SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT - Port of Long Beach

2011 Air Emissions Inventory

Port of Long Beach 89 July 2012

SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT This section presents the following information for the CHE source category: source description (4.1), geographical delineation (4.2), data and information acquisition (4.3), operational profiles (4.4), emissions estimation methodology (4.5), and emission estimates (4.6). 4.1 Source Description The CHE category includes equipment that moves cargo (including containers, general cargo, and bulk cargo) to and from marine vessels, railcars, and on-road trucks. The majority of CHE operates at marine terminals or rail yards and is generally composed of off-road equipment that has not been designed to operate on public roadways. This inventory includes CHE powered by engines fueled by diesel, gasoline, propane and electricity. Due to the diversity of cargo, there is a wide range of types of CHE. In addition to CHE found at marine terminals and rail yards, other equipment that is operated at the Port, though not considered typical CHE, are included in the inventory. Emissions from the following types of CHE are evaluated in the 2011 EI: Forklift Rubber tired gantry (RTG) crane Side handler Sweeper Top handler Yard tractor Other Equipment

o Boom lift o Bulldozer o Electric pallet jack o Crane o Excavator o Loader o Man lift o Material handler o Miscellaneous o Rail pusher o Reach stacker o Scissor lift o Skid steer loader o Rail car movers (Track Mobile) o Tractor o Truck (fuel, utility, water, and vacuum trucks)



Forklifts Forklifts are used to handle various types of cargo at both container and non-container terminals.

Rubber-tired gantry cranes Also known at RTGs, these cranes move containers to and from container stacks.

Side Handlers Side handlers in general, move and stack the empty containers within a terminal. They are often also referred to as side picks or side loaders.

Sweepers Sweepers are vehicles with attached brushes underneath that sweep the ground and pick up dirt and debris.



Top handlers Top handlers move, stack and load containers using an overhead telescopic boom. They can be used in place of or in conjunction with RTGs to lift heavy containers within a terminal.

Yard tractors Also known as yard hostlers or utility tractor rigs (UTRs), yard tractors are designed to move cargo containers on a terminal.

Figure 4.1 presents the distribution of the 1,160 pieces of CHE inventoried at the Port in 2011.

Figure 4.1: 2011 Distribution of Port CHE by Equipment Type

Yard tractor49%

Forklift22%

Top handler12%

RTG crane6%

Other8%

Side handler1% Sweeper

2%



4.2 Geographical Domain The CHE inventory consists of equipment from container, dry bulk, break bulk, liquid bulk, auto, and passenger terminals. A figure showing the terminals is included in section 1.2.3. Following is the list of the terminals, by cargo type, that are included in the inventory:

Container Terminals: International Transportation Service, Inc. Long Beach Container Terminal Pacific Container Terminal SSA Marine Terminals – Pier A SSA Marine Terminals – Pier C Total Terminals International

Break-Bulk Terminals: Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Crescent Terminals (SSA Marine) Pacific Coast Recycling Weyerhaeuser Connolly-Pacific

Auto Terminal: Toyota Logistics Services

Dry Bulk Terminals: Koch Carbon, Inc. Georgia–Pacific Gypsum Metro Ports Morton Salt Cemex USA Mitsubishi Cement National Gypsum Company

Passenger Terminal: Carnival Cruise Lines

Liquid Terminals: BP Pipelines North America Chemoil Marine Terminal Petro-Diamond Tesoro Refining and Marketing Vopak Terminal Long Beach



4.3 Data and Information Acquisition For each terminal, maintenance and/or CHE operating staff were contacted either in person or by e-mail or telephone to obtain equipment count and activity information on the CHE specific to their terminal’s operation for the 2011 calendar year. The specific information requested is listed below:

Equipment type Equipment identification number Equipment make and model Engine make and model Rated horsepower (or kilowatts) Equipment and engine model year Type of fuel used (ULSD, gasoline or propane) Electric equipment Annual hours of operation (some terminals use hour meters) Installed Emissions reduction technologies On-road engine installed New equipment purchased Equipment retired or removed from service

It should be noted that not all information requested is readily available, and when there are data gaps, averages are used as defaults for the specific data needed to estimate emissions, such as engine power, activity hours, and model year. Section 4.4 lists the averages by equipment type used for missing data. 4.4 Operational Profiles Table 4.1 summarizes the CHE data collected from the terminals for the 2011 calendar year. The average values shown in the following tables are population weighted, meaning that the values have been calculated by summing the values related to each individual piece of equipment (for which information is available) and dividing the sum by the number of pieces of equipment. These averages specific to CHE type and engine type have been used as defaults for equipment with missing information.



