The world’s most advanced fireboat “Protector” arrived at the Port … · 2016-08-31 · 2015...

Cover Photo Credit: The Port of Long Beach The world’s most advanced fireboat “Protector” arrived at the Port of Long Beach in November 2015. Protector is specifically designed to fight fires aboard the largest vessels. Protector can also assist with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. It is powered by two 2,012-horsepower diesel engines paired with Voith Schneider propellers, which allows Protector to change direction almost instantaneously. In addition, there are 10 water cannons on board capable of extinguishing fires in the harbor or on nearby land with more than 41,000 gallons per minute.

Port of Long Beach

2015 Air Emissions Inventory

Prepared for:

July 2016

Prepared by:

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC Long Beach, CA


Port of Long Beach July 2016

2015 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 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. In the 2015 Air Emissions Inventory, there are several updates to the data and methodologies used to estimate emissions from ocean-going vessels (OGV). There are no updates to the data and methodologies used to estimate emissions from harbor craft, cargo-handling equipment, rail locomotives, and heavy-duty vehicles. OGV emissions are estimated by vessel type, emission source, and operational mode (transit, maneuvering, hotelling at-berth, hotelling at-anchor) using the general methodology described in Section 2 of the Port of Long Beach 2013 Air Emissions Inventory.1 The 2014 Air Emissions Inventory also included emission factor adjustments and load adjustment factors for MAN 2-stroke engines. 2 The following updates to the data and estimation methodologies for OGV in the 2015 air emissions inventory are listed below. Vessel Boarding Program – Improved data gathered for frequent caller cruise vessels,

larger container ships, tankers and other vessel types. Anchorage Transit Times – Due to increased anchorage activity in 2015, specific distances

were used for each anchorage location rather than one average distance for all anchorage points.

Intra-Terminal Shift Maneuvering Times – Due to the increased number of shifts within terminals in 2015, average maneuvering times were determined for intra-terminal shifts. Previously, an overall average maneuvering time for all shifts including to/from anchor was used.

Main Engine Activity During Intra-Terminal Shifts – Main propulsion engine emissions were assumed to be “0” during intra-terminal shifts. According to port pilots, main engines are typically off due to the close proximity of these movements.

Diesel-Electric Cruise and Tanker Vessels – During shore power events, boilers were assumed to be in operation for diesel-electric cruise vessels; loads were assigned to boilers for diesel-electric tankers.

1 POLB. 2013 Air Emissions Inventory. www.polb.com/emissions 2 POLB. 2014 Air Emissions Inventory. www.polb.com/emissions

http://www.polb.com/emissions


Port of Long Beach ES-1 July 2016

At-Berth Emissions Reduction Technologies – Emissions associated with the mobilization, operation, and demobilization of CARB-approved at-berth emissions reduction technologies, Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS) and Marine Exhaust Emissions Treatment System (METS-1), were estimated using activity data and CARB emission reduction values.

Shore Power Activity Data – Shore power activity data, as reported by terminals, was used to estimate at-berth emissions.

Tanker Vessels – Tanker loading and discharging activity levels were updated for 2015.

Year-over-Year Emissions Comparisons Although the Port does not typically report year-over-year comparisons, Appendix A of the 2015 air emissions inventory report identifies and discusses factors that affected emissions in 2015 compared to 2014 levels. A temporary period of terminal congestion through the first quarter of 2015 resulted in emissions increases associated with ships at anchor and increased activity levels for various port-related sources. Please note that there may be minor inconsistencies, due to rounding, associated with emission estimates, percent contribution, and other calculated numbers between the various sections, tables, and figures of this report. All estimates are calculated using more digits than presented in the various sections.



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: Kevin Maggay, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Wilkin Mes, Carnival Cruise Lines Greg Bombard, Catalina Express 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 Joe Lockhart, Metro Cruise Services Robert Waterman, Metropolitan Stevedore (Metro Ports) Hun Nguyen, National Gypsum Otis Cliatt, Pacific Harbor Line Greg Peters, Pacific Harbor Line Grant Westmoreland, Pacific Tugboat Service Joe Gregorio, Jr., PCMC Olenka Palomo, SA Recycling Emile Shiff, Sause Brothers Bob Kelly, SSA Jeremy Anthony, SSA Bulk Terminals Ken Pope, Total Terminals International Barbara Welter, Toyota Albert Montano, Weyerhaueser



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (CONT'D) 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: Russell Furey, California Air Resources Board Vernon Hughes, California Air Resources Board Cory Parmer, California Air Resources Board Andrew Willey, California Air Resources Board Richard Carlson, South Coast Air Quality Management District 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: Allyson Teramoto, Project Manager Heather Tomley Renee Moilanen

Authors: Archana Agrawal, Principal, Starcrest

Guiselle Aldrete, Consultant, Starcrest Bruce Anderson, Principal, Starcrest Rose Muller, Consultant, Starcrest Joseph Ray, Principal, Starcrest

Contributors: Steve Ettinger, Principal, Starcrest Jill Morgan, Consultant, Starcrest Randall Pasek, Consultant, Starcrest Document Preparation: Denise Anderson, Consultant, Starcrest Cover: Melissa Silva, Principal, Starcrest Photos: Port of Long Beach Melissa Silva, Principal, Starcrest



TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-8 2015 Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory Results ......................................................... ES-8 Emissions Metrics ............................................................................................................................... ES-9 Progress towards CAAP Goals ....................................................................................................... ES-10

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1

Geographical Domain ...............................................................................................................................2 SECTION 2 OCEAN-GOING VESSELS ...........................................................................................................4

Source Description .....................................................................................................................................4 Geographical Domain ...............................................................................................................................4 Data and Information Acquisition ..........................................................................................................4 Emission Estimates ....................................................................................................................................5 Operational Profiles ...................................................................................................................................8

SECTION 3 HARBOR CRAFT ....................................................................................................................... 13

Source Description .................................................................................................................................. 13 Emissions Estimation Methodology .................................................................................................... 13 Geographical Domain ............................................................................................................................ 13 Data and Information Acquisition ....................................................................................................... 13 Emission Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 14 Operational Profiles ................................................................................................................................ 15

SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 17


SECTION 5 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES ..................................................................................................... 23




SECTION 6 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES ........................................................................................................ 28 Source Description .................................................................................................................................. 28 Emissions Estimation Methodology .................................................................................................... 28 Geographical Domain ............................................................................................................................ 28 Data and Information Acquisition ....................................................................................................... 29 Emission Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 29 Operational Profiles ................................................................................................................................ 30

SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF 2015 EMISSION RESULTS ................................................................................ 34 SECTION 8 COMPARISON OF 2015 AND 2005 FINDINGS AND EMISSION ESTIMATES ....................... 43

Ocean-Going Vessels ............................................................................................................................. 46 Harbor Craft ............................................................................................................................................ 46 Cargo Handling Equipment ................................................................................................................... 48 Locomotives ............................................................................................................................................. 51 Heavy-Duty Vehicles .............................................................................................................................. 52

SECTION 9 METRICS .................................................................................................................................... 53 SECTION 10 CAAP PROGRESS .................................................................................................................. 54 APPENDIX A: 2014-2015 EMISSIONS AND ACTIVITY COMPARISONS ................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B: REGULATORY AND SAN PEDRO BAY PORTS CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN (CAAP) MEASURES ................................................................................................................................................... B-1



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: 2015 Model Year Distribution of the Heavy-Duty Truck Fleet........................................ 30 Figure 7.1: 2015 PM10 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % ..................................................... 35 Figure 7.2: 2015 PM2.5 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % ..................................................... 35 Figure 7.3: 2015 DPM Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %..................................................... 35 Figure 7.4: 2015 NOx Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % ...................................................... 36 Figure 7.5: 2015 SOx Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, % ....................................................... 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES.1: 2005-2015 Air Emissions Comparison by Source Category ........................................ ES-8 Table ES.2: 2005-2015 Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison ................................ ES-9 Table ES.3: 2005-2015 Emissions Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per 10,000 TEU ................................................................................................... ES-9 Table ES.4: 2005-2015 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per 100,000 mt ..................................................................................................... ES-9 Table ES.5: 2005-2015 Emissions Reductions Compared to CAAP San Pedro Bay .................. ES-11

Table 2.1: 2015 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Vessel Type, tons ................................................... 5 Table 2.2: 2015 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Emissions Source, tons ......................................... 5 Table 2.3: 2015 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Mode, tons............................................................... 6 Table 2.4: 2015 Total OGV Activities .......................................................................................................... 7 Table 2.5: 2015 At-Berth Hotelling Times .................................................................................................. 8 Table 2.6: 2015 At-Anchorage Hotelling Times ......................................................................................... 9 Table 2.7: 2015 Average Auxiliary Load Defaults (except Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessels), by Mode, kW .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 2.8: 2015 Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessel Auxiliary Load Defaults by Mode, kW ..................... 11 Table 2.9: 2015 Auxiliary Boiler Load Defaults by Mode, kW .............................................................. 12 Table 3.1: 2015 Harbor Craft Emissions by Vessel and Engine Type ................................................. 14 Table 3.2: 2015 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Count ................................................................................... 15 Table 3.3: 2015 Main Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type ................................................... 16 Table 3.4: 2015 Auxiliary Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type ............................................ 16 Table 4.1: 2015 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tons and metric tons per year ......................... 18 Table 4.2: 2015 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tons and metric tons per year ...................... 19 Table 4.3: 2015 Engine Characteristics for All CHE Operating at the Port ....................................... 20 Table 4.4: 2015 CHE Engines by Fuel Type ............................................................................................ 21 Table 4.5: 2015 Count of Diesel-Powered CHE by Type and Engine Standard ............................... 21 Table 4.6: 2015 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Equipment Type ................................. 22 Table 5.1: 2015 Locomotive Estimated Emissions, tons ....................................................................... 24 Table 5.2: CARB MOU Compliance Data, Megawatt-hours (MW-hrs) and ...................................... 25 g NOx/hp-hr ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 5.3: Fleet MWhr and PM, HC, CO Emission Factors, g/hp-hr ................................................ 26 Table 5.4: Emission Factors for Line Haul Locomotives, g/hp-hr ...................................................... 26 Table 5.5: 2015 Estimated On-Port Line Haul Locomotive Activity .................................................. 27 Table 5.6: 2015 Gross Ton-Mile, Fuel Use, and Horsepower-hour Estimate .................................... 27 Table 6.1: 2015 HDV Emissions ............................................................................................................... 29 Table 6.2: 2015 HDV Emissions Associated with Container Terminals ............................................. 29 Table 6.3: 2015 HDV Emissions Associated with Other Port Terminals ........................................... 29



Table 6.4: 2015 Summary of Reported Container Terminal Operating Characteristics ................... 31 Table 6.5: 2015 Summary of Reported Non-Container Facility Operating Characteristics ............. 31 Table 6.6: 2015 Estimated On-Terminal VMT and Idling Hours by Terminal ................................. 32 Table 6.7: 2015 Speed-Specific Composite Exhaust Emission Factor, g/hr and g/mi .................... 33 Table 7.1: 2015 Emissions by Source Category ....................................................................................... 34 Table 7.2: 2015 Emissions Percent Contributions by Source Category .............................................. 34 Table 7.3: 2015 PM10 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons ........................................................... 37 Table 7.4: 2015 PM2.5 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and % .............................................. 38 Table 7.5: 2015 DPM Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and % .............................................. 39 Table 7.6: 2015 NOx Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and % ............................................... 40 Table 7.7: 2015 SOx Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, tons and % .......................... 41 Table 7.8: 2015 CO2e Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, metric tons and % .......... 42 Table 8.1: 2005-2015 Port Emissions Comparison by Source Category, tons and % ....................... 43 Table 8.2: 2005-2015 Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison........................................ 44 Table 8.3: 2005-2015 Emissions Comparison, tons and % ................................................................... 44 Table 8.4: 2005-2015 OGV Energy Consumption Comparison by Emission Source, kW-hrs....... 46 Table 8.5: 2005-2015 OGV Emission Reduction Strategies .................................................................. 46 Table 8.6: 2005-2015 Harbor Craft Count and Energy Consumption Comparison, kW-hrs, hours and %..................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 8.7: 2005-2015 Engine Power and Activity Change, % ............................................................... 47 Table 8.8: 2005-2015 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Change, % ................................................................. 47 Table 8.9: 2005-2015 CHE Count and Energy Consumption Comparison ....................................... 48 Table 8.10: 2005-2015 CHE Emission Reduction Technology Equipment Count Comparison .... 49 Table 8.11: 2005-2015 CHE Equipment Count by Fuel Type Comparison ....................................... 49 Table 8.12: 2005-2015 CHE Equipment Count and Change, % .......................................................... 50 Table 8.13: 2005-2015 CHE Activity by Equipment Type, hours and % ........................................... 50 Table 8.14: 2005-2015 CHE Average Model Year and Age Comparison, year .................................. 51 Table 8.15: 2005-2015 Container Throughput Comparison, TEU and % .......................................... 51 Table 8.16: 2005-2015 HDV Total Idling Time Comparison, hours and % ...................................... 52 Table 8.17: 2005-2015 HDV Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison, miles and % .............................. 52 Table 9.1: 2005-2015 Container and Cargo Throughput and Change, % ........................................... 53 Table 9.2: 2005-2015 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per 10,000 TEU and % ........................................................................................... 53 Table 9.3: 2005-2015 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per 100,000 mt of cargo and % ............................................................................. 53 Table 10.1: 2005-2015 Emissions Reductions Compared to CAAP San Pedro Bay Emissions Reduction Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 55 Table A.1: 2014-2015 Port Emissions Comparison by Source Category, tons and % .................... A-1 Table A.2: 2014-2015 TEU Throughput and OGV Movements Comparison ................................ A-2 Table A.3: OGV Energy Comparison by Mode, kW-hrs and % ........................................................ A-3 Table A.4: Harbor Craft Energy Comparison ........................................................................................ A-3 Table A.5: CHE Energy Comparison ..................................................................................................... A-4 Table A.6: 2014-2015 HDV Total Idling Time Comparison, hours and % ...................................... A-4 Table A.7: Fleet Average Emissions, g/mile .......................................................................................... A-5 Table B.1: OGV Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies ........................................................ B-2 Table B.2: Harbor Craft Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies ........................................... B-4 Table B.3: Cargo Handling Equipment Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies ................. B-5 Table B.4: Railroad Locomotives Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies ........................... B-6 Table B.5: Heavy-Duty Vehicles Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies ............................. B-7



