International Corporation Air Sciences

Draft 

LADCO 2005 COMMERCIAL MARINE EMISSIONS 

Prepared for 

Michael Koerber 

Lake Michigan Air Director Consortium 

2250 E. Devon Ave., Suite 250 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Prepared by 

Christian E. Lindhjem 

ENVIRON International Corporation 

101 Rowland Way, Suite 220 

Novato, CA 94945-5010 

and 

Louis Browning 

ICF International 

394 Pacific Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94111

March 2, 2007 

 101 Rowland Way, Suite 220, Novato, CA 94945 415.899.0700
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide variety of vessel types and uses. Table ES-1 

describes the different types of commercial marine activity. This work determined emissions 

from these categories for 2005. 

Table ES-1. Commercial vessel types. (All engine types are diesel except those marked). 

Source 

Category 

Code (SCC) 

Source 

Definition Purpose Geographic Area 

River Traffic 2280002023 Push Boats Barge Freight Lake Traffic 

2280002021 Tugs Vessel assist and 

support functions Near port 

2280003200 Mid-Great Lakes 

2280003100 Deep draft Laker and ocean-going 

large vessels Near port 

2280002022 Ferries River or lake ferrying Regular routes 

2280002024 Other Commercial 

Vessels Excursion boats primarily Near dock 

2280002025 Dredges Dredging projects Varies 

2280002029 Support Vessels General work boats Near Port 

2280002030, 

22800040301

Commercial 

Fishing Market fishing Great Lakes 

2280002040, 

22800040401 Military Coast Guard and Navy Great Lakes 

1

 Gasoline fueled.

The purpose of this work was to update the commercial marine emissions in the LADCO states 

for 2005 from previous ENVIRON work in 2004 that estimated emissions for 2002. Emission 

estimates were updated for all categories listed in Table ES-1. The most substantial change to 

the estimates from the previous work was to incorporate specific activity and emission rates for 

Great Lakes deep draft vessels based on recent port calls to the ports of Cleveland and DuluthSuperior, where more of the ships use smaller engines and lower sulfur fuels than estimated in 

the previous work. For other vessel types, ENVIRON used vessel population and push boat fuel 

consumption updated using 2004 (the most recent year available) data. Given the schedule for 

this project, ENVIRON updated the emission rates for commercial fishing and Coast Guard 

vessels, but did not gather new activity data estimating changes in activity. In general, 

ENVIRON did not change the 2004 activity rates to project 2005 emissions because activity of 

commercial marine vessels has not been growing over that last decade, and if anything has been 

declining. 

Emission results are presented in Table ES-2 for all states. These include the emission totals by 

vessel category described in Table ES-1 and provided to LADCO in county-specific summary 

data files with this report. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 

Table ES-2. Five state 2005 emissions (metric tonnes/year) by vessel type for commercial 

marine emissions. 

Vessel Type HC1 CO NOx PM1 SO2 

Deep Draft Vessels at Ports 69 122 1,400 82 651

Deep Draft Vessels (mid-Lake) 47 1,055 12,955 652 5,489

Push Boats on Rivers and Lakes 472 4,023 21,689 525 1,905

Tugs 98 857 4,575 110 397

Ferries 26 223 1,107 29 85

Other special (excursion) vessels 7 41 289 6 23

Support vessels 1 10 54 1 5

Dredges 2 22 122 3 66

Commercial Fishing 29 110 7 2 1

Military vessels (Coast Guard) 77 264 138 3 15

1

 HC converted to VOC and PM-total to PM10 and PM2.5 using EPA factors. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 

EMISSION FACTORS .................................................................................................................2 

GENERAL DUTY CYCLE ..........................................................................................................6 

PUSH BOATS ................................................................................................................................7 

OTHER TUGS .............................................................................................................................11 

DEEP DRAFT VESSELS ...........................................................................................................11

FERRIES, EXCURSION CRAFT, AND OTHER VESSELS.................................................22 

COMMERCIAL FISHING.........................................................................................................23 

MILITARY VESSELS ................................................................................................................24 

EMISSION RESULTS ................................................................................................................25 

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................25 

TABLES 

Table 1. Commercial vessel types. (All engine types are diesel except those marked).........1 