Table 4.1: 2011 Engine Characteristics for All CHE Operating at the Port

Equipment Engine Count

Type Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageBoom Lift Propane 1 na na na 1998 1998 1998 0 0 0Bulldozer Diesel 4 80 285 191 1995 2005 2002 0 1,500 494Crane Diesel 2 177 334 256 1985 1991 1988 109 969 539Crane Electric 2 na na na 1980 2006 1993 21 1498 760Electric pallet jack Electric 3 na na na 1997 1997 1997 300 300 300Excavator Diesel 5 322 371 342 2000 2010 2004 408 2,797 1,500Forklift Diesel 117 45 280 126 1979 2010 2001 0 2,873 414Forklift Electric 9 na na na 1995 2007 2001 0 600 333Forklift Propane 126 43 125 89 1976 2008 1997 0 1,500 359Loader Diesel 15 50 430 293 1980 2008 2000 0 2,673 1,253Man Lift Diesel 8 48 100 67 1986 2009 2002 0 1,123 276Material handler Diesel 8 268 717 377 2000 2008 2006 508 2,505 1,577Material handler Electric 1 na na na 1995 1995 1995 1,837 1,837 1,837Miscellaneous Diesel 2 13 13 13 2010 2010 2010 636 1,662 1,149Miscellaneous Electric 3 na na na 1994 2008 2003 331 1,412 845Miscellaneous Propane 2 101 101 101 1997 1997 1997 255 308 282Rail pusher Diesel 3 100 300 200 1995 2003 1998 0 1,380 481Reach stacker Diesel 3 330 330 330 1994 1998 1995 0 0 0RTG crane Diesel 67 515 1,043 736 1987 2006 2002 32 4,605 2,181Scissor Lift Electric 3 na na na na na na na na naSide handler Diesel 18 120 240 205 1982 2006 2000 0 2,429 1,420Skid steer loader Diesel 3 49 76 65 2006 2008 2007 461 1,636 1,040Sweeper Diesel 11 39 230 152 1999 2009 2004 0 3,500 617Sweeper Electric 1 na na na na na na na na naSweeper Propane 7 50 135 84 1982 2005 1999 0 900 181Top handler Diesel 140 174 375 299 1979 2011 2004 0 3,964 1,856Track Mobile Diesel 1 110 110 110 2007 2007 2007 1,123 1,123 1,123Tractor Diesel 1 59 59 59 2009 2009 2009 80 80 80Tractor Propane 5 101 101 101 1996 1996 1996 679 679 679Truck Diesel 17 165 525 278 1981 2011 2002 0 1,821 541Truck Electric 5 na na na 2008 2009 2008 0 100 44Truck Gasoline 1 na na na 1977 1977 1977 300 300 300Yard tractor, offroad Diesel 176 173 245 179 2001 2006 2004 129 4,333 2,058Yard tractor, onroad Diesel 311 173 245 204 2004 2009 2007 0 5,495 2,148Yard tractor, gasoline Gasoline 71 335 335 335 2011 2011 2011 2 2,383 1,032Yard tractor, propane Propane 8 173 173 173 2009 2009 2009 0 456 60Total 1,160

Power (hp) Model Year Annual Operating Hours



Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of CHE by terminal type. Due to rounding, the percentages do not add up to 100%.

Figure 4.2: 2011 Distribution of Port CHE by Terminal Type, %

Container terminals operate 79% of the CHE in use at the Port. Table 4.2 shows the percentage of container terminal CHE as compared to the total Port CHE.

Table 4.2: 2011 Distribution of CHE at Container Terminals

Container Container Equipment Total Terminal Terminal

Count Count PercentForklift 252 96 38%RTG crane 67 67 100%Side handler 18 18 100%Top handler 140 139 99%Yard tractor 566 563 99%Sweeper 19 8 42%Other 98 20 20%Total 1,160 911 79%

Container79%

Break Bulk11%

Dry Bulk6%

Cruise2%

Auto2%

Liquid1%



The characteristics of the CHE engines at the Port’s container terminals are summarized in Table 4.3. It should be noted that California United Terminals, a container terminal operator, ceased operations at the Port at the end of 2010. Therefore, the overall equipment count for the Port in 2011 is less than 2010.