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2015 Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory Results The results of the Port of Long Beach 2015 Air Emissions Inventory, including a comparison to the Port’s 2005 air emissions inventory, are presented in Table ES.1. To provide a valid comparison between the 2015 and 2005 emissions estimates, the 2005 base year emissions presented in this table were recalculated using the most up-to-date methodologies and data, if needed. For most of the source categories, the 2005 emissions are the same as those published in the 2014 Air Emissions Inventory (EI) report. In the table, metric tons (mt) are used for the CO2e emissions, while the other pollutants are shown in tons per year.

Table ES.1: 2005-2015 Air Emissions Comparison by Source Category

PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2etons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt

2005 Ocean-going vessels 720 577 605 6,726 6,865 537 236 389,510Harbor craft 45 41 45 1,107 5 294 70 44,746Cargo handling equipment 47 44 47 1,289 11 398 65 103,710Locomotives 43 40 43 1,273 76 179 66 60,579Heavy-duty vehicles 205 196 205 5,273 37 1,523 318 387,056Total 1,060 898 945 15,667 6,993 2,931 755 985,603

2015Ocean-going vessels 101 95 78 4,738 238 408 178 331,802Harbor craft 29 27 29 778 1 425 72 53,061Cargo handling equipment 10 9 9 591 2 721 44 126,889Locomotives 27 24 27 710 1 165 40 58,071Heavy-duty vehicles 6 6 6 1,395 3 96 26 279,182Total 173 161 148 8,212 244 1,815 360 849,005

Change between 2005 and 2015 (percent) Ocean-going vessels -86% -84% -87% -30% -97% -24% -25% -15%Harbor craft -34% -35% -34% -30% -87% 44% 3% 19%Cargo handling equipment -79% -80% -82% -54% -87% 81% -33% 22%Locomotives -38% -39% -38% -44% -99% -8% -40% -4%Heavy-duty vehicles -97% -97% -97% -74% -91% -94% -92% -28%Total -84% -82% -84% -48% -97% -38% -52% -14%



Table ES.2 compares vessel arrivals and container and cargo throughput at POLB in 2005 and 2015. Container throughput is up 7% relative to 2005 levels, while overall vessel arrivals to POLB are down 26%. The average number of containers per vessel call is up 54% which is indicative of larger vessels calling at POLB.

Table ES.2: 2005-2015 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 2015 7,192,066 1,988 924 7,767 Change (%) 7% -26% -31% 54%

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 non-containerized cargo, the metrics are based on total emissions versus TEU throughput and metric tons of cargo moved through the Port. Table ES.3 compares the total tons of emissions per 10,000 TEU in 2005 and 2015, while Table ES.4 compares the total tons of emissions per 100,000 metric tons in 2005 and 2015.

Table ES.3: 2005-2015 Emissions Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per

10,000 TEU

EI Year PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e

2005 1.58 1.34 1.41 23.35 10.42 4.37 1.13 1,469 2015 0.24 0.22 0.21 11.42 0.34 2.52 0.50 1,180 Change (%) -85% -83% -85% -51% -97% -42% -56% -20%

Table ES.4: 2005-2015 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per

100,000 mt


2005 1.35 1.14 1.20 19.94 8.90 3.73 0.96 1,255 2015 0.21 0.20 0.18 10.14 0.30 2.24 0.44 1,048 Change (%) -84% -82% -85% -49% -97% -40% -54% -16%



Progress towards CAAP Goals In addition to identifying and implementing specific emission-reduction strategies, the CAAP established emission reduction targets for 2014 and 2023. As a result of the implementation of CAAP measures and regulations promulgated at the state level, the 2014 San Pedro Bay Emission Reduction Standards were exceeded. The emission reductions achieved in 2015 also exceed the 2023 DPM and SOx San Pedro Bay Emission Reduction Standards. Table ES.5 summarizes the Port’s 2015 cumulative air emissions reductions of DPM, NOx, and SOx compared to the established CAAP San Pedro Bay Emissions Reduction Standards for 2014 and 2023.



Table ES.5: 2005-2015 Emissions Reductions Compared to CAAP San Pedro Bay

Category 2005

DPM (tons)Ocean-going vessels 605Harbor craft 45Cargo handling equipment 47Locomotives 43Heavy-duty vehicles 205Total 945

84%CAAP San Pedro Bay DPM Emissions Reduction Standards 2014 72%

77%

NOx (tons)Ocean-going vessels 6,726Harbor craft 1,107Cargo handling equipment 1,289Locomotives 1,273Heavy-duty vehicles 5,273Total 15,667

48%CAAP San Pedro Bay NOx Emissions Reduction Standards 2014 22%

59%

SOx (tons)Ocean-going vessels 6,865Harbor craft 5Cargo handling equipment 11Locomotives 76Heavy-duty vehicles 37Total 6,993

97%2014 93%

93%2023

213

244Cumulative SOx Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2015CAAP San Pedro Bay SOx Emissions Reduction Standards

1

591710

1,3958,212

Cumulative NOx Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2015

2023

238

778

9276

148Cumulative DPM Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2015

2023

4,738

29

2015

78


Port of Long Beach 1 July 2016

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 (EPA), Region 9, 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 (NOx) Oxides of sulfur (SOx) Hydrocarbons (HC) Carbon monoxide (CO) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)

Greenhouse gas (GHGs) 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 CO2. To normalize these values into a single greenhouse gas value, CO2e, the GHG emission estimates are multiplied by the following values and summed.3 CO2 – 1 CH4 – 25 N2O - 298

3 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013, April 2015



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



Emissions are estimated for activities within Port terminals and facilities.

Figure 1.2: Port of Long Beach Terminals



SECTION 2 OCEAN-GOING VESSELS Source Description Vessels are grouped by the type of cargo they transport:

Auto carrier Bulk carrier Containership Cruise vessel General cargo Reefer vessel Miscellaneous 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.

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. 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



Emission Estimates Summaries of the 2015 OGV emissions estimates are presented in Tables 2.1 through 2.3. Due to rounding, values may not add up to totals provided.

Table 2.1: 2015 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Vessel Type, tons

Vessel Type PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt Auto Carrier 3.2 3.0 2.9 171.2 5.9 15.9 7.0 8,188 Bulk 4.1 3.8 3.5 213.4 8.9 18.2 6.1 12,376 Containership 47.8 45.0 38.6 2,472.0 106.2 206.9 100.4 148,263 Cruise 9.2 8.6 8.7 456.0 17.4 38.2 15.3 24,261 General Cargo 1.0 1.0 0.9 47.9 2.0 4.4 1.8 2,768 Miscellaneous 4.2 4.0 3.8 213.5 8.5 17.1 6.3 11,768 Reefer 0.2 0.2 0.2 9.8 0.4 0.8 0.3 518 RoRo 0.7 0.6 0.0 10.6 3.0 1.1 0.5 4,152 Tanker 30.5 28.7 19.1 1,143.3 85.5 105.5 40.5 119,508 Total 100.8 94.9 77.8 4,737.8 237.7 408.2 178.2 331,802

Table 2.2: 2015 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Emissions Source, tons

Engine Type PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt Auxiliary Engine 55.1 51.8 55.1 2,609.2 98.4 237.9 86.5 136,252 Auxiliary Boiler 23.0 21.6 0.0 333.8 103.2 33.8 16.9 144,802 Main Engine 22.8 21.4 22.7 1,794.9 36.1 136.5 74.8 50,748 Total 100.8 94.9 77.8 4,737.8 237.7 408.2 178.2 331,802



Table 2.3: 2015 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Mode, tons

Mode Engine Type PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e

tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mtTransit Auxiliary Engine 7.8 7.4 7.8 386.0 14.0 33.7 12.3 19,325Transit Auxiliary Boiler 0.8 0.7 0.0 10.9 3.4 1.1 0.6 4,747Transit Main Engine 20.0 18.8 20.0 1,612.4 33.8 117.5 59.1 47,442Total Transit 28.6 26.9 27.8 2,009.4 51.2 152.3 71.9 71,513

Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine 2.9 2.7 2.9 137.7 5.1 12.3 4.5 7,060Maneuvering Auxiliary Boiler 0.3 0.2 0.0 3.8 1.2 0.4 0.2 1,637Maneuvering Main Engine 2.8 2.6 2.8 182.4 2.3 19.0 15.7 3,306Total Maneuvering 5.9 5.6 5.6 323.9 8.6 31.7 20.4 12,004

Hotelling at-berth Auxiliary Engine 26.9 25.3 26.9 1,277.5 48.0 116.2 42.2 66,515Hotelling at-berth Auxiliary Boiler 17.8 16.8 0.0 258.7 80.0 26.2 13.1 112,247Hotelling at-berth Main Engine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Total Hotelling at-berth 44.7 42.1 26.9 1,536.2 128.0 142.4 55.3 178,762

Hotelling at-anchorage Auxiliary Engine 17.5 16.5 17.5 807.9 31.3 75.7 27.5 43,351Hotelling at-anchorage Auxiliary Boiler 4.2 3.9 0.0 60.3 18.7 6.1 3.1 26,172Hotelling at-anchorage Main Engine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Total Hotelling at-anchorage 21.7 20.4 17.5 868.3 50.0 81.8 30.6 69,523Total 100.8 94.9 77.8 4,737.8 237.7 408.2 178.2 331,802



Table 2.4 presents the numbers of arrivals, departures, and shifts associated with vessels at the Port in 2015.

Table 2.4: 2015 Total OGV Activities

Vessel Type Arrival Departure Shift Total

Auto Carrier 182 182 19 383Bulk 162 169 202 533Bulk - Heavy Load 2 2 0 4Bulk - Self Discharging 7 7 2 16Container - 1000 104 104 49 257Container - 2000 91 91 33 215Container - 3000 91 93 23 207Container - 4000 90 91 33 214Container - 5000 146 147 31 324Container - 6000 11 8 3 22Container - 7000 6 6 4 16Container - 8000 158 161 55 374Container - 9000 96 94 36 226Container - 10000 74 73 26 173Container - 11000 44 45 15 104Container - 12000 1 1 1 3Container - 13000 12 14 9 35Cruise 259 259 0 518General Cargo 43 44 29 116Miscellaneous 0 0 2 2Reefer 6 4 8 18RoRo 3 3 2 8Tanker - Aframax 104 102 202 408Tanker - Chemical 100 100 170 370Tanker - Handysize 7 4 13 24Tanker - Panamax 78 97 156 331Tanker - Suezmax 73 71 137 281Tanker - ULCC 26 27 80 133Tanker - VLCC 12 12 38 62Total 1,988 2,011 1,378 5,377



Operational Profiles Hotelling times at-berth and at-anchorage during 2015 are shown in Tables 2.5 and 2.6.

