 20% 2% -10% -75% na na 2% -75% DOC + O2 Diesel 44% 2% 73% 48% na na 2% 48% CARB s sources for the emission reductions are as follows: DOC: CEC Report (Air Quality Implications of Backup Generators in California Volume Two: Emission Measurements From Controlled and Uncontrolled Backup Generators) 41 Emulsified Fuel: CARB/POLA Yard Truck Test Program 42 DOC + emulsified fuel: CARB Letter to Port (1 May 06) and Verified Technology 43 Table 4.14 lists the fuel correction factors for diesel fuel and ULSD. Table 4.14: Fuel Correction Factors Equipment MY PM NO x SO x CO HC CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 1995 and older 0.72 0.93 0.043 1 0.72 1 0.93 0.72 1996 and newer 0.80 0.95 0.043 1 0.72 1 0.95 0.72 41 See: http://www.enenrgy.ca.gov/pier/final_project_reports/cec-500-2005-049.html. 42 See: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/cargo/documents/yttest.pdf. 43 See: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/level2/level2.htm. Port of Long Beach 113 June 2008

4.6 Emission Estimates CHE emission estimates are broken down by terminal type, equipment type, and terminal. A summary of the CHE emission in tons per year by terminal type by pollutants for 2006 is presented in Tables 4.15 and 4.16. Figure 4.3 presents the percentage of cargo handling equipment emissions by terminal type. Approximately 90% of the Port s CHE PM and NO x emissions, 55% of the SO x emissions and 80% of the CO and TOG emissions are attributed to the container terminals. Break-bulk terminals and other type of facilities account for the remainder of the emissions. The facilities with propane forklifts and equipment with alternative fuels have higher CO and TOG emissions. Table 4.15: 2006 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tpy Terminal Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Auto 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 4.1 0.4 Break-Bulk 2.4 2.2 2.4 71.4 0.1 29.5 3.5 Container 36.8 34.2 36.8 1,335.1 1.5 264.3 44.6 Cruise 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.2 0.0 20.1 2.1 Dry Bulk 0.3 0.3 0.2 18.6 0.0 39.4 4.1 Liquid 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.4 0.2 Total 39.7 36.9 39.6 1,436.7 1.5 358.8 54.8 Table 4.16: 2006 CHE GHG Emissions by Terminal Type, tpy Terminal Type CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Auto 94.3 0.0 0.0 Break-Bulk 10,269.6 0.2 0.4 Container 198,339.1 3.9 5.0 Cruise 577.2 0.0 0.0 Dry Bulk 1,694.6 0.0 0.0 Liquid 206.5 0.0 0.0 Total 211,181.2 4.1 5.4 Port of Long Beach 114 June 2008

CH4 N2O CO2 HC CO SOx NOx DPM PM2.5 PM10 Figure 4.3: 2006 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, % 2006 Air Emissions Inventory 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Container Break-Bulk Dry Bulk Cruise Liquid Auto Tables 4.17 and 4.18 present the percentage of cargo handling equipment emissions by equipment type. Table 4.17: 2006 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tpy Port Equipment Engine Type PM 10 PM 2.5 DPM NO x SO x CO HC Boom Truck Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 Bulldozer Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.5 0.1 Crane Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 Excavator Diesel 0.8 0.7 0.8 31.0 0.0 6.5 0.9 Forklift Propane 0.1 0.1 0.0 19.1 0.0 62.0 5.5 Forklift Diesel 1.6 1.4 1.6 32.4 0.0 12.9 2.0 Fuel Truck Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.7 0.0 1.1 0.2 Loader Diesel 1.0 0.9 1.0 21.7 0.0 7.4 1.4 Man Lift Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Rail Pusher Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Reach Stacker Diesel 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.8 0.0 1.6 0.3 RTG Crane Diesel 10.0 9.4 10.0 403.1 0.4 87.9 19.0 Side Pick Diesel 1.0 0.9 1.0 41.1 0.0 3.7 0.8 Skid Steer Loader Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Sweeper Gasoline 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 Sweeper Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.1 0.1 Sweeper Diesel 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.3 0.0 1.5 0.3 Top Handler Diesel 6.3 5.9 6.3 277.1 0.3 39.3 5.9 Tractor Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 12.6 1.2 Tractor Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacuum Truck Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 Water Truck Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 Yard Tractor Diesel 18.2 16.8 18.2 588.4 0.7 119.0 16.8 Total 39.7 36.9 39.6 1,436.7 1.5 358.8 54.8 Port of Long Beach 115 June 2008

Table 4.18: 2006 CHE GHG Emissions by Equipment Type, tpy Port Equipment Engine Type CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 Bulldozer Diesel 81.2 0.0 0.0 Crane Diesel 252.0 0.0 0.0 Dump Truck Diesel 31.5 0.0 0.0 Excavator Diesel 4,811.6 0.1 0.2 Forklift Propane 1,414.7 2.5 0.0 Forklift Diesel 4,029.2 0.1 0.1 Fuel Truck Diesel 333.8 0.0 0.0 Loader Diesel 3,076.0 0.1 0.1 Man Lift Diesel 19.4 0.0 0.0 Rail Pusher Diesel 199.4 0.0 0.0 Roller Diesel 579.1 0.0 0.0 RTG Crane Diesel 52,290.2 1.0 2.1 Side Pick Diesel 5,493.5 0.1 0.1 Skid Steer Loader Diesel 28.2 0.0 0.0 Sweeper Gasoline 5.4 0.0 0.0 Sweeper Propane 61.9 0.0 0.0 Sweeper Diesel 543.5 0.0 0.0 Top Handler Diesel 43,860.8 0.9 1.1 Tractor Propane 252.7 0.0 0.0 Tractor Diesel 9.1 0.0 0.0 Vacuum Trcuk Diesel 159.3 0.0 0.0 Water Truck Diesel 36.0 0.0 0.0 Yard Tractor Diesel 93,612.6 1.8 1.6 Total 211,181.2 6.6 5.4 Figure 4.4 presents the percentage of cargo handling equipment emissions by equipment type. Approximately 30% to 45%, depending on the pollutant, of the Port s CHE emissions are attributed to yard tractors. Top handlers, RTG cranes, side picks and forklifts account for most of the remainder of the emissions. Port of Long Beach 116 June 2008

Figure 4.4: 2006 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, % 2006 Air Emissions Inventory CH4 N2O CO2 HC CO SOx NOx DPM PM2.5 PM10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yard Tractor RTG Crane Top Handler Forklift Side Pick Loader Other Port of Long Beach 117 June 2008