Table 4.3: 2011 Characteristics of CHE Engines at Container Terminals

Container Terminals CountEquipment Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageForklift 96 45 280 116 1976 2008 1998 0 2,033 277Man lift 4 50 100 71 1986 2000 1995 0 0 0Miscellaneous 2 13 13 13 2010 2010 2010 636 1,662 1,149Rail pusher 3 100 300 200 1995 2003 1998 0 1,380 481Reach stacker 3 330 330 330 1994 1998 1995 0 0 0RTG crane 67 515 1,043 736 1987 2006 2002 32 4,605 2,181Side handler 18 120 240 205 1982 2006 2000 0 2,429 1,420Sweeper 8 100 230 152 1999 2009 2003 0 500 234Top handler 139 250 375 300 1994 2011 2004 0 3,964 1,869Truck 8 200 215 207 1981 2006 1999 0 1,228 170Yard tractor 563 173 335 212 2001 2011 2007 0 5,495 1,960Total 911




Table 4.4 shows the characteristics of the CHE engine at the Port’s break-bulk terminals.

Table 4.4: 2011 Characteristics of CHE Engines at Break-Bulk Terminals

Tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 show the characteristics of the CHE engines at the Port’s seven dry bulk, five liquid bulk and one auto terminal, respectively. In 2011, due to the economic conditions, some of the dry bulk terminals were idle. The equipment at the idle terminals was included in the inventory with zero activity hours.

Table 4.5: 2011 Characteristics of CHE Engines at Dry Bulk Terminals

Break Bulk Terminals CountEquipment Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageBulldozer 1 285 285 285 1995 1995 1995 200 200 200Crane 3 334 334 334 1985 1985 1985 109 109 109Excavator 5 322 371 342 2000 2010 2004 408 2,797 1,500Forklift 77 60 200 129 1979 2010 2000 0 1,227 364Loader 6 200 430 302 1980 2008 1996 226 2,673 1,203Man Lift 2 62 75 69 2008 2009 2009 359 1,123 741Material handler 9 268 717 377 2000 2008 2006 508 2,505 1,577Miscellaneous 3 na na na 1994 2008 2003 331 1,412 845Skid steer loader 2 70 76 73 2006 2007 2007 461 1,024 743Sweeper 3 39 135 100 1982 2004 1997 52 900 482Top handler 1 174 174 174 1979 1979 1979 79 79 79Track Mobile 1 110 110 110 2007 2007 2007 1,123 1,123 1,123Truck 6 300 525 421 1994 2011 2006 239 1,821 1,156Yard tractor 3 173 173 173 2004 2008 2007 1,000 1,000 1,000Total 122


Dry Bulk Terminals CountEquipment Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageBulldozer 3 80 200 160 2004 2005 2004 0 1,500 592Crane 1 177 177 177 1991 1991 1991 969 969 969Forklift 47 0 177 68 1985 2008 2000 0 2,873 493Loader 9 50 375 286 1989 2008 2002 0 2,433 1,287Man lift 1 48 48 48 2005 2005 2005 450 450 450Miscellaneous 2 101 101 101 1997 1997 1997 255 308 282Skid steer loader 1 49 49 49 2008 2008 2008 1,636 1,636 1,636Sweeper 6 50 210 102 1996 2009 2004 0 3,500 725Tractor 1 59 59 59 2009 2009 2009 80 80 80Truck 3 165 170 168 1977 1997 1988 300 350 317Total 74




Table 4.6: 2011 Characteristics of CHE Engines at Liquid Bulk Terminals

Table 4.7: 2011 Characteristics of CHE Engines at the Auto Terminal

Table 4.8 shows the characteristics of CHE engines at the Port’s cruise terminal.