Table 2.5: 2015 At-Berth Hotelling Times

Vessel Type Min Max Avg

Hours Hours HoursAuto Carrier 3.9 147.0 15.2Bulk - General 13.6 234.4 59.4Bulk - Heavy Load 144.8 237.8 191.3Bulk - Self Discharging 14.4 57.3 37.5Container - 1000 10.2 100.4 29.1Container - 2000 11.0 707.3 51.3Container - 3000 12.1 214.9 46.0Container - 4000 11.1 290.9 57.3Container - 5000 0.0 500.1 78.3Container - 6000 47.5 131.6 84.1Container - 7000 75.9 279.9 148.8Container - 8000 12.6 371.6 110.0Container - 9000 2.9 262.1 113.3Container - 10000 44.8 303.3 119.9Container - 11000 6.6 422.3 127.7Container - 12000 180.8 180.8 180.8Container - 13000 37.1 263.8 148.8Cruise 8.8 14.3 11.5General Cargo 9.6 135.7 45.4Miscellaneous 8,759.8 8,759.8 8,759.8Reefer 7.9 120.7 27.7RoRo 256.7 5,054.8 3,525.6Tanker - Aframax 16.1 198.2 39.2Tanker - Chemical 4.3 258.8 38.8Tanker - Handysize 23.2 61.3 39.4Tanker - Panamax 0.0 200.3 42.6Tanker - Suezmax 12.8 40.3 25.4Tanker - ULCC 14.6 65.8 30.1Tanker - VLCC 15.3 51.8 29.8



Table 2.6: 2015 At-Anchorage Hotelling Times

Anchorage

Vessel Type Min Max Avg ActivityHours Hours Hours Count

Auto Carrier 0.9 58.3 20.2 17Bulk - General 1.0 508.4 85.7 169Bulk - Heavy Load 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Bulk - Self Discharging 3.8 5.6 4.7 2Container - 1000 4.2 375.8 37.5 47Container - 2000 7.1 228.1 54.2 25Container - 3000 1.0 258.2 90.8 21Container - 4000 2.3 277.0 75.2 25Container - 5000 7.1 292.6 84.6 28Container - 6000 10.8 255.3 98.1 3Container - 7000 63.9 616.0 241.5 4Container - 8000 1.9 364.9 80.1 50Container - 9000 3.2 423.4 116.6 32Container - 10000 4.3 374.3 116.1 25Container - 11000 4.5 238.8 102.0 11Container - 12000 178.8 178.8 178.8 1Container - 13000 11.0 329.0 118.6 7Cruise 0.0 0.0 0.0 0General Cargo 3.3 681.0 72.0 25Miscellaneous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Reefer 14.8 108.3 46.5 5RoRo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Tanker - Aframax 0.0 542.1 52.6 180Tanker - Chemical 2.2 394.2 39.5 120Tanker - Handysize 0.3 116.3 34.8 12Tanker - Panamax 2.0 299.6 45.2 119Tanker - Suezmax 0.3 405.1 65.3 118Tanker - ULCC 5.1 360.3 92.3 60Tanker - VLCC 2.4 280.0 79.2 29



Table 2.7 presents the auxiliary engine load defaults by vessel type and by mode used to estimate emissions. Values in this table are based on VBP data. Diesel-electric cruise ship defaults are presented in Table 2.8. The methodology for calculating anchorage hotelling auxiliary engine load defaults for containerships was updated in 2015 based on a better understanding of typical anchorage loads in the VBP data. Table 2.7: 2015 Average Auxiliary Load Defaults (except Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessels), by

Mode, kW

Vessel Type Transit Maneuvering Berth Anchorage Hotelling HotellingAuto Carrier 1,079 2,391 1,284 1,079Bulk 313 822 210 313Bulk - Heavy Load 462 1,223 272 462Bulk - Self Discharging 305 807 179 305Container - 1000 957 2,245 720 957Container - 2000 985 2,188 1,039 1,012Container - 3000 747 2,562 641 694Container - 4000 1,403 2,472 1,136 1,270Container - 5000 1,333 4,487 1,107 1,220Container - 6000 1,248 2,567 832 1,040Container - 7000 1,220 2,721 845 1,033Container - 8000 1,457 3,249 1,008 1,233Container - 9000 1,458 2,323 924 1,191Container - 10000 1,318 1,791 981 1,150Container - 12000 2,500 4,500 2,000 2,250Container - 13000 2,349 4,755 1,459 1,904Cruise 5,445 8,711 5,445 5,445General Cargo 421 1,060 572 421Miscellaneous 793 2,100 467 793Reefer 630 1,889 1,091 630RoRo 132 396 229 132Tanker - Aframax 576 719 724 576Tanker - Chemical 611 833 967 611Tanker - Handysize 559 768 605 559Tanker - Panamax 596 801 679 596Tanker - Suezmax 860 1,288 2,509 860Tanker - ULCC 1,080 1,486 1,171 1,080Tanker - VLCC 1,080 1,486 1,171 1,080



Table 2.8: 2015 Diesel-Electric Cruise Vessel Auxiliary Load Defaults by Mode, kW

Passenger

Berth Count Transit Maneuvering Hotelling 1,500 3,500 3,500 3,000 1,500 < 2,000 7,000 7,000 6,500 2,000 < 2,500 10,500 10,500 9,500 2,500 < 3,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 3,000 < 3,500 11,500 11,500 10,500 3,500 < 4,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 4,000+ 13,000 13,000 12,000



Table 2.9 presents the 2015 load defaults for auxiliary boilers by vessel type and by mode.

Table 2.9: 2015 Auxiliary Boiler Load Defaults by Mode, kW

Vessel Type Transit Maneuvering Berth Anchorage Hotelling HotellingAuto Carrier 351 351 351 351Bulk 132 132 132 132Bulk - Self Discharging 132 132 132 132Bulk - Wood Chips 132 132 132 132Container - 1000 241 241 241 241Container - 2000 325 325 325 325Container - 3000 474 474 474 474Container - 4000 492 492 492 492Container - 5000 628 628 628 628Container - 6000 577 577 577 577Container - 7000 551 551 551 551Container - 8000 525 525 525 525Container - 9000 705 705 705 705Container - 10000 604 604 604 604Container - 12000 600 600 600 600Container - 13000 600 600 600 600Cruise 1,393 1,393 1,393 1,393General Cargo 135 135 135 135Ocean Tug 0 0 0 0Miscellaneous 137 137 137 137Reefer 255 255 255 255RoRo 243 243 243 243Tanker - Chemical 371 371 821 371Tanker - Handysize 371 371 2,586 371Tanker - Panamax 371 371 3,293 371Tanker - Aframax 371 371 5,030 371Tanker - Suezmax 371 371 5,843 371Tanker - VLCC 371 371 6,000 371Tanker - ULCC 371 371 6,000 371Tanker - All Diesel Electric 0 145 220 220



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 2015

4 POLB, www.polb.com/environment/air/emissions.asp



Emission Estimates Table 3.1 summarizes the estimated harbor craft vessel emissions by vessel type and engine type.

Table 3.1: 2015 Harbor Craft Emissions by Vessel and Engine Type

Harbor Craft Engine PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e Type tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt Assist tugboat Auxiliary 0.6 0.6 0.6 21.6 0.0 18.9 3.1 2,179

Propulsion 6.9 6.4 6.9 187.3 0.2 118.6 18.2 14,671

Assist tugboat Total

7.5 6.9 7.5 208.9 0.2 137.4 21.3 16,849 Crew Boat Auxiliary 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4 0.0 1.9 0.5 183

Propulsion 1.8 1.7 1.8 56.5 0.1 37.1 5.8 4,812

Crew boat Total

2.0 1.8 2.0 58.9 0.1 39.0 6.3 4,996 Excursion Auxiliary 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.0 1.7 0.4 193 Propulsion 0.3 0.3 0.3 10.9 0.0 8.4 1.2 947 Excursion Total

0.4 0.4 0.4 13.1 0.0 10.1 1.6 1,140

Ferry Auxiliary 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.1 0.0 1.7 0.5 182

Propulsion 5.3 4.9 5.3 144.7 0.1 92.2 14.0 11,175

Ferry Total

5.4 5.0 5.4 146.9 0.1 93.9 14.5 11,357 Government Auxiliary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 33

Propulsion 1.5 1.3 1.5 28.5 0.0 8.1 2.2 1,414

Government Total

1.5 1.4 1.5 29.3 0.0 8.6 2.3 1,447 Ocean tugboat Total Auxiliary 0.4 0.4 0.4 8.2 0.0 5.0 1.0 527

Propulsion 11.4 10.5 11.4 286.9 0.2 110.8 21.9 14,454

Ocean tugboat Total

11.8 10.9 11.8 295.1 0.2 115.8 22.9 14,980 Harbor tugboat Auxiliary 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.3 108

Propulsion 0.5 0.5 0.5 15.2 0.0 11.3 1.6 1,257

Harbor tugboat Total

0.6 0.5 0.6 16.5 0.0 12.3 1.8 1,365 Work boat Auxiliary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.2 67

Propulsion 0.2 0.2 0.2 8.5 0.0 7.4 1.0 859

Work boat Total

0.2 0.2 0.2 9.3 0.0 8.0 1.2 926 Harbor Craft Total

29.3 27.0 29.3 778.0 0.6 425.1 72.0 53,060



Operational Profiles Table 3.2 lists the marine engine count by tier and engine type in 2015.

Table 3.2: 2015 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Count

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 summarize the characteristics of main and auxiliary engines respectively, by vessel type operating at the Port in 2015. 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 2015 within the Port of Long Beach harbor only.

Auxiliary Propulsion TotalEngine Tier Engine Engine Engine

Count Count CountUnknown 7 7 14Tier 0 19 20 39Tier 1 11 30 41Tier 2 39 102 141Tier 3 64 20 84Total 140 179 319



Table 3.3: 2015 Main Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type

Table 3.4: 2015 Auxiliary Engine Characteristics by Harbor Craft Type

Harbor Vessel Engine Model year Horsepower Annual Operating HoursCraft Type Count Count Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum AverageAssist tugboat 15 31 1980 2014 2007 600 2,575 2,020 59 2,256 1,408Crew boat 17 41 2003 2012 2008 290 1,450 587 2 2,012 885Excursion 10 16 1982 2013 2006 70 650 356 0 2,100 896Ferry 12 26 1998 2013 2007 180 3,110 1,884 1,200 1,500 1,165Government 4 7 1985 2003 1992 645 965 825 220 2,200 959Ocean tugboat 11 22 1971 2012 1995 805 3,385 2,147 200 2,129 874Harbor tugboat 13 27 2005 2012 2009 250 1,500 769 46 1,090 411Work boat 5 9 2005 2013 2010 210 675 518 23 1,553 863Total 87 179

Propulsion Engines

Harbor Vessel Engine Model year Horsepower Annual Operating HoursCraft Type Count Count Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum AverageAssist tugboat 15 30 1980 2014 2010 107 557 208 40 3,119 1,729Crew boat 17 20 1980 2012 2006 13 107 55 178 2,243 958Excursion 10 7 2009 2012 2010 50 90 73 100 3,744 1,678Ferry 12 18 2003 2013 2008 18 120 67 750 1,500 783Government 4 7 1985 2003 1987 13 650 233 29 3,400 594Ocean tugboat 11 23 1975 2013 1999 60 550 157 200 1,680 787Harbor tugboat 13 24 1989 2012 2008 22 192 63 13 1,273 309Work boat 5 11 1968 2013 1999 27 101 69 1 1,939 793Total 87 140

Auxiliary Engines



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 NOx 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 2015 calendar year.