Table 2. Marine engine categories .........................................................................................2 

Table 3. Baseline emission factors for category 1 marine engines (taken from 

 Table 5-3, EPA 1999B)............................................................................................2 

Table 4. EPA primary exhaust emission standards for US flagged vessels (g/kW-hr) .........3 

Table 5. Emission factors propulsion engines, g/kWh...........................................................4 

Table 6. Emission factor adjustment factors at low loads......................................................5 

Table 7. Auxiliary engine emission factors, g/kWh...............................................................5 

Table 8. Assumed sulfur levels in marine diesel fuels...........................................................6 

Table 9. Marine engine test cycles time in mode...................................................................6 

Table 10. Fuel consumption (gallons of diesel) by river system .............................................7 

Table 11. Example: activity apportionment along the Illinois River.......................................8 

Table 12. Emission factors (g/gallon) used for push boats......................................................9 

Table 13. Emission rates (g/ton-mile) for push boats assuming 549 

 (ton-mile/gallon) fuel consumption rate ................................................................10 

Table 14. EPA marine compression-ignition engine categories............................................12 

Table 15. Marine engine speed designations .........................................................................12 

Table 16 Deep draft vessel ship types...................................................................................12 

Table 17 Vessel movements and time-in-mode descriptions................................................13 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc ii 

Table 18 Auxiliary engine power ratios (ARB, 2005 Survey) .............................................15 

Table 19 Auxiliary engine load factor assumptions..............................................................15 

Table 20 Cleveland Laker inventory by mode (this work) ...................................................15 

Table 21. Cleveland Laker inventory by mode (Harkins, 2006) ...........................................16 

Table 22. Cleveland Salty inventory by mode (this work) ....................................................16 

Table 23. Cleveland Salty inventory by mode (Harkins, 2006).............................................16 

Table 24. Duluth-Superior Laker inventory by mode (this work). ........................................17 

Table 25. Harkins Duluth-Superior Laker inventory by mode ..............................................17 

Table 26. Duluth-Superior Salty inventory by mode (this work). .........................................17 

Table 27. Harkins Duluth-Superior Salty inventory by mode ...............................................17 

Table 28. Port matching and cargo tonnage...........................................................................18 

Table 29. Deep draft vessel emissions by port.......................................................................19 

Table 30. Laker emissions by port.........................................................................................20 

Table 31. Salty emissions by port. .........................................................................................21 

Table 32. Emission rate (gram per ton-mile) for deep draft vessels......................................21 

Table 33. Sample ferry runs in the LADCO area. .................................................................22 

Table 34. Selected ferry-operating hours...............................................................................23 

Table 35. Fish landings in 2002 and 2005 (NMFS, 2007).....................................................23 

Table 36. Five state 2005 emissions (metric tonnes/year) by vessel type 

 for commercial marine emissions ..........................................................................25 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Great Lakes freight links........................................................................................10
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide variety of vessel types and uses. Table 1 

describes the different types of data sources used to estimate commercial marine activity. In 

some cases, it was necessary to split the activity of similar vessels based on the available activity 

data. For instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, 2006) provided accurate fuel 

consumption estimates for push boats only on river systems while the same types of vessels that 

operate in the Great Lakes (primarily Lake Michigan between Milwaukee or Burn Harbor and 

Chicago) were estimated from other freight data by link as provided by the US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE, 2006). Also, ENVIRON defined source category codes (SCC) that do not 

appear in the official EPA list of SCC to retain as much disaggregation as possible though all 

SCC 2280002021 through 2280002029 can be summed into 2280002020 that is an official code 

designation. 

Table 1. Commercial vessel types. (All engine types are diesel except those marked). 