Table 4.8: 2011 Characteristics of CHE Engines at the Cruise Terminal

Liquid Terminals CountEquipment Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageForklift 5 45 120 65 1995 2004 1997 15 624 253Manlift 1 na na na 2009 2009 2009 na na naTruck 1 210 210 210 2006 2006 2006 250 250 250Total 7


Auto Terminals CountEquipment Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageBoom Lift 1 na na na 1998 1998 1998 na na naElectric pallet jack 3 na na na 1997 1997 1997 300 300 300Forklift 11 100 100 100 1995 1997 1995 600 600 600Scissor Lift 3 na na na 2000 2003 2001 na na naSweeper 2 na na na na na na na na naTruck, electric 5 na na na 2008 2009 2008 0 100 44Total 25


Passenger Terminal CountEquipment Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max AverageForklift 16 0 148 60 1981 2008 2002 0 1,001 679Tractor 5 101 101 101 1996 1996 1996 679 679 679Total 21




Figure 4.3 shows the average horsepower of CHE engines at container terminals, respectively.

Figure 4.3: 2011 Average Engine Power for CHE Engines at Container Terminals, horsepower

Table 4.9 is a summary of the CHE engines by fuel type. The table shows that in 2011, 79% of the CHE engines inventoried were diesel-powered, followed by 13% powered by propane and 6% by gasoline engines. The increase in gasoline engines is due to new gasoline yard tractors in 2011.

Table 4.9: 2011 CHE Engine by Fuel Type

Equipment Electric Propane Gasoline Diesel Total

Forklift 9 126 0 117 252 RTG crane 0 0 0 67 67 Side handler 0 0 0 18 18 Top handler 0 0 0 140 140 Yard tractor 0 8 71 487 566 Sweeper 1 7 0 11 19 Other 17 8 1 72 98 Total 27 149 72 912 1,160 Percent of Total 2% 13% 6% 79% 100%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Forklift RTGcrane

Sidehandler

Sweeper Tophandler

Truck Yardtractor

hp



Table 4.10 summarizes the distribution of diesel-powered CHE equipped with off-road and on-road diesel engines and by the off-road diesel engine standards. The on-road engines are generally lower in emissions than the off-road engines of the same model year.

Table 4.10: 2011 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 36 175 0 0 357 568Forklift 27 18 53 18 0 0 116Top handler 11 23 76 43 0 0 153Other 16 14 17 15 3 14 79RTG crane 8 32 23 9 0 0 72Side handler 7 9 8 2 0 0 26Sweeper 0 5 5 2 0 1 13Total 69 137 357 89 3 372 1,027Percent 7% 13% 35% 9% 0.3% 36%

4.5 Emissions Estimation Methodology The emissions calculation methodology used to estimate the CHE emissions is consistent with CARB’s latest methodology for estimating emissions from CHE32. The basic equation used to estimate CHE emissions is as follows.

Equation 4.1 = × × × × × Where:

E = emissions, grams/year Power = rated power of the engine, hp or kW Activity = equipment’s engine activity, hr/year LF = load factor (ratio of average load used during normal operations as compared to full load at maximum rated horsepower), dimensionless EF = emission factor, grams of pollutant per unit of work, g/hp-hr or g/kW-hr FCF = fuel correction factor to reflect changes in fuel properties that have occurred over time, dimensionless CF = control factor to reflect changes in emissions due to installation of emission reduction technologies not originally reflected in the emission factors, dimensionless

32 CARB, Appendix B: Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California.



The emission factor is a function of the zero-hour emission rate by fuel type (diesel, propane or liquefied natural gas), by CHE engine type (off-road or on-road), for the CHE engine model year (in the absence of any malfunction or tampering of engine components that can change emissions), deterioration rate, and cumulative hours. The deterioration rate reflects the fact that the engine’s zero-hour emission rates change as the equipment is used, due to wear of various engine parts or reduced efficiency of emission control devices. The cumulative hours reflects the CHE engine’s total operating hours. The emission factor is calculated as:

Equation 4.2 = +( × )Where:

ZH = zero-hour emission rate by fuel type by CHE engine type for a given horsepower category and model year, g/hp-hr or g/kW-hr DR = deterioration rate (rate of change of emissions as a function of CHE engine age), g/hp-hr2 or g/kW-hr2 Cumulative hours = number of hours the CHE engine has been in use and calculated as annual operating hours times age of the CHE engine, hours

4.5.1 Emission Factors In this inventory, the ZH emission rates and DR for cargo handling equipment were updated from the last inventory (2010 EI) to be consistent with CARB’s latest emissions calculations methodology and emission rates. CARB’s latest ZH and DR are consistent with OFFROAD 2007. Please refer to Appendix D for a full list of the ZH and DR used. In this emissions inventory, the following revisions are incorporated: Instead of estimating deterioration rates based on the useful life of the equipment,

deterioration rates provided by CARB are based on average useful life of engines based on engine size (in horsepower).