5 CARB, Appendix B: Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California, www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/cargo11/cargoappb.pdf, viewed 22 July 2015

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/cargo11/cargoappb.pdf



Emission Estimates A summary of CHE emissions by terminal type is presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: 2015 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tons and metric tons per year

Terminal Type PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e

tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mtAuto 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 20Break-Bulk 0.2 0.2 0.2 10.9 0.0 8.6 0.9 1,900Container 9.4 8.6 8.3 574.0 1.5 684.8 41.0 124,079Cruise 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 19.3 0.3 359Dry Bulk 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.9 0.0 7.0 1.2 453Liquid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.1 41Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 37Total 9.7 8.9 8.6 591.4 1.5 721.3 43.7 126,889



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: 2015 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tons and metric tons per year

Port Equipment Engine PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e

Type tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MTBulldozer Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 106Crane Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 17Excavator Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Forklift Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 9.1 0.0 7.3 0.6 1,209Forklift Gasoline 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 297Forklift Propane 0.1 0.1 0.0 5.9 0.0 17.7 1.7 599Loader Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.1 0.0 3.1 0.7 1,234Man lift Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 23Material handler Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Miscellaneous Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1Miscellaneous Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 6Rail pusher Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 69RTG crane Diesel 1.1 1.0 1.1 111.3 0.1 25.7 6.4 11,776Side handler Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 13.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 1,292Skid steer loader Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1Sweeper Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.1 295Sweeper Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.1 45Top handler Diesel 1.6 1.5 1.6 257.4 0.5 94.5 20.2 42,605Tractor Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1Tractor Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 17.6 0.3 224Truck Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 114Yard tractor Diesel 5.5 5.0 5.5 177.2 0.7 168.1 12.2 55,573Yard tractor Gasoline 1.0 0.9 0.0 5.8 0.1 375.9 0.5 11,389Yard tractor Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12Total 9.7 8.9 8.6 591.4 1.5 721.3 43.7 126,889



Operational Profiles Table 4.3 summarizes CHE data collected from the terminals for the 2015 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.

Table 4.3: 2015 Engine Characteristics for All CHE Operating at the Port

Equipment Engine Count

Type Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageBulldozer Diesel 2 92 200 146 2004 2012 2008 400 1,500 950Crane Diesel 2 177 334 256 1985 1991 1988 0 385 193Crane Electric 2 na na na 1980 2006 1993 na na naElectric pallet jack Electric 2 na na na 2013 2013 2013 na na naExcavator Diesel 2 322 371 347 2002 2005 2004 0 0 0Forklift Diesel 92 50 215 134 1990 2015 2007 10 2,624 543Forklift Electric 9 na na na 1995 2013 2003 na na naForklift Gasoline 14 na na na 2012 2013 2013 124 2,018 693Forklift Propane 103 45 122 86 1983 2015 2003 0 1,500 381Loader Diesel 10 50 402 281 1985 2013 2005 250 2,184 1,357Man Lift Diesel 6 62 75 68 2008 2014 2011 0 463 195Material handler Diesel 3 371 717 505 2001 2008 2005 0 0 0Material handler Electric 1 na na na 1995 1995 1995 na na naMiscellaneous Diesel 2 13 13 13 2010 2010 2010 22 164 93Miscellaneous Electric 3 na na na 1994 2008 2001 na na naMiscellaneous Propane 1 na na na 1998 1998 1998 0 0 0Rail pusher Diesel 3 150 260 202 2013 2013 2013 0 758 407RTG crane Diesel 64 515 1,043 698 1998 2013 2006 0 4,251 2,289Side handler Diesel 14 152 240 211 2000 2011 2004 0 2,629 1,255Skid steer loader Diesel 1 49 49 49 2008 2008 2008 94 94 94Sweeper Diesel 7 114 230 189 2002 2014 2007 47 2,353 547Sweeper Electric 1 na na na na na na na na naSweeper Propane 5 50 135 91 1982 2013 2001 30 600 196Top handler Diesel 170 174 375 296 1979 2015 2007 0 4,937 2,525Tractor Diesel 1 59 59 59 2009 2009 2009 80 80 80Tractor Propane 9 101 101 101 1986 1997 1995 58 1,125 667Truck Diesel 8 165 525 303 1990 2011 2003 0 526 212Truck Electric 5 na na na 2008 2009 2008 60 225 137Yard tractor, offroad Diesel 143 173 173 173 2001 2015 2006 0 3,545 1,876Yard tractor, onroad Diesel 392 173 250 207 2005 2014 2009 0 4,456 2,529Yard tractor, gasoline Gasoline 85 335 335 335 2011 2011 2011 0 2,032 1,386Yard tractor, propane Propane 7 173 173 173 2009 2009 2009 0 80 38Total 1,169

Power (hp) Model Year Annual Operating Hours



Table 4.4 is a summary of the CHE engines by fuel type. In 2015, 79% of CHE engines inventoried were diesel-powered, followed by 11% powered by propane and 8% by gasoline-fueled engines.

Table 4.4: 2015 CHE Engines by Fuel Type

Equipment Electric Propane Gasoline Diesel Total

Forklift 9 103 14 92 218 RTG crane 0 0 0 64 64 Side handler 0 0 0 14 14 Top handler 0 0 0 170 170 Yard tractor 0 7 85 535 627 Sweeper 1 5 0 7 13 Other 13 10 0 40 63 Total 23 125 99 922 1,169 Percent of Total 2% 11% 8% 79%

Table 4.5 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 4.5: 2015 Count of Diesel-Powered CHE by Type and Engine Standard

Equipment Type Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 On-road Total

Yard tractor 0 13 112 0 18 392 535 Forklift 5 26 20 29 12 0 92 Top handler 1 37 45 32 55 0 170 Other 5 3 8 7 13 4 40 RTG crane 0 27 12 5 20 0 64 Side handler 0 8 5 1 0 0 14 Sweeper 0 1 3 2 1 0 7 Total 11 115 205 76 119 396 922 Percent of Total 1% 12% 22% 8% 13% 43% 100%



Table 4.6 is a summary of the emission reduction technologies used on diesel-powered equipment. It should be noted that some equipment utilized more than one emission reduction technology. The majority of the emission reduction technologies were installed either voluntarily or in order to meet requirements of CARB’s Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards regulation adopted in 20056. Emission control technologies used on CHE operated at the Port include: CARB-verified Level 3 diesel particulate filters (DPF). Reduces PM by at least 85%, Vycon REGEN®, flywheel system for RTG cranes captures and stores breaking energy

generated when a container is lowered. The Vycon REGEN® is CARB-verified as a Level 1 device, reducing PM emissions by at least 25% and NOx emissions by 30%,

BlueCAT™ 3-way catalytic converter manufactured by NETT Technologies, Inc. is verified by CARB to reduce CO and NOx emissions from liquid propane gas and compressed natural gas-fueled large spark ignited engines7.

Table 4.6: 2015 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Equipment Type

Equipment DOC On-Road DPF Vycon BlueCAT

Installed Engines Installed Installed

Forklift 1 0 66 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 68 392 0 0 0 Sweeper 0 0 1 0 0 Other 0 4 13 0 8 Total 70 396 221 6 19

6 CARB, www.arb.ca.gov/regact/cargo2005/cargo2005.htm; Final rule posted on October 23, 2006 7 CARB, www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/orspark/documents/eog-09-013.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/cargo2005/cargo2005.htm



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 line haul transport (the movement of cargo over long distances) and switching which is the short movement of rail cars, such as the assembling and disassembling of trains in and around the Port. Class 1 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 2015 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, to its first point of rest within the SoCAB boundaries, directly to or from port-owned properties such as terminals and on-port rail yards, or to and from the SoCAB boundary. The first point of rest is defined as the location where cargo is first off-loaded from the transport device after leaving the Port, which seldom occurs within the SoCAB with rail transport because rail is most often used to transport cargo long distances, out of the SoCAB. 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. Please refer to Section 1 of this report for a description of the geographical domain of the emissions inventory with regard to locomotive operations.




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 CARB MOU line-haul fleet compliance data

Emission Estimates A summary of estimated emissions from locomotive operations related to the Port is presented in Tables 5.1.

Table 5.1: 2015 Locomotive Estimated Emissions, tons

PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt On-Port Emissions

Switching 0.3 0.3 0.3 24 0.03 8.8 1.5 2,991 Line Haul 7.5 6.8 7.5 194 0.17 43.8 10.9 15,474

On-Port Subtotal 7.8 7.1 7.8 218 0.20 52.6 12.4 18,465 Off-Port (Regional) Emissions

Switching 0.1 0.1 0.1 6 0.01 2.7 0.1 930 Line Haul 18.8 17.1 18.8 485 0.43 109.4 27.3 38,676

Off-Port Subtotal 18.9 17.2 18.9 491 0.44 112.0 27.4 39,606 Total 26.7 24.3 26.7 710 0.64 164.6 39.8 58,071

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 Air Emissions Inventory (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 NOx emission factor of 5.68 g/hp-hr.8 The 2014 reports were used instead of the 2015 because of the timing of the inventory data collection phase and of the posting of the compliance reports by CARB.

Table 5.2: CARB MOU Compliance Data, Megawatt-hours (MW-hrs) and g NOx/hp-hr

8 Notes from railroads’ MOU compliance submissions:

1. EPA locomotive emission standards: www.epa.gov/oms/locomotives.htm 2. Number of locomotives is the sum of all individual locomotives that visited or operated within the SoCAB at any time during 2014.

Number of Energy % Energy Weighted Tier ContributionTier Locomotives Consumption Consumption Average NOx to Fleet Average

MW-hrs by Tier g/hp-hr g/hp-hrBNSFPre-Tier 0 78 220 0.1% 13 0.01Tier 0 372 9,459 5% 7.7 0.37Tier 1 1,128 50,382 25% 6.4 1.62Tier 2 1,145 107,503 54% 4.6 2.48Tier 3 576 31,832 16% 4.6 0.73Tier 4 0 0 0% - -ULEL 0 0 0% - -Total BNSF 3,299 199,396 100% 5.2

UPPre-Tier 0 82 624 0.3% 12.6 0.04Tier 0 2,699 62,605 29% 7.8 2.30Tier 1 1,805 30,671 14% 6.7 0.97Tier 2 1,758 78,119 37% 5.1 1.87Tier 3 636 32,040 15% 4.7 0.71Tier 4 2 78 0.04% 1.18 0.00ULEL 61 8,476 4% 2.63 0.10Total UP 7,043 212,613 100% 6.0

ULEL Credit Used 0.5UP Fleet Average 5.5

Both RRs, excluding ULELs and ULEL creditsPre-Tier 0 160 844 0% 12.7 0.03Tier 0 3,071 72,063 18% 7.8 1.39Tier 1 2,933 81,054 20% 6.5 1.31Tier 2 2,903 185,623 46% 4.8 2.21Tier 3 1,212 63,871 16% 4.7 0.74Tier 4 2 78 0.02% 1.2 0.0002Total both 10,281 403,533 100% 5.68



Emission factors for particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and DPM), HC, and CO were calculated using the tier-specific emission rates for those pollutants published by EPA9 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

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

PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2 N2O CH4 EF, g/hp-hr 0.22 0.20 0.22 5.68 0.005 1.28 0.32 494 0.013 0.040

9 EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009

Engine Energy % ofTier Consumption Energy PM10 HC CO PM10 HC CO

MW-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hrPre-Tier 0 844 0% 0.32 0.48 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00Tier 0 72,063 18% 0.32 0.48 1.28 0.06 0.09 0.23Tier 1 81,054 20% 0.32 0.47 1.28 0.06 0.09 0.26Tier 2 185,623 46% 0.18 0.26 1.28 0.08 0.12 0.59Tier 3 63,871 16% 0.08 0.13 1.28 0.01 0.02 0.20Totals 403,533 100% 0.22 0.32 1.28

EPA Tier-specific EFs Fleet Composite EFs



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 2015 is summarized in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5: 2015 Estimated On-Port Line Haul Locomotive Activity

Activity Measure Inbound Outbound Total Trains per Year 2,679 2,621 5,300 Locomotives per Train 3 3 N/A Hours on Port per Trip 1 2.5 N/A Locomotive Hours per Year 8,037 19,659 27,696

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: 2015 Gross Ton-Mile, Fuel Use, and Horsepower-hour Estimate

MMGT-Distance Trains MMGT miles

miles per year per year per yearAlameda Corridor 21 4,926 36 756

84 4,926 36 3,024Million gross ton-miles 3,780Estimated gallons of fuel (millions) 3.74Estimated million horsepower-hours 77.8

Central LA to Air Basin Boundary



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 7.0% of the terminal calls in 2015, 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 2015 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) and CARB’s on-road vehicle emissions model “EMFAC” to develop emission rates based on 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 geographical domain for on-road trucks is from the Port to the cargo’s first point of rest within SoCAB or up to the basin boundary, whichever comes first.