Source 

Category 

Code (SCC) 

Source 

Definition Purpose Geographic Area Data Source 

River Traffic TVA and USACE Lock 

2280002023 Push Boats Barge Freight Statistics 

Lake Traffic USACE Freight Links 

2280002021 Tugs 

Vessel assist 

and support 

functions 

Near port USACE Vessel Lists 

2280003200 Mid-Great 

Lakes 

USACE Freight Links 

This work 

2280003100 

Deep draft 

Laker and 

ocean-going 

large vessels Near port This work 

2280002022 Ferries River or lake 

ferrying 

Regular 

routes USACE Vessel Lists 

2280002024 

Other 

Commercial 

Vessels 

Excursion boats 

primarily Near dock USACE Vessel Lists 

2280002025 Dredges Dredging 

projects Varies USACE Dredging Contracts 

2280002029 Support Vessels General work 

boats Near Port USACE Vessel Lists 

2280002030, 

22800040301

Commercial 

Fishing Market fishing Great Lakes State registration and catch tonnage 

2280002040, 

22800040401 Military Coast Guard and 

Navy Great Lakes Coast Guard Fuel Purchases 

1

 Gasoline fueled.

It is necessary to define our vessel type terms especially for potentially confusing types. Push 

boats and tugs are typically vessels of similar design except push boats are used exclusively to 

push barges, while tugs are self-propelled support vessels with a V-shaped bow designed for 

vessel assist and other general purposes usually near port rather than strictly in long-haul freight 

movements as are push boats. Deep draft vessels can be generally defined as those with drafts 

greater than 14 feet, and in the Great Lakes are described as ‘salty’ (ocean-going) and ‘laker’ 

(primarily freighters, such as bulk carriers or tankers dedicated to the large fresh water lakes) 

designed to tolerate storm conditions mid-lake. Push boats (tug and barge combinations) move 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 2 

other freight in the Great Lakes, but these are restricted to within 5 miles of shore. Other vessels 

include ferries, excursion boats (including such vessels that might be used for group day trips, 

dinner cruises, and casinos), dredges (of various types), and commercial fishing vessels. In other 

areas, such as in the U.S. gulf coast or near naval ports, supply vessels (for off-shore oil wells or 

cable-laying) and military vessels are often found in high numbers but both appear in limited 

numbers in the Great Lakes. 

EMISSION FACTORS 

EPA defines three categories of marine diesel engines in Table 2, those primarily used for 

commercial operations, by the cylinder displacement. The engines correspond primarily to those 

used for propulsion power on large deep draft vessels (Category 3), auxiliary engines on large 

vessels and propulsion power for mid-sized (larger ferries, tugs, and excursion) vessels 

(Category 2), and smaller vessels (Category 1). 

Table 2. Marine engine categories. 

Engine Category 

Displacement 

(l/cylinder) 

Category 1 < 5.0 

Category 2 5.0 < disp. < 30 

Category 3 >30 

Category 1 

EPA revised emission factor estimates in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and published a 

rulemaking for commercial marine vessels. (EPA, 1999a &1999b) In the RIA (EPA, 1999b), 

EPA estimated the emission factors in accordance with the defined engine categories. In Tables 3 

are the EPA-estimated base (precontrolled) emission factors for marine engines for each category 

of engine. 

Table 3. Baseline emission factors for category 1 marine engines (taken from Table 5-3, EPA 

1999B). 

Power Range 

[kW]

HC 

[g/kW-hr]

NOx 

[g/kW-hr]

CO 

[g/kW-hr]

PM 

[g/kW-hr]

37-75 0.27 11 2.0 0.90 

75-130 0.27 10 1.7 0.40 

130-225 0.27 10 1.5 0.40 

225-450 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 

450-560 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 

560-1000 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 

1000+ 0.27 13 2.5 0.30 

The SO2 and NH3 emission rates were estimated from general input data of fuel sulfur level of 

0.33% sulfur and 0.16 g NH3/gallon typically used for diesel engines. The sulfur was converted 

to SO2 using 7.1 lb/gallon and accounting for the direct conversion of sulfur to particulate sulfate 

(2.247%) resulting in a SO2 emission rate of 20.62 g/gallon. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 3 

Emissions standards for NOx have been instituted under international standards starting with 

model year 2000 though the emission standards do not result in much reduction from the levels 

shown in Table 3. EPA has finalized emission standards that will result in emission reductions 

from U.S flagged commercial marine vessels and those standards are shown in Table 4. 

However, this emission inventory was intended for 2005, so only two model years at most could 

be subject to the new emission standards, which represent about 1-2% of the fleet based on the 

latest available age distribution for 2004 (USACE, 2006). Because there was insufficient 

information about the engine displacement and the emission reduction would be insignificantly 

low, no emission reduction was credited for 2005 in this emission inventory effort for the new 

emission standards. 