Emission increases due to the deterioration rate are capped at cumulative hours of 12,000 hours for diesel engines. In other words, once the engine accrues 12,000 hours, there is no increase in emissions.

The ZH and DR are a function of fuel type, model year, and horsepower group as defined in the OFFROAD model. The horsepower groups by which the ZH and DR are categorized are aligned with EPA’s regulations.

ZH and DR vary by engine horsepower and model year to reflect the fact that depending upon the size of the engines, different engine technologies and emission standards are applicable. ZH and DR by horsepower and engine year were used for:

diesel engines certified to off-road diesel engine emission standards diesel engines certified to on-road diesel emission standards gasoline and propane fueled engines certified to large spark ignited engine emission

standards



4.5.2 Load Factors and Fuel Correction Factors A load factor is defined as the ratio of average power used by the CHE engine during normal operation to its maximum rated power. It accounts for the fact that engines are not used at their maximum horsepower rating continually during normal operation. Load factors for CHE are primarily obtained from CARBs CHE methodology document referenced earlier in section 4.5; however, the load factors for RTG cranes and yard tractors were revised based on joint studies33 conducted by the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in consultation with CARB. Specifically, the yard tractor load factor of 39% has been used since the 2006 EI report and the 20% load factor for RTG cranes has been used since the 2008 EI. Table 4.11 lists the load factors for the CHE.

Table 4.11: CHE Engine Load Factors

Port Equipment Load FactorRTG crane 0.20 Crane 0.43 Excavator 0.57 Forklift 0.30 Top handler, side pick, reach stacker 0.59 Truck, other with off-road engine 0.51 Truck, other with on-road engine 0.51 Sweeper 0.68 Loader, backhoe 0.55 Yard tractor with off-road engine 0.39 Yard tractor with on-road engine 0.39

In 1993, CARB implemented the Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Rule which ultimately limits the sulfur content of diesel fuel marketed in California to 15 parts per million; this fuel is known as ULSD fuel34. Table 4.12, obtained from the CARB CHE methodology document, lists the FCF for ULSD fuel. The FCFs account for differences in the properties of CARB certified fuels compared to those of previously available fuels. The ZH emission rates are based on the diesel fuel in use at the time these factors were developed and are adjusted by the following fuel correction factors to reflect the characteristics of ULSD. The FCF for SOx reflects the change from diesel fuel with a sulfur content of 140 ppm to the 15 ppm ULSD.

33 Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, San Pedro Bay Ports Yard Tractor Load Factor Study and San Pedro Bay Ports Rubber-Tired Gantry Crane, Prepared by Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC. 34 CARB, http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/081404dslregs.pdf; Refer to The California Diesel Fuel Regulation; Title 13, California Code of Regulation, Sections 2281-2285 & Title 17, California Code of Regulation, Section 93114.



Table 4.12: Fuel Correction Factors for ULSD

Equipment MY PM NOx SOx CO HC CO2 N2O CH4 1995 and older 0.720 0.930 0.110 1 0.720 1 0.930 0.720 1996 to 2010 0.798 0.948 0.110 1 0.720 1 0.948 0.720 2011 and newer 0.852 0.948 0.110 1 0.720 1 0.948 0.720

4.5.3 CHE Emissions Reduction Technologies and Control Factors The 2011 CHE inventory includes 222 pieces of equipment with diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC) and 324 yard tractors equipped with on-road certified engines. In addition, 96 pieces of CHE used oxygenated diesel fuel (O2 DieselTM) in 2011, and all other diesel powered CHE used ULSD. Table 4.13 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. For example, CHE using oxygenated diesel may also be equipped with on-road engines or DOCs. The majority of the emission reduction initiatives were undertaken by container terminals either voluntarily or in order to meet requirements of CARB’s Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards regulation adopted by its board in 200535. As noted previously, container terminals account for the 79% of CHE operated at the Port. Other emission control technologies used on the Port’s CHE include diesel particulate filters (DPF) and Vycon’s REGEN flywheel system (Vycon).