Data and Information Acquisition For on-terminal truck activity, information is collected during in-person and/or telephone interviews with terminal personnel. For on-road operations, trip generation and travel demand models that have been developed to estimate the volumes (number of trucks) and average speeds on roadway segments between defined intersections are used. The model year distribution of HDV operating at the Port is developed using radio frequency identification (RFID) call information gathered at the Port terminals and truck/engine model year data from the Port Drayage Truck Registry (PTDR). 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: 2015 HDV Emissions

Vehicle

Activity Location Miles PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2 e

Traveled tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt

On-Terminal 2,656,642 0.2 0.2 0.2 163.8 0.2 23.3 7.1 22,899 On-Road 151,857,117 5.8 5.6 5.4 1,231.7 2.9 72.5 18.8 256,283 Total 154,513,759 6.0 5.8 5.6 1,395.5 3.1 95.8 25.9 279,182

Table 6.2: 2015 HDV Emissions Associated with Container Terminals

Vehicle



On-Terminal 2,608,623 0.2 0.2 0.2 160.9 0.2 22.8 7.0 22,487 On-Road 144,488,218 5.5 5.3 5.1 1,171.7 2.8 69.0 17.9 243,847 Total 147,096,840 5.8 5.5 5.4 1,332.6 3.0 91.8 24.8 266,334

Table 6.3: 2015 HDV Emissions Associated with Other Port Terminals

Vehicle



On-Terminal 48,019 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 412 On-Road 7,368,899 0.28 0.27 0.26 59.9 0.1 3.5 0.9 12,436 Total 7,416,918 0.29 0.27 0.27 62.9 0.1 3.9 1.0 12,848



Operational Profiles To estimate the 2015 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 truck fleet’s model years by calls is presented in Figure 6.1. The call weighted average age of the trucks in 2015 was approximately 5 years.

Figure 6.1: 2015 Model Year Distribution of the Heavy-Duty Truck Fleet

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%



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 non-container terminals and facilities.

Table 6.4: 2015 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 1.42 0.08 Minimum 5 0.5 0.03 0.29 0.00 Average 7 0.8 0.09 0.72 0.03

Table 6.5: 2015 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 6 0.2 0.01 0.1 0.01

In 2015, there were a total 3,225,176 truck calls associated with container terminals and 307,801 truck calls 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 2015, totaling 145,053 terminal calls. A temporary empty container depot was operational during 2015 and was put in place to allow the temporary storage of loaded containers and chassis, as well as empty containers until they could be received by the container terminals. The chassis yard is used for pickup, delivery and maintenance of chassis. 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 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: 2015 Estimated On-Terminal VMT and Idling Hours by Terminal

Total Total

Terminal Miles Hours IdlingType Traveled (all trips)Container 1,181,164 992,178Container 432,166 336,129Container 382,986 122,556Container 253,312 521,822Container 214,764 214,764Container 144,232 447,118Auto 5,656 9,721Break Bulk 3,362 2,824Break Bulk 3,000 960Break Bulk 1,500 0Break Bulk 24 0Dry Bulk 13,025 686Dry Bulk 40 440Liquid Bulk 5,500 4,400Liquid Bulk 3,000 360Liquid Bulk 1,350 0Other 7,800 22,100Other 3,763 7,075Total 2,656,642 2,683,131



Table 6.7 summarizes the speed-specific emission factors used to estimate emissions.

Table 6.7: 2015 Speed-Specific Composite Exhaust Emission Factor, g/hr and g/mi

Speed PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2 N2O CH4 Units(mph)0 (Idle) 0.0085 0.0081 0.0079 36.7915 0.0484 3.1039 1.1162 5,119 0.1647 0.0657 g/hr

5 0.0731 0.0700 0.0680 19.7725 0.0174 5.1361 1.3800 3,505 0.0624 0.0812 g/mi10 0.0659 0.0631 0.0613 16.8087 0.0174 4.1567 1.1147 3,123 0.0624 0.0656 g/mi15 0.0568 0.0543 0.0528 13.0560 0.0174 2.9172 0.7777 2,639 0.0624 0.0457 g/mi20 0.0507 0.0485 0.0472 10.5826 0.0174 2.1042 0.5579 2,319 0.0624 0.0328 g/mi25 0.0462 0.0442 0.0430 9.2869 0.0174 1.5457 0.4093 2,114 0.0624 0.0241 g/mi30 0.0426 0.0408 0.0396 8.5455 0.0174 1.1445 0.3026 1,972 0.0624 0.0178 g/mi35 0.0398 0.0380 0.0370 8.0025 0.0174 0.8490 0.2239 1,860 0.0624 0.0132 g/mi40 0.0374 0.0358 0.0348 7.5816 0.0174 0.6316 0.1657 1,770 0.0624 0.0097 g/mi45 0.0354 0.0339 0.0329 7.2405 0.0174 0.4717 0.1228 1,695 0.0624 0.0072 g/mi50 0.0337 0.0322 0.0313 6.9583 0.0174 0.3544 0.0912 1,631 0.0624 0.0054 g/mi55 0.0323 0.0309 0.0300 6.7232 0.0174 0.2686 0.0679 1,576 0.0624 0.0040 g/mi60 0.0317 0.0303 0.0295 6.6221 0.0174 0.2349 0.0586 1,551 0.0624 0.0034 g/mi65 0.0317 0.0303 0.0295 6.6485 0.0174 0.2349 0.0586 1,551 0.0624 0.0034 g/mi70 0.0317 0.0303 0.0295 6.6688 0.0174 0.2349 0.0586 1,551 0.0624 0.0034 g/mi



SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF 2015 EMISSION RESULTS The emission results for the Port of Long Beach 2015 Air Emissions Inventory are presented in this section. Table 7.1 summarizes the 2015 goods movement-related emissions associated with the Port in the South Coast Air Basin by category.

Table 7.1: 2015 Emissions by Source Category

Category PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e

tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt

Ocean-going vessels 101 95 78 4,738 238 408 178 331,802 Harbor craft 29 27 29 778 1 425 72 53,061 Cargo handling equipment 10 9 9 591 2 721 44 126,889 Locomotives 27 24 27 710 1 165 40 58,071 Heavy-duty vehicles 6 6 6 1,395 3 96 26 279,182 Total 173 161 148 8,212 244 1,815 360 849,005

Table 7.2: 2015 Emissions Percent Contributions by Source Category

Source Category DPM NOx SOx CO2e

tons % tons % tons % mt % Ocean-going vessels 78 53% 4,738 58% 238 98% 331,802 39% Harbor craft 29 20% 778 9% 1 0% 53,061 6% Cargo handling equipment 9 6% 591 7% 2 1% 126,889 15% Rail locomotives 27 18% 710 9% 1 0% 58,071 7% Heavy-duty vehicles 6 4% 1,395 17% 3 1% 279,182 33% Total 148 100% 8,212 100% 244 100% 849,005 100%

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 2012 AQMP10. It should be noted that SoCAB PM10 and PM2.5 emissions for on-road vehicles include brake and tire wear emissions whereas the Port’s HDV emissions do not.

10 SCAQMD, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan Appendix III, Base & Future Year Emissions Inventories, February 2013



Figure 7.1: 2015 PM10 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %

Figure 7.2: 2015 PM2.5 Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %

Figure 7.3: 2015 DPM Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %



Figure 7.4: 2015 NOx Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %

Figure 7.5: 2015 SOx Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, %



Table 7.3: 2015 PM10 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons

Category Subcategory PM10 Category Port SoCAB

AQMPOGV Auto carrier 3 3% 2% 0.01%OGV Bulk vessel 4 4% 2% 0.01%OGV Containership 48 47% 28% 0.08%OGV Cruise 9 9% 5% 0.02%OGV General cargo 1 1% 1% 0.00%OGV Miscellaneous 4 4% 2% 0.01%OGV Reefer 0 0% 0% 0.00%OGV RoRo 1 1% 0% 0.00%OGV Tanker 31 30% 18% 0.05%OGV Subtotal 101 100% 58% 0.18%Harbor Craft Assist tug 8 26% 4% 0.01%Harbor Craft Harbor tug 1 2% 0% 0.00%Harbor Craft Ferry 5 18% 3% 0.01%Harbor Craft Ocean tugboat 12 40% 7% 0.02%Harbor Craft Government 2 5% 1% 0.00%Harbor Craft Excursion 0 1% 0% 0.00%Harbor Craft Crewboat 2 7% 1% 0.00%Harbor Craft Work boat 0 1% 0% 0.00%Harbor Craft Subtotal 29 100% 17% 0.05%CHE RTG crane 1 11% 1% 0.00%CHE Forklift 0 2% 0% 0.00%CHE Top handler, side pick 2 17% 1% 0.00%CHE Other 0 3% 0% 0.00%CHE Yard tractor 6 67% 4% 0.01%CHE Subtotal 10 100% 6% 0.02%Locomotives Switching 0.4 2% 0% 0.00%Locomotives Line haul 26.3 98% 15% 0.05%Locomotives Subtotal 27 100% 15% 0.05%HDV On-Terminal 0.2 4% 0% 0.00%HDV On-road 5.8 96% 3% 0.01%HDV Subtotal 6 100% 3% 0.01%Port Total 173 100% 0.3%SoCAB AQMP Total 57,141

Percent PM10 Emissions of Total



Table 7.4: 2015 PM2.5 Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and %

Category Subcategory PM2.5 Category Port SoCAB


Percent PM2.5 Emissions of Total



Table 7.5: 2015 DPM Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and %

Category Subcategory DPM Category Port SoCAB


Percent DPM Emissions of Total



Table 7.6: 2015 NOx Emissions Percentage Comparison, tons and %

Category Subcategory NOx Category Port SoCAB

AQMPOGV Auto carrier 171 4% 2% 0.1%OGV Bulk vessel 213 5% 3% 0.1%OGV Containership 2,472 52% 30% 1.4%OGV Cruise 456 10% 6% 0.3%OGV General cargo 48 1% 1% 0.0%OGV Miscellaneous 214 5% 3% 0.1%OGV Reefer 10 0% 0% 0.0%OGV RoRo 11 0% 0% 0.0%OGV Tanker 1,143 24% 14% 0.6%OGV Subtotal 4,738 100% 58% 2.7%Harbor Craft Assist tug 209 27% 3% 0.1%Harbor Craft Harbor tug 16 2% 0% 0.0%Harbor Craft Ferry 147 19% 2% 0.1%Harbor Craft Ocean tugboat 295 38% 4% 0.2%Harbor Craft Government 29 4% 0% 0.0%Harbor Craft Excursion 13 2% 0% 0.0%Harbor Craft Crewboat 59 8% 1% 0.0%Harbor Craft Work boat 9 1% 0% 0.0%Harbor Craft Subtotal 778 100% 9% 0.4%CHE RTG crane 111 19% 1% 0.1%CHE Forklift 15 3% 0% 0.0%CHE Top handler, side pick 270 46% 3% 0.2%CHE Other 11 2% 0% 0.0%CHE Yard tractor 183 31% 2% 0.1%CHE Subtotal 591 100% 7% 0.3%Locomotives Switching 30 4% 0% 0.0%Locomotives Line haul 680 96% 8% 0.4%Locomotives Subtotal 710 100% 9% 0.4%HDV On-Terminal 164 12% 2% 0.1%HDV On-road 1,232 88% 15% 0.7%HDV Subtotal 1,395 100% 17% 0.8%Port Total 8,212 100% 4.6%SoCAB AQMP Total 178,127

Percent NOx Emissions of Total



Table 7.7: 2015 SOx Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, tons and %

Category Subcategory SOx Category Port SoCAB

AQMPOGV Auto carrier 6 2% 2% 0%OGV Bulk vessel 9 4% 4% 0%OGV Containership 106 45% 44% 2%OGV Cruise 17 7% 7% 0%OGV General cargo 2 1% 1% 0%OGV Miscellaneous 8 4% 3% 0%OGV Reefer 0 0% 0% 0%OGV RoRo 3 1% 1% 0%OGV Tanker 86 36% 35% 1%OGV Subtotal 238 100% 97.6% 4%Harbor Craft Assist tug 0.19 32% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Harbor tug 0.02 3% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Ferry 0.13 21% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Ocean tugboat 0.17 28% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Government 0.02 3% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Excursion 0.01 2% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Crewboat 0.06 9% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Work boat 0.01 2% 0% 0%Harbor Craft Subtotal 1 100% 0% 0%CHE RTG crane 0.1 9% 0% 0%CHE Forklift 0.0 1% 0% 0%CHE Top handler, side pick 0.5 34% 0% 0%CHE Other 0.0 1% 0% 0%CHE Yard tractor 0.8 55% 0% 0%CHE Subtotal 2 100% 1% 0%Locomotives Switching 0.0 6% 0% 0%Locomotives Line haul 0.6 94% 0% 0%Locomotives Subtotal 1 100% 0% 0%HDV On-Terminal 0.2 6% 0% 0%HDV On-road 2.9 94% 1% 0%HDV Subtotal 3 100% 1% 0%Port Total 244 100% 3.7%SoCAB AQMP Total 6,672

Percent SOx Emissions of Total



Table 7.8: 2015 CO2e Emissions by Category Percentage Comparison, metric tons and %