Table 4. EPA primary exhaust emission standards for US flagged vessels (g/kW-hr). 

Subcategory 

Liters/cylinder 

Model 

Year 

THC + NOx 

g/kW-hr 

CO 

g/kW-hr 

PM 

g/kW-hr 

Power < 37 kW 

And disp. <0.9 2005 7.5 5.0 0.40 

0.9 < disp. < 1.2 2004 7.2 5.0 0.30 

1.2 < disp. < 2.5 2004 7.2 5.0 0.20 

2.5 < disp. < 5.0 2007 7.2 5.0 0.20 

5.0 < disp. < 15 2007 7.8 5.0 0.27 

15 < disp. < 20 

Power <3300 kW 2007 8.7 5.0 0.50 

15 < disp. < 20 

Power >3300 kW 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50 

20 < disp. < 25 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50 

25 < disp. < 30 2007 11.0 5.0 0.50 

Emission estimates were determined either by multiplying engine power, load factor, and hours 

per year of operation or on the basis of the number of gallons of fuel consumed. The technique 

needed to be made flexible because activity data is available in many formats. 

Category 2 and 3 

Category 2 engines are used in larger vessels for propulsion and auxiliary power, and category 3 

engines almost exclusively for propulsion power. The emission factors for Category 2 and 3 

engines used in this work were derived from an analysis of emission data that was published in 

2002 by Entec (2002). The Entec analysis included emissions data from 142 propulsion engines 

and two of the most recent research programs: Lloyd’s Register Engineering Services in 1995 

and IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute in 2002. The resulting Entec emission 

factors include individual factors for three speeds of diesel engines (slow-speed diesel (SSD), 

medium-speed diesel (MSD), and high-speed diesel (HSD)), steam turbines (ST), and three types 

of fuel (residual oil (RO), marine diesel oil (MDO), and marine gas oil (MGO)). Table 5 lists the 

propulsion engine emission factors used for port inventory development of Duluth-Superior and 

Cleveland based on the Entec study. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 4 

It should be noted that Entec does not list PM factors for either PM10 or PM2.5. The PM10 to 

PM2.5 conversion factor used here is 0.92. While the NONROAD model uses 0.97 for such 

conversion based upon low sulfur fuels, a value of 0.80 was suggested in a report from Lyyränen 

et al. (1999) for high sulfur fuels. A reasonable value seems to be closer to 0.92 because higher 

sulfur fuels in medium and slow speed engines would tend to produce larger particulates than 

high-speed engines on low sulfur fuels. 

PM10 and SO2 emission factors were based upon recommendations from ENVIRON and 

provided as Appendix A. 

Table 5. Emission factors propulsion engines, g/kWh. 

Cat. Speed Sulfur NOx CO HC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 BSFC 

2.7% 18.1 1.4 0.6 1.05 0.96 10.29 

SSD 

2.5% 18.1 1.4 0.6 0.99 0.91 9.53 

195 

2.7% 14.0 1.1 0.5 1.11 1.02 11.09 

2.5% 14.0 1.1 0.5 1.04 0.96 10.26 

3 

MSD 

1.5% 13.2 1.1 0.5 0.71 0.66 6.16 

210 

2.5% 14.0 1.1 0.5 1.04 0.96 10.26 

2 MSD 1.5% 13.2 1.1 0.5 0.71 0.66 6.16 

0.3% 13.2 1.1 0.5 0.32 0.29 1.23 

210 

Steam Steam 1.5% 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.92 0.85 8.94 305 

The methodology to calculate PM10 emission factors uses the following equation: 

PM10 EF(g/kWh) = PM10 EF (0% sulfur) + BSFC x 7 x 0.02247 x Fuel Sulfur Fraction 

The above equation is based upon the PM vs. sulfate relationship from EPA's (2004) 

NONROAD model (also described in the ENVIRON (2005) Port of San Francisco Shoreside 

Feasibility Study). This relationship holds that 2.247% of fuel sulfur converts to H2SO4:7H2O 

(molecular weight 7 times that of sulfur). Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) used for 

SSDs was 195 g/kWh, while BSFC used for MSDs was 210 g/kWh based upon Lloyds 1995. 