Table 4.13: 2011 CHE Emission Reduction Technologies by Equipment Type

Equipment DOC On-

Road ULSD Emulsified O2 DPF VyconInstalled Engines Fuel Fuel Diesel Installed Installed

Forklift 13 0 117 0 0 15 0RTG crane 6 0 67 0 0 1 3Side handler 17 0 18 0 0 0 0Top handler 50 0 140 0 0 21 0Yard tractor 136 311 487 0 96 0 0Sweeper 0 1 11 0 0 0 0Other 0 12 72 0 0 14 0Total 222 324 912 0 96 51 3Percent of Total 24% 36% 100% 0% 11% 6% 0.3%

35 CARB, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/cargo2005/cargo2005.htm; Final rule posted on October 23, 2006.



Control factors were used to reflect the changes in emissions due to the use of various technologies such as DOC and DPF. The emission reduction percentages associated with the various emission reduction strategies have been either verified or developed in consultation with CARB. DOC: Provided by CARB in a memorandum to the Port O2DieselTM: Provided by CARB in a memorandum to the Port DOC and O2DieselTM: Both technologies used together on the same equipment -

Cumulative (mathematical calculation of combination). Provided by CARB in a memorandum to the Port

DPF: CARB Verified Technology36 Vycon’s REGEN Flywheel System: CARB Verified Technology37 Nett BlueCat 300TM: CARB Verified Technology for off-road large spark-ignition

(LSI) equipment38 Table 4.14 shows the emission reduction percentages, by air pollutant, provided by CARB for the various technologies used on CHE

Table 4.14: Emission Reductions Achieved from Control Technologies Used in CHE, %

Technology PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2 N2O CH4

Nett BlueCat for LSI 0% 0% 0% 85% na 0% 85% na 0% 0%DOC 30% 30% 30% 0% na 70% 70% na 0% 70%O2 Diesel 20% 20% 20% 2% na -10% -75% na 2% -75%DOC + O2 Diesel 44% 44% 44% 2% na 73% 48% na 2% 48%DPF 85% 85% 85% 0% na 0% 0% na 0% 0%Vycon's REGEN 25% 25% 25% 30% 15% 0% 0% 15% 30% 0%

36 CARB, http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm. 37 CARB, http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm. 38 CARB, Executive Order G-09-012, July 2009.



As shown in Table 4.15, the control factor is determined by subtracting the emission reduction percentage associated with the control technology (converted to decimal form) from 1.0. For example, a technology that achieves an emissions reduction of 70%, or 0.70, would have a control factor of 0.3 (1.0 – 0.7 = 0.3), while a technology that increases emissions by 10% (or -0.10) would have a control factor of 1.10. A negative number represents an increase in emissions.

Table 4.15: Control Factors for Control Technologies Used in CHE

Technology PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC CO2 N2O CH4

Nett BlueCat for LSI 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 na 1.00 0.15 na 1.00 1.00DOC 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 na 0.30 0.30 na 1.00 0.30O2 Diesel 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.98 na 1.10 1.75 na 0.80 1.75DOC + O2 Diesel 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.98 na 0.27 0.52 na 0.98 0.52DPF 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.00 na 1.00 1.00 na 1.00 1.00Vycon's REGEN 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.70 1.00

4.5.4 Improvements to Methodology from Previous Years As discussed in Section 4.5.1, to be consistent with the CARB methodology for estimating emissions from CHE, the methodology to calculate emission deterioration rates was changed in this 2011 EI. The ZH emission rates and DR for cargo handling equipment were updated to be consistent with CARB’s latest emissions calculations methodology and emission rates used to estimate CHE emissions. In addition, the cumulative hours for diesel equipment were capped at 12,000 hours.



4.6 Emission Estimates A summary of the CHE emissions by terminal type is presented in Tables 4.16 and 4.17.

Table 4.16: 2011 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, tpy

Terminal Type PM10 PM2.5 DPM NOx SOx CO HC

Auto 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 4.2 0.3 Break-Bulk 1.6 1.4 1.5 51.9 0.1 28.4 3.5 Container 20.1 18.4 19.4 669.1 1.1 465.1 32.9 Cruise 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 12.2 0.8 Dry Bulk 0.2 0.1 0.1 6.5 0.0 7.4 1.0 Liquid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.1 Total 21.9 20.1 21.1 732.5 1.2 518.3 38.6