Category Subcategory CO2e Category Port

OGV Auto carrier 8,188 2% 1%OGV Bulk vessel 12,376 4% 1%OGV Containership 148,263 45% 17%OGV Cruise 24,261 7% 3%OGV General cargo 2,768 1% 0%OGV Miscellaneous 11,768 4% 1%OGV Reefer 518 0% 0%OGV RoRo 4,152 1% 0%OGV Tanker 119,508 36% 14%OGV Subtotal 331,802 100% 39%Harbor Craft Assist tug 16,849 32% 2%Harbor Craft Harbor tug 1,365 3% 0%Harbor Craft Ferry 11,357 21% 1%Harbor Craft Ocean tugboat 14,980 28% 2%Harbor Craft Government 1,447 3% 0%Harbor Craft Excursion 1,140 2% 0%Harbor Craft Crewboat 4,996 9% 1%Harbor Craft Work boat 926 2% 0%Harbor Craft Subtotal 53,061 100% 6%CHE RTG crane 11,776 9% 1%CHE Forklift 2,105 2% 0%CHE Top handler, side pick 43,897 35% 5%CHE Other 2,137 2% 0%CHE Yard tractor 66,974 53% 8%CHE Subtotal 126,889 100% 15%Locomotives Switching 3,921 7% 0%Locomotives Line haul 54,150 93% 6%Locomotives Subtotal 58,071 100% 7%HDV On-Terminal 22,899 8% 3%HDV On-road 256,283 92% 30%HDV Subtotal 279,182 100% 33%Port Total 849,005 100%

Percent Emissions of Total



SECTION 8 COMPARISON OF 2015 AND 2005 FINDINGS AND EMISSION ESTIMATES This section compares the emission estimates for 2015 and 2005. Each source category is highlighted in a separate subsection that compares findings for that source category and presents the emission comparisons. When there was a change in an emissions estimation methodology in 2015, the 2005 emissions were recalculated using 2005 activity data with the new methodology to provide a valid basis for comparison. Due to rounding, the values may not add up to the whole number values for the percentage change or total emissions at the bottom of each table.

Table 8.1: 2005-2015 Port Emissions Comparison by Source Category, tons and %

PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2etons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt

2005 Ocean-going vessels 720 577 605 6,726 6,865 537 236 389,510Harbor craft 45 41 45 1,107 5 294 70 44,746Cargo handling equipment 47 44 47 1,289 11 398 65 103,710Locomotives 43 40 43 1,273 76 179 66 60,579Heavy-duty vehicles 205 196 205 5,273 37 1,523 318 387,056Total 1,060 898 945 15,667 6,993 2,931 755 985,603


Change between 2005 and 2015 (percent) Ocean-going vessels -86% -84% -87% -30% -97% -24% -25% -15%Harbor craft -34% -35% -34% -30% -87% 44% 3% 19%Cargo handling equipment -79% -80% -82% -54% -87% 81% -33% 22%Locomotives -38% -39% -38% -44% -99% -8% -40% -4%Heavy-duty vehicles -97% -97% -97% -74% -91% -94% -92% -28%Total -84% -82% -84% -48% -97% -38% -52% -14%



Additionally, this section identifies key factors that affected emissions in 2015 compared to 2014. These factors include: Increased at-berth and anchorage times associated with the temporary period of increased

congestion in the first quarter of 2015. Increased number of OGV intra-terminal shifts and shifts from anchorage. Increased cargo throughput and activity performed by the all port-related sources (in kw-hr). Lower harbor craft fleet turnover.

Table 8.2 provides a comparison of the number of vessel calls and container cargo throughput as well as the average TEUs per containership call between 2005 and 2015. Container throughput is up 7% relative to 2005 levels, while overall vessel arrivals to POLB are down 26%. The average number of containers per vessel call is up 54% which is indicative of larger vessels calling at POLB.

Table 8.2: 2005-2015 Container Throughput and Vessel Call Comparison

Cargo Container

Year Metric Throughput All Containership Average

Tons TEUs Arrivals Arrivals TEUs/Call

2005 78,560,726 6,709,818 2,690 1,332 5,037 2015 81,013,145 7,192,069 1,988 924 7,784 Change (%) 3% 7% -26% -31% 55%

Table 8.3 presents the total net change in emissions for all source categories in 2015 compared to 2005.

Table 8.3: 2005-2015 Emissions Comparison, tons and %


tons tons tons tons tons tons tons mt

2005 1,060 898 945 15,667 6,993 2,931 755 985,603 2015 173 161 148 8,212 244 1,815 360 849,005 Change -887 -737 -797 -7,455 -6,749 -1,116 -395 -136,598 Change (%) -84% -82% -84% -48% -97% -38% -52% -14%



The following summarizes the comparison of 2005 and 2015 emissions by source category. Ocean-Going Vessels Emissions from OGV were lower in 2015 compared to 2005 levels as a result of significant increased participation in the Port’s Vessel Speed Reduction program, implementation of the Green Flag incentive program, CARB OGV low sulfur marine fuel regulation requiring distillate fuels with a maximum sulfur content of 0.1%, North American Control Area (ECA), and implementation of the CARB Vessel At-Berth shore power regulation. Harbor Craft Harbor craft emissions of PM, NOx and SOx decreased due to the use of newer engines in 2015 and lower sulfur content of the fuel used. The increase in CO emissions is related to the impact from the introduction of cleaner engines that do not have lower CO standards. The increase in CO2e emissions can generally be attributed to increased activity in the early part of 2015 associated with the temporary period of terminal congestion. Cargo Handling Equipment Cargo handling equipment emissions decreased for all pollutants, except for CO and CO2e. The Continued replacement and retrofit of existing equipment with cleaner engines and implementation of CAAP measures and the CARB CHE regulation resulted in decreased emissions. The increase in CO emissions from cargo handling equipment is attributed to the addition of several gasoline-fuel yard tractors with higher CO emission rates compared to diesel yard tractors. In addition, the number of installed DOCs which provide for CO reductions has decreased. The increase in CO2 emissions can be generally attributed to increased activity associated with the temporary period of terminal congestion in the early part of 2015. Locomotives Emissions from rail locomotives were lower in 2015 compared to 2005 due in part to the turnover of locomotives to cleaner ultra-low emissions switching locomotives in the PHL and UP fleets. In addition, increased cargo movement by trains, use of cleaner fuels, and cleaner line haul locomotives by both UP and BNSF contributed to the reduced emissions. Heavy-Duty Vehicles Truck emissions were significantly lower in 2015 compared to 2005 due to the implementation the Port’s Clean Trucks Program requiring the use of trucks that meet cleaner on-road engine emission standards. Other factors include lower overall reported idling time due to gate automation and improvements since 2005, and decreased total vehicle miles travelled due to the increase in utilization of on-dock rail and changes in regional travel patterns.



Ocean-Going Vessels Overall energy consumption (in terms of kW-hrs) by OGV emission source in 2005 and 2015 are shown in Table 8.4. Table 8.4: 2005-2015 OGV Energy Consumption Comparison by Emission Source, kW-hrs

Year All Emission Main Auxiliary Boiler

Sources Engine Engine

2005 507,488,985 153,369,455 229,580,036 124,539,494 2015 432,382,550 82,709,726 196,276,757 153,396,067 Change (%) -15% -46% -15% 23%

The various emission reduction strategies for ocean-going vessels that were in effect in 2015 are listed in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5: 2005-2015 OGV Emission Reduction Strategies

Harbor Craft As shown in Table 8.6, the harbor craft population count operating at the Port decreased by 5%. In addition, there was a 6% increase in total engine count (most harbor craft are equipped with more than one engine), and a 19% increase in the overall energy consumption (as measured by kilowatt hours) from 2005 to 2015.

Table 8.6: 2005-2015 Harbor Craft Count and Energy Consumption Comparison, kW-hrs, hours and %

Year Vessel Engine Total Total Count Count kW-hrs hours

2005 92 301 67,684,712 285,586 2015 87 319 80,261,024 302,853 Change (%) -5% 6% 19% 6%

Year Slide Valve IMO Fuel Switch Fuel Switch VSR VSR Shore Tier I+ Aux Eng Main Eng 20 nm 40 nm Power

2005 14% 36% 14% 0% 68% 0% 0%2015 43% 81% 100% 100% 96% 88% 37%

Percent (%) of All Calls



Table 8.7 compares the changes in propulsion and auxiliary engine average horsepower and usage hours in 2015 compared to 2005. Some of the changes in horsepower and hours may be attributed to improvement in data collection and better record keeping required with grant funded engine replacement projects. The engine power (HP) and hours (hrs) change impacts the activity (kilowatt hours) comparison.

Table 8.7: 2005-2015 Engine Power and Activity Change, %

Harbor Craft Propulsion Engines Auxiliary Engines

Type hp hours hp hours Assist tugboat -1% 1% 60% 24% Crew boat 47% 26% 53% 77% Excursion -46% -21% -32% -33% Ferry 6% -3% 37% -9% Government 43% -74% -64% -11% Ocean tugboat 8% 198% 3% 169% Harbor tugboat -25% -50% -18% -64% Work boat 48% 590% 283% 1369%

Table 8.8 summarizes the distribution of engines based on EPA’s engine standards for 2005 and 2015. Since 2005, the percentage of Tier 2 engines increased significantly due to the introduction of newer vessels with newer engines into the fleet and replacements of existing higher-emitting engines with cleaner engines. In coming years, there will be an increase of Tier 3 engines as these are becoming more widely available and will be the Tier of choice when repowering a vessel. Over the years, with better data collection techniques and better record keeping required with grant funded repowers, the number of engines of unknown tier level has decreased significantly.

Table 8.8: 2005-2015 Harbor Craft Engine Tier Change, %

2005 2015

Engine Tier Engine Engine Change

Count Count

Unknown 102 14 -86% Tier 0 86 39 -55% Tier 1 94 41 -56% Tier 2 19 141 642% Tier 3 0 84 na Total 301 319



Cargo Handling Equipment Between 2005 and 2015, there was a 7% decrease in the equipment count and a 20% increase in energy consumption, measured as total kilowatt-hours.

Table 8.9: 2005-2015 CHE Count and Energy Consumption Comparison

Energy

Year Population Consumption

kW-hrs

2005 1,259 134,511,925 2015 1,169 161,889,861 Change (%) -7% 20%

Tables 8.10 and 8.11 compare the CHE emission reduction technologies and fuels used in 2015 with those used in 2005. There was a significant increase in the number of CHE equipped with cleaner on-road engines in 2015. CHE equipped with DOCs continued to be replaced with newer equipment, thus the DOC count is less than it was in 2005. All of the DPFs installed are Tier 3 level. Although not shown in Table 8.11, there are 85 gasoline yard tractors in 2015. The gasoline yard tractors replaced existing diesel yard tractors.



Table 8.10: 2005-2015 CHE Emission Reduction Technology Equipment Count Comparison

2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015

Equipment DOC DOC On-road On-road DPF DPF Vycon Vycon BlueCAT BlueCAT

Engine Engine

Forklift 40 1 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 11 RTG crane 11 0 0 0 0 31 0 6 0 0 Side handler 42 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 Top handler 92 1 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 Yard tractor 514 68 53 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 2 0 0 4 0 14 0 0 0 8 Total 701 70 53 396 0 221 0 6 0 19

Table 8.11: 2005-2015 CHE Equipment Count by Fuel Type Comparison

2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 Equipment Emulsified Emulsified O2 O2 ULSD ULSD Propane Propane

Fuel Fuel Diesel Diesel Engine Engine Forklift 3 0 4 0 0 92 122 103 RTG crane 16 0 12 0 0 64 0 0 Side handler 4 0 8 0 0 14 0 0 Top handler 10 0 10 0 0 170 0 0 Yard tractor 151 0 81 0 0 535 0 7 Other 2 0 0 0 0 47 11 15 Total 186 0 115 0 0 922 133 125



The following tables and figures for CHE activities are included as additional comparisons between 2005 and 2015. Table 8.12 shows a comparison of CHE counts by equipment type. In total, there was a 7% decrease in equipment count from 2005 to 2015. Except for top handlers, all equipment counts went down from 2005 due to equipment retirement, and terminal efficiency improvements.

Table 8.12: 2005-2015 CHE Equipment Count and Change, %

Equipment 2005 2015 Change

Forklift 295 218 -26% RTG crane 85 64 -25% Side handler 43 14 -67% Top handler 113 170 50% Yard tractor 641 627 -2% Sweeper 15 13 -13% Other 67 63 -6% Total 1,259 1,169 -7%

Table 8.13 shows the comparison of CHE activity by equipment type. The average annual hours of activity for RTG cranes, side handlers, and top handlers, were higher in 2015 as compared to 2005. The average annual hours of activity for forklifts, yard tractors, and sweepers were lower in 2015 as compared to 2005.