BSFC used for Steam was 305 g/kWh. The PM10 EF at 0% sulfur was taken from the ARB 

(2005) methodology at 0.25 g/kWh at 0.1% sulfur. 

Emission factors for SO2 emissions were calculated using the below formula assuming the 

remaining 97.753% of the fuel sulfur was converted to SO2 (as described above, the remaining 

2.247% is assumed to be emitted directly as particulate sulfate) and taking into account the 

molecular weight difference between SO2 and sulfur (molecular weight 2 times sulfur). 

SO2 EF = BSFC x 2 x 0.97753 x Fuel Sulfur Fraction 

Emission factors are considered to be constant down to about 20 percent load. Below that 

threshold, emission factors tend to increase as the load decreases. This trend results because 

diesel engines are less efficient at low loads and the brake specific fuel consumption tends to 

increase. Thus, while mass emissions (grams per hour) decrease with low loads, the engine 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 5 

power tends to decrease more quickly, thereby increasing the emission factor (grams per engine 

power) as load decreases. Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA, 2000) demonstrated 

this effect in a study prepared for EPA. EEA determined emission factor adjustments based on 

load factor. Table 6 presents these adjustment factors based upon engine load. These factors 

were multiplied by the emission factors given into determine emission factors at loads below 20 

percent. 

Table 6. Emission factor adjustment factors at low loads. 

Load NOx CO HC PM SO2 

1% 11.47 20.00 89.44 19.17 1.00 

2% 4.63 10.00 31.62 7.29 1.00 

3% 2.92 6.67 17.21 4.33 1.00 

4% 2.21 5.00 11.18 3.09 1.00 

5% 1.83 4.00 8.00 2.44 1.00 

6% 1.60 3.33 6.09 2.04 1.00 

7% 1.45 2.86 4.83 1.79 1.00 

8% 1.35 2.50 3.95 1.61 1.00 

9% 1.27 2.22 3.31 1.48 1.00 

10% 1.22 2.00 2.83 1.38 1.00 

11% 1.17 1.82 2.45 1.30 1.00 

12% 1.14 1.67 2.15 1.24 1.00 

13% 1.11 1.54 1.91 1.19 1.00 

14% 1.08 1.43 1.71 1.15 1.00 

15% 1.06 1.33 1.54 1.11 1.00 

16% 1.05 1.25 1.40 1.08 1.00 

17% 1.03 1.18 1.28 1.06 1.00 

18% 1.02 1.11 1.17 1.04 1.00 

19% 1.01 1.05 1.08 1.02 1.00 

20% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

As with propulsion engines, the most current set of auxiliary engine emission factors comes from 

Entec (2002). Table 7 provides these auxiliary engine emission factors used for development of 

the Cleveland and Duluth-Superior inventories. There was no need for a low load adjustment 

factor for auxiliary engines, because they are generally operated in banks meaning several 

engines are available for the auxiliary load. When only low loads are needed, one or more 

engines are shut off, allowing the remaining engines to operate at a more efficient level. All 

auxiliary engines are assumed to be MSD with a BSFC of 210 g/kWh. 

Table 7. Auxiliary engine emission factors, g/kWh. 

Fuel 

Sulfur NOx CO HC PM10 PM2.5 SOx 

2.70% 14.7 1.1 0.4 1.11 1.02 11.09 

2.50% 14.7 1.1 0.4 1.04 0.96 10.26 

1.50% 13.9 1.1 0.4 0.71 0.66 6.16 

1.50% 13.9 1.1 0.4 0.71 0.66 6.16 

0.30% 13.9 1.1 0.4 0.32 0.29 1.23 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 6 

Estimated Fuel Sulfur Levels 

The fuel sulfur used by the marine engines has a dramatic effect on the PM and SOx emissions 

from vessels. In the previous inventory (ENVIRON, 2004) development for Category 3 

rulemaking, an average sulfur level of 3% sulfur was used for propulsion engines, and an 

average fuel sulfur level of 0.33% was used for auxiliary engines. It was assumed that while at 

dock, auxiliary engines were fueled on EPA non-road diesel fuel. As part of the inventory 

provided by Mr. Harkins (2006), fuel types used in propulsion engines were provided. Estimates 

of sulfur levels for the various fuels are provided in Table 8. Because most ships use the same 

fuel for both propulsion and auxiliary engines, fuel specified for the propulsion engines was used 

in the calculation of emissions from auxiliary engines in this analysis. 