Table 4.17: 2011 CHE GHG Emissions by Terminal Type, tonnes

Terminal Type CO2E CO2 N2O CH4

Auto 73 73 0.0 0.0Break-Bulk 6,447 6,394 0.2 0.3Container 93,285 92,570 2.1 2.9Cruise 279 278 0.0 0.0Dry Bulk 542 539 0.0 0.0Liquid 42 42 0.0 0.0Total 100,668 99,896 2.3 3.2



Figure 4.4 presents the percentage of CHE emissions by terminal type. Container terminals at the Port account for approximately 92% of the PM and NOx emissions, 94% of the SOx emissions, 90% of the CO emissions and 85% of the hydrocarbon emissions compared to total CHE emissions. The break-bulk, cruise, liquid and auto terminals account for the remainder of the emissions.

Figure 4.4: 2011 CHE Emissions by Terminal Type, %



Tables 4.18 and 4.19 present 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 4.18: 2011 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, tpy

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

Bulldozer Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 Crane Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 Excavator Diesel 0.2 0.2 0.2 7.9 0.0 1.8 0.4 Forklift Diesel 0.4 0.4 0.4 11.2 0.0 5.6 0.6 Forklift Propane 0.1 0.1 0.0 8.3 0.0 24.0 1.8 Loader Diesel 0.6 0.6 0.6 17.0 0.0 6.6 1.1 Man lift Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 Material handler Diesel 0.3 0.2 0.3 10.8 0.0 3.1 0.7 Miscellaneous Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Miscellaneous Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 Rail pusher Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 Reach stacker Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RTG crane Diesel 5.1 4.7 5.1 163.6 0.1 39.8 8.6 Side handler Diesel 0.4 0.4 0.4 21.6 0.0 1.5 0.4 Skid steer loader Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 Sweeper Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.2 0.0 1.2 0.2 Sweeper Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.1 Top handler Diesel 6.1 5.6 6.1 231.9 0.3 43.9 10.9 Tractor Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tractor Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 7.5 0.6 Truck Diesel 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.7 0.0 2.3 0.3 Truck Gasoline 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.1 Yard tractor Diesel 7.5 6.9 7.5 222.2 0.6 142.6 10.8 Yard tractor Gasoline 0.6 0.6 0.0 21.1 0.1 232.1 1.7 Yard tractor Propane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total 21.9 20.1 21.1 732.5 1.2 518.3 38.6



Table 4.19: 2011 CHE GHG Emissions by Equipment Type, tonnes

Port Equipment Engine CO2E CO2 N2O CH4 Type

Bulldozer Diesel 120 119 0.0 0.0 Crane Diesel 51 51 0.0 0.0 Excavator Diesel 845 838 0.0 0.0 Forklift Diesel 1,147 1,136 0.0 0.1 Forklift Propane 672 672 0.0 0.0 Loader Diesel 1,826 1,810 0.0 0.1 Man lift Diesel 40 40 0.0 0.0 Material handler Diesel 1,463 1,450 0.0 0.1 Miscellaneous Diesel 45 45 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Propane 20 20 0.0 0.0 Rail pusher Diesel 123 122 0.0 0.0 Reach stacker Diesel 0 0 0.0 0.0 RTG crane Diesel 12,809 12,696 0.3 0.6 Side handler Diesel 1,843 1,825 0.1 0.0 Skid steer loader Diesel 61 60 0.0 0.0 Sweeper Diesel 469 465 0.0 0.0 Sweeper Propane 62 62 0.0 0.0 Top handler Diesel 26,454 26,218 0.7 0.9 Tractor Diesel 1 1 0.0 0.0 Tractor Propane 127 127 0.0 0.0 Truck Diesel 1,046 1,039 0.0 0.0 Truck Gasoline 31 31 0.0 0.0 Yard tractor Diesel 44,299 44,026 0.8 0.9 Yard tractor Gasoline 7,091 7,023 0.2 0.4 Yard tractor Propane 22 22 0.0 0.0 Total 100,668 99,896 2.3 3.2



Figure 4.5 presents the percentage of CHE emissions by equipment type. Approximately 28% to 47%, depending on the pollutant, of the Port’s CHE emissions are attributed to yard tractors. Top handlers, RTG cranes, side picks and forklifts account for most of the remainder of the emissions.

Figure 4.5: 2011 CHE Emissions by Equipment Type, %

Date post:	03-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	4 times

SECTION 4 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT - Port of Long Beach

Documents