Table 8.13: 2005-2015 CHE Activity by Equipment Type, hours and %

Equipment 2005 2015 Change

Forklift 710 539 -24% RTG crane 1,964 2,289 17% Side handler 1,148 1,255 9% Top handler 1,999 2,525 26% Yard tractor 2,186 1,457 -33% Sweeper 502 372 -26%



Table 8.14 shows a comparison of the average model year and average age for CHE by equipment type. The average age of forklifts and RTG cranes is lower than in 2005. The average age of side handlers, top handlers, and yard tractors are higher in 2015 than 2005 even though the average model year of the equipment is newer.

Table 8.14: 2005-2015 CHE Average Model Year and Age Comparison, year

Equipment MY MY Age Age

2005 2015 2005 2015

Forklift 1993 2007 12 9 RTG crane 1995 2006 10 9 Side handler 1999 2004 6 11 Top handler 2001 2007 4 8 Yard tractor 2001 2009 4 6 Sweeper 1996 2004 9 11

Locomotives Table 8.15 shows the various throughput comparisons for rail transportation in 2005 and 2015. There was little difference in total port throughput between calendar years 2005 and 2015, but on-dock rail throughput was higher in 2015 than in 2005, with the percentage of on-dock rail increasing from 16% of all container throughput to 22%.

Table 8.15: 2005-2015 Container Throughput Comparison, TEU and %

2005 2015 Change

Total Port Throughput 6,709,818 7,192,069 7% Total On-Dock Rail* 1,094,765 1,918,654 75% % On-Dock 16% 27%

*Based on average of 1.8 TEUs per container



Heavy-Duty Vehicles There was no methodological change from the previous emissions inventory in estimating HDV emissions. Emissions from the HDV source category continue to be far lower than in 2005 due largely to the following factors affecting the overall age of the truck fleet and average idling times compared with 2005. Newer fleet of trucks due to the Port's Clean Trucks Program (CTP). The terminals optimized their gate systems and use radio frequency identification (RFID)

readers to identify and help check in trucks complying with the CTP ban provisions, which helped reduce idling time.

Table 8.16 shows total port-wide idling times reported in 2005 and 2015. Table 8.17 compares the vehicle miles traveled by heavy-duty trucks in 2005 and 2015.

Table 8.16: 2005-2015 HDV Total Idling Time Comparison, hours and %

Table 8.17: 2005-2015 HDV Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison, miles and %

Activity Location 2005 VMT 2015 VMT Change

% On-Terminal 2,866,476 2,656,642 -7% On-Road 213,716,895 151,857,117 -29%

216,583,371 154,513,759 -29% Compared to 2005, the average age of trucks visiting the Port has decreased from 11 to 5 years due to the Port’s Clean Trucks Program launched in October 2008 requiring the progressive ban of pre-2007 trucks between 2008 and 2015.

TotalEI Year Idling Time

(hours)2005 3,854,2732015 2,683,131Change (%) -30%



SECTION 9 METRICS To measure the effectiveness of emissions reduction strategies and progress towards the San Pedro Bay Emission Reduction Standards, the Port has established metrics to track emissions per unit of work by source category. Since port operations are varied with a mix of container and non-container cargo, the metrics listed in this section are based on TEU throughput and metric tons of cargo moved through the Port. Table 9.1 compares the amount of throughput in 2015 and 2005 in TEU and metric tons.

Table 9.1: 2005-2015 Container and Cargo Throughput and Change, %

Cargo Throughput

Year Container Total

TEU mt

2005 6,709,818 78,560,726 2015 7,192,069 81,013,145 Change (%) 7% 3%

Tables 9.2 and 9.3 show the port-wide tons of emissions per 10,000 TEU and per 100,000 metric tons of cargo in 2005 and 2015, respectively. The tons of emissions per 10,000 TEU of cargo decreased in 2015; an improvement from 2005.

Table 9.2: 2005-2015 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per 10,000 TEU and %

Year PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e 2005 1.58 1.34 1.41 23.35 10.42 4.37 1.13 1,469 2015 0.24 0.22 0.21 11.42 0.34 2.52 0.50 1,180 Change (%) -85% -83% -85% -51% -97% -42% -56% -20%

Table 9.3: 2005-2015 Emission Efficiency Metric Comparison, emissions tons or mt per

100,000 mt of cargo and %

Year PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e 2005 1.35 1.14 1.20 19.94 8.90 3.73 0.96 1,255 2015 0.21 0.20 0.18 10.14 0.30 2.24 0.44 1,048 Change (%) -84% -82% -85% -49% -97% -40% -54% -16%



SECTION 10 CAAP PROGRESS The Port’s annual emissions inventories serve as the primary tool to track progress towards achieving the Clean Air Action Plan's San Pedro Bay Standards. These standards consist of the following emission reduction goals: Mass Emissions Reduction Standards:

o By 2014, reduce emissions by 72% for DPM, 22% for NOx, and 93% for SOx from 2005 levels

o By 2023, reduce emissions by 77% for DPM, 59% for NOx, and 93% for SOx from 2005 levels

The reduction of goods movement-related emissions in 2015 compared to 2005 can be attributed to a number of initiatives, including emissions reduction programs identified in the CAAP and implemented by the Port, such as the Clean Trucks Program, Green Flag Vessel Speed Reduction Program, as well as CARB regulations requiring the use of shore power for vessels at berth and the use of cleaner vessel fuels. Economic forecasts indicate cargo volumes through the Port of Long Beach will increase in upcoming years. While emission reductions are expected to continue in the future toward meeting the CAAP goals, the rapid rate of emission reductions in recent years may not continue as cargo volumes increase. However, continued implementation of the CAAP and regulatory programs will continue to provide emissions benefits from goods movement-related sources and may offset impacts from the projected growth in trade. The mass emissions reduction standards are represented as a percentage reduction of emissions from 2005 levels. Table 10.1 summarizes the standardized estimates of emissions by source category for calendar years 2005 and 2015 using the 2015 methodology.



Table 10.1: 2005-2015 Emissions Reductions Compared to CAAP San Pedro Bay Emissions Reduction Standards

Category 2005

DPM (tons)Ocean-going vessels 605Harbor craft 45Cargo handling equipment 47Locomotives 43Heavy-duty vehicles 205Total 945

84%CAAP San Pedro Bay DPM Emissions Reduction Standards 2014 72%

77%

NOx (tons)Ocean-going vessels 6,726Harbor craft 1,107Cargo handling equipment 1,289Locomotives 1,273Heavy-duty vehicles 5,273Total 15,667

48%CAAP San Pedro Bay NOx Emissions Reduction Standards 2014 22%

59%

SOx (tons)Ocean-going vessels 6,865Harbor craft 5Cargo handling equipment 11Locomotives 76Heavy-duty vehicles 37Total 6,993

97%2014 93%

93%

29

2015

78

778

9276

148Cumulative DPM Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2015

2023

4,738

1

591710

1,3958,212

Cumulative NOx Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2015

2023

238

2023

213

244Cumulative SOx Emissions Reduction Achieved in 2015CAAP San Pedro Bay SOx Emissions Reduction Standards


Port of Long Beach July 2016

APPENDIX A

2014-2015 EMISSIONS AND ACTIVITY COMPARISONS


Port of Long Beach A-1 July 2016

APPENDIX A: 2014-2015 EMISSIONS AND ACTIVITY COMPARISONS The Port’s annual air emissions inventories typically do not report year-over-year emissions. Although overall port-related emissions were lower in 2015 than the 2005 baseline levels, overall emissions increased between 2014 and 2015. Increased container throughput in 2015 as compared to 2014 contributed to the overall emissions increase, but some of the increase is attributed to the temporary period of terminal congestion during the first quarter of 2015. Table A.1 provides a comparison of 2014-2015 Port emissions by source category.

Table A.1: 2014-2015 Port Emissions Comparison by Source Category, tons and %

PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e

tons tons tons tons tons tons tons MT2014 Ocean-going vessels 87 82 68 4,190 201 358 157 280,958Harbor craft 30 27 30 776 1 410 70 51,835Cargo handling equipment 10 9 9 558 1 663 39 115,800Locomotives 26 24 26 726 1 168 40 59,395Heavy-duty vehicles 6 6 5 1,276 3 80 22 255,492Total 158 147 137 7,527 207 1,680 328 763,480


Change between 2014 and 2015 (percent) Ocean-going vessels 16% 16% 14% 13% 18% 14% 14% 18%Harbor craft -1% -1% -1% 0% 2% 4% 3% 2%Cargo handling equipment -1% -1% -1% 6% 10% 9% 12% 10%Locomotives 3% 3% 3% -2% -2% -2% -1% -2%Heavy-duty vehicles 5% 5% 6% 9% 8% 19% 19% 9%Total 9% 9% 8% 9% 18% 8% 10% 11%



Table A.2 provides a comparison of the container cargo throughput, as well as the number of vessel movements, including arrivals, departures and shifts, between 2014 and 2015. Container throughput was up 5% relative to 2014 levels; container arrivals also increased 8%, while overall vessel arrivals to POLB increased 1%. In addition, there was an 8% increase in vessel shifts in 2015.

Table A.2: 2014-2015 TEU Throughput and OGV Movements Comparison

Container Year Throughput Containership All All All TEUs Arrivals Arrivals Departures Shifts 2014 6,820,804 858 1,965 1,974 1,263 2015 7,192,069 924 1,988 2,011 1,378 Change (%) 5% 8% 1% 2% 8%

Emissions of all pollutants estimated for OGV and HDV increased in 2015, compared to 2014. The key factors for the increase in emissions from the previous year include: Increased activity for all source categories due increased container throughput. Increase in containership calls which may have higher loads than other vessels. Increased OGV times at-berth and anchor. Increased number of OGV intra-terminal shifts to maximize berth space and OGV shifts to

and from anchor. Increased HDV average time on terminal, which translated to increased idling time

estimates. 2015 – 2014 OGV Emissions and Activity Changes in OGV emissions between 2014 and 2015 are shown previously in Table A.1. The increase in OGV emissions from 2014 to 2015 can be attributed to increased energy consumption at anchorage and at-berth due to the temporary period of terminal congestion at the port through the first quarter 2015. Containerships typically do not spend a significant amount of time at anchorage, however, because of the temporary period of terminal congestion in 2015, there was increased use of anchorage by OGV, resulting in increased use of auxiliary engines and boilers while at anchorage and at berth.



Table A.3 highlights the increased energy consumption of OGV at anchorage and at berth as compared to 2014. The increased times at berth and at anchor led to higher energy consumption in 2015, resulting in increased emissions.

Table A.3: OGV Energy Comparison by Mode, kW-hrs and %

2015 – 2014 Harbor Craft Emissions and Activity As shown previously in Table A.1, the SOx, CO, hydrocarbon and CO2 emissions from harbor craft increased in 2015 as compared to 2014 due to the 2% increase in activity. PM emissions were slightly lower and NOx emissions did not change. Table A.4 compares the vessel and engine count in addition to activity shown in kW-hrs.

Table A.4: Harbor Craft Energy Comparison

Year Vessel Engine Activity

Count Count kW-hrs

2014 81 298 78,406,906 2015 87 319 80,261,024 Change (%) 7% 7% 2%

Mode 2014 2015 PercentkW-hrs kW-hrs Change

Hotelling at Anchorage 50,460,132 90,119,606 79%Hotelling at Berth 193,810,176 214,815,177 11%Maneuvering 16,554,336 17,234,465 4%Transit 108,304,253 110,213,301 2%Total 369,128,897 432,382,550 17%



2015 – 2014 CHE Emissions and Activity As shown in Table A.1, CHE emissions increased for all pollutants, except PM emissions which were slightly lower in 2015 as compared to 2014. The increase in emissions is due to the increased activity, illustrated in Table A.5.

Table A.5: CHE Energy Comparison

Year Population Activity

kW-hrs

2014 1,204 147,412,729 2015 1,169 161,889,861 Change (%) -3% 10%

2015 – 2014 HDV Emissions and Activity As shown previously in Table A.1, the HDV emissions increased from 2014 to 2015 primarily due increased container throughput and increased idling time at terminals. The total on-terminal idling time reported by the container terminals was 80% higher in 2015 than in 2014. The idling times are likely to be over-estimated because the idling estimates are based on the entire time that trucks are on the terminal (except for driving time), which does not account for times that trucks are turned off while on terminal. To date, there are no available data sources identified to provide a reliable estimate of the average percentage of time the trucks’ engines are turned off while on terminal. The higher on terminal time may be attributable to the temporary period of terminal congestion through the first quarter of 2015. Table A.6 shows the increase in total port-wide on-terminal idling time between 2014 and 2015.

Table A.6: 2014-2015 HDV Total Idling Time Comparison, hours and %

Total EI Year Idling Time hours 2014 1,486,746 2015 2,683,131 Change (%) 80%

Table A.7 shows the average g/mi emissions in 2014 and 2015. The units of grams per mile are used because they show the changes independent of changes in throughput or vehicle mileage, which can complicate the comparisons. The gram-per-mile figures have been calculated by dividing overall HDV emissions by overall miles traveled, and include idling emissions as well as emissions from driving at various speeds, on-terminal and on-road.



Table A.7: Fleet Average Emissions, g/mile

Year PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2e

2014 0.0362 0.0347 0.0333 8.02 0.018 0.50 0.14 1,770 2015 0.0355 0.0340 0.0330 8.19 0.018 0.56 0.15 1,807 % Change (2014-2015) -2% -2% -1% 2% 0% 12% 7% 2% While average PM emissions went down slightly, the average NOx emissions increased by approximately 2%, due in part to start-up emissions attributed to the 2010+ trucks equipped with catalysts for NOx control. The catalysts are not fully effective at reducing NOx emissions until they are up to operating temperature, so with the higher percentage of 2010+ trucks, came a slight increase in NOx emissions. In 2015, the start-up emissions made up approximately 2.7% of overall HDV NOx emissions associated with the Port while in 2014 they made up approximately 1.8%. Average g/mile CO and hydrocarbons emissions also increased, due to various factors including speed differences in the modeled activity (emissions vary with speed), different emission rates of newer model year engines (some pollutants are allowed to go up as others such as PM are reduced), year-to-year variations in the amount of idling vs driving within the terminals, and higher average on-terminal times that lead to higher estimates of idling emissions. 2015 – 2014 Locomotive Emissions and Activity As shown in Table A.1, locomotive emissions generally decreased from 2014 to 2015, except for a small increase in particulate emissions. The changes were primarily due to emission factor changes resulting from changes in the line haul locomotive fleet mix reported to CARB by the Class 1 railroads.


Port of Long Beach July2016

APPENDIX B

REGULATORY AND SAN PEDRO BAY PORTS CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN (CAAP)

MEASURES


Port of Long Beach B-1 July2016

APPENDIX B: REGULATORY AND SAN PEDRO BAY PORTS CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN (CAAP)

MEASURES This appendix summarizes the regulatory initiatives and Port measures related to port activity. Almost all goods movement-related emissions in and around the port come from five emission source categories: OGVs, HDVs, CHE, harbor craft, and locomotives. The responsibility for the emissions control of the majority of these sources falls under the jurisdiction of local (South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]), state (CARB), or federal (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) agencies. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach adopted the landmark CAAP in November 2006 to curb goods movement-related air pollution and subsequently approved an update to the CAAP (2010 CAAP Update). San Pedro Bay Emissions Reduction Standards The 2010 CAAP Update established the San Pedro Bay Standards, the most significant addition to the original CAAP, and a statement of the ports’ commitments to significantly reduce the air quality impacts from local maritime industry operations. Achievement of the standards listed below will require diligent implementation of all of the current CAAP measures, additional aggressive actions to find further emissions and health risk reductions, and identification of new strategies that will emerge over time.

Health Risk Reduction Standard To complement the CARB’s Air Pollution Reduction Programs including the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have developed the following standard for reducing overall goods movement-related health risk impacts, relative to 2005 emissions level:

By 2020, reduce the population-weighted cancer risk attributed to port-related DPM

pollution by 85% in highly-impacted communities located proximate to port sources and throughout the residential areas in the port region.

Emission Reduction Standard Consistent with the ports' commitment to meet their fair-share of mass emission reductions of air pollutants, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have developed the following standards for reducing air pollutant emissions from goods movement-related activities, relative to 2005 emission levels:

By 2014, reduce emissions of NOx by 22%, of SOx by 93%, and of DPM by 72% to

support attainment of the national fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. By 2023, reduce emissions of NOx by 59%, of SOx by 93%, and of DPM by 77% to support attainment of the national and federal 8-hour ozone standards and national fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards.


Port of Long Beach B-2 July 2016

Regulatory Programs by Source Category The following tables summarize current regulatory programs and CAAP measures by major source category that help reduce emissions from goods movement-related operations at the Port.

Table B.1: OGV Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies

Agency Regulation/Standard/Policy Targeted Pollutants

Implementation Year Impact

IMO

NOx Emission Standard for Marine Engines www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-%28NOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx

NOx 2011 – Tier 2 2016 – Tier 3 for ECA only

Sets NOx emission standard for auxiliary and propulsion engines over 130 kW output power on newly built vessels

IMO

Low Sulfur Fuel Requirements for Marine Engines www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-%28SOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx

DPM PM SOx

2012 ECA – 1% Sulfur 2015 ECA – 0.1% Sulfur

Significantly reduces emissions due to low sulfur content in fuel by creating Emissions Control Area (ECA)

IMO

Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for International Shipping www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx

CO2 and other pollutants

2013 Increases the design efficiencies of ships relating to energy and emissions

EPA

Emission Standards for Marine Diesel Engines above 30 Liters per Cylinder (Category 3 Engines); Aligns with IMO Annex VI marine engine NOx standards and low sulfur requirement www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm#engine-fuel

DPM PM NOx SOx

2011 – Tier 2 2016 – Tier 3

Auxiliary and propulsion on US-Flagged new built vessels; Use of low sulfur fuel

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-%28NOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx



http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-%28SOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx



http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm#engine-fuel



Table B.1 (continued): OGV Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies

Agency Regulation, Standard, or Policy Targeted Pollutants


CARB

Regulation to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While At-Berth at a California Port www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/shorepwr07/shorepwr07.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/forms/regulatoryadvisory/regulatoryadvisory12232013.pdf

All 2014 – 50% 2017 –70% 2020 – 80%

Vessels must use Shore power (or equivalent) requirement to reduce at-berth emissions. Compliance levels based on fleet percentage visiting the port.

CARB Ocean-going Ship Onboard Incineration www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shipincin/shipincin.htm

DPM PM HC

2007 Vessels operators cannot incinerate within 3 nm of the California coast

SPBP CAAP CAAP Measure – OGV 1 Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) Program www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

All 2008 Vessel operators within 20 nm and 40 nm of Point Fermin

SPBP CAAP

CAAP Measure – OGV 2 Reduction of At-Berth OGV Emissions www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

All 2014 Shore power requirements. Vessel operators and terminals

SPBP CAAP

CAAP Measure – OGV 5 and 6 Cleaner OGV Engines and OGV Engine Emissions Reduction Technology Improvements www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

DPM PM NOx

2012 Vessel operators who choose to participate in technology demonstrations and/or Green Ship Incentive Program

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/shorepwr07/shorepwr07.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/forms/regulatoryadvisory/regulatoryadvisory12232013.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/forms/regulatoryadvisory/regulatoryadvisory12232013.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shipincin/shipincin.htm

http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp





Table B.2: Harbor Craft Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies



EPA Emission Standards for Harbor Craft Engines www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm

All 2009 – Tier 3 2014 – Tier 4 for 800 hp or greater

Commercial marine diesel engines with displacement less than 30 liters per cylinder

CARB

Low Sulfur Fuel Requirement for Harbor Craft www.arb.ca.gov/regact/carblohc/carblohc.htm

DPM PM NOx SOx

2006 – 15 ppm Use of low sulfur diesel fuel in commercial harbor craft operating in SCAQMD

CARB

Regulation to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Engines on Commercial Harbor Craft www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/chc10/chc10.htm

DPM PM NOx

2009 to 2020 -Depending on engine model year

Most harbor craft homeported in SCAQMD must meet more stringent emissions limits according to a compliance schedule

SPBP CAAP

CAAP Measure – HC 1 Performance Standards for Harbor Craft www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

All 2009 to 2020 - Depending on engine model year

Modernization of harbor craft operating in San Pedro Bay Ports.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/carblohc/carblohc.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/chc10/chc10.htm




Table B.3: Cargo Handling Equipment Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies



EPA Emission Standards for Non-Road Diesel Powered Equipment www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadci.htm

All 2008-2015 All non-road (also known as off-road) equipment.

CARB Regulation for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Railyards www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/cargo11/cargo11.htm

All 2007-2017 All cargo handling equipment operating at ports and intermodal railyards.

CARB

New Emission Standards, Test Procedures, for Large Spark Ignition (LSI) Engine Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/lsi2008/lsi2008.htm

All 2007 – Phase 1 2010 – Phase 2

Emission standards for large spark-ignition engines 25 hp or greater.

CARB

Fleet Requirements for Large Spark Ignition Engines www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/lsifinalreg.pdf

All 2009-2013 More stringent emissions requirements for fleets of large spark ignition engine equipment fleets.

SPBP CAAP CAAP Measure – CHE1 Performance Standards for CHE www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

All 2007-2014 Turnover to Tier 4 cargo handling equipment per lease renewal agreement

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadci.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/cargo11/cargo11.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/lsi2008/lsi2008.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/lsifinalreg.pdf




Table B.4: Railroad Locomotives Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies



EPA

Emission Standards for New and Remanufactured Locomotives and Locomotive Engines- Latest Regulation www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/locomotives.htm

DPM NOx

2011 through 2013 – Tier 3 2015 – Tier 4

All new and remanufactured locomotive engines.

EPA Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/dieselfuels/regulations.htm

SOx PM

2010 All locomotive engines

CARB Low Sulfur Fuel Requirement for Intrastate Locomotives www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/loco/loco.htm#intrastate

SOx NOx PM

2007 Intrastate locomotives, mainly switchers

CARB Statewide 1998 and 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/loco/loco.htm#intrastate

NOx 2010 UP and BNSF locomotives

SPBP CAAP CAAP Measure – RL1 Pacific Harbor Line (PHL) Rail Switch Engine Modernization http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

PM 2010 PHL switcher engines

SPBP CAAP CAAP Measure – RL2 Class 1 Line-haul and Switcher Fleet Modernization http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

All 2023 – Tier 3 Class 1 locomotives at ports

SPBP CAAP CAAP Measure – RL3 New and Redeveloped Near-Dock Rail Yards http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

All 2020 – Tier 4 New near-dock rail yards

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/locomotives.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/loco/loco.htm#intrastate



Table B.5: Heavy-Duty Vehicles Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies



CARB/EPA Emission Standards for New 2007+ On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroadhd/reducstd.htm

NOx PM

2007 2010

All new on-road diesel heavy-duty vehicles

CARB Heavy-Duty Vehicle On-Board Diagnostics (OBD and OBDII) Requirement www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/obdprog/section1971_1_clean2013.pdf

NOx PM

2010+ All new on-road heavy-duty vehicles

CARB Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Requirement www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ulsd2003/ulsd2003.htm

All 2006 - ULSD All on-road heavy-duty vehicles

CARB Drayage Truck Regulation (amended in 2011 and 2014) www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/porttruck/finalregdrayage.pdf

All Phase in started in 2009

All drayage trucks operating at California ports

CARB Low NOx Software Upgrade Program www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdsoftware/hdsoftware.htm

NOx Starting 2005 1993 to 1998 on-road heavy-duty vehicles that operate in California

CARB Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Regulation www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm

CO2 Phase 1 starting in 2012

Heavy-duty tractors that pull 53-foot+ trailers in CA

CARB

Assembly Bill 32 requiring GHG reductions targets and Governor’s Executive Order B – 30-15 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm and www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18938

CO2 GHG emissions reduction goals in 2020

All sectors identified in Climate Change Scoping Plan, including Goods Movement Sector.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroadhd/reducstd.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/obdprog/section1971_1_clean2013.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm



Table B.5 (continued): Heavy-Duty Vehicles Emission Regulations, Standards and Policies



SPBP CAAP

CAAP Measure – HDV1 Performance Standards for On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles; Clean Truck Program www.cleanairactionplan.org/reports/documents.asp

All Phase-in starting in 2008

On-road heavy-duty vehicles that operate at POLB must have 2007 or newer engines by 2012.




This page intentionally left blank.

The world’s most advanced fireboat “Protector” arrived at the Port … · 2016-08-31 · 2015...

Documents

Transcript of The world’s most advanced fireboat “Protector” arrived at the Port … · 2016-08-31 · 2015...