Table 8. Assumed sulfur levels in marine diesel fuels. 

Fuel Type Fuel Sulfur 

Levels 

RO 2.7% 

IF 320 2.7% 

IF 280 2.7% 

IF 180 2.5% 

IF 120 2.5% 

IF 60 1.5% 

IF 40 1.5% 

#6 1.5% 

#2 0.3% 

GENERAL DUTY CYCLE 

To estimate the engine load, there are two engine test cycles that EPA has used to represent 

engine duty cycles, the E-3 (and a similar cycle called E-2 for constant speed engines typically 

with variable pitch propellers) and E-5 cycles described by the ISO (1996) as for heavy-duty and 

diesel craft less than 24 meters in length roughly corresponding to commercial and recreational 

use. In Table 9 are the two potential test cycle load factors available; E5 for general-purpose 

smaller marine diesel engines and E3 for ship propulsion and other heavy-duty marine 

applications. The load for the E-3 and E-2 test cycle is 69% average in-use load, while the E-5 

test cycle is 34% of propulsion load. If it could be determined that the vessels found in the Coast 

Guard list were used for commercial purposes including ferries or other commercial functions 

then the E-3 load factor was used. Else the lower E-5 load factor was used primarily for vessels 

that were obviously excursion vessels including casinos and other similar types. 

Table 9. Marine engine test cycles time in mode. 

Power E5 Cycle E3/E2 Cycle 

100 0.08 0.2 

75 0.13 0.5 

50 0.17 0.15 

25 0.32 0.15 

0 0.3 0 

Avg. Load 34% 69% 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 7 

Often fuel consumption can be easier obtained which reflects the total activity (power, load 

factor, and hours) of a vessel or group of vessels. However, a fuel consumption estimate must be 

converted to the specific emission factors. The specific fuel consumption rate of 0.345 lbfuel/gallon (and 7.1 lb/gallon diesel fuel density) was used for this work as taken from EPA 

(1997) used to convert locomotive specific emissions to gallons units. 

PUSH BOATS 

In the LADCO region, tugs pushing barge traffic is one of the primary emission sources of the 

categories covered by commercial marine emissions. Barges are usually pushed by tugs 

specifically designed for river movements, though in fair weather barges may be pushed near 

(within 5 miles) shore on the Great Lakes. The major river systems in the LADCO region are the 

Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois rivers. The freight movements and lock statistics (USACE, 2006) 

are well documented through river lock systems down to the Mississippi – Ohio confluence. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, 2006) has been using freight movement data and lock 

performance data to estimate fuel consumption by river system in their ‘barge costing model’. 

There are many factors affecting the fuel consumption including the configuration of the barges 

(how many barges can be operated per tug, the numbers of empty barges, the wait (idle) time at 

each lock, and other factors used by TVA to estimate fuel consumption along each route. TVA 

provided fuel consumption estimates and efficiency (ton-mile per gallon of fuel consumed) along 

river systems in the LADCO area. 

River Barge Traffic 

The fuel consumption by barge traffic on river systems was provided by TVA (2006) and is 

shown in the Table 10. The estimates provided here reflect only the river freight transfers and 

show the relative magnitude of activity along each river segment. The Calumet-SAG Channel, 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the South Branch of the Chicago River are all found 

exclusively within Cook County, while the other river systems reflect activity through multiple 

counties. 

Table 10. Fuel consumption (gallons of diesel) by river system. 

Waterway 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Calumet-Sag 

Channel, Il 573,518 517,008 274,349 187,364 392,884 288,105 241,658

Chicago Sanitary & 

Ship Canal, Il 596,678 647,159 614,426 523,492 687,271 653,519 758,182

Chicago River, 

South Branch, Il 19,789 39,889 27,606 26,655 32,354 31,610 37,647

Illinois River, Il 35,554,221 36,849,299 28,564,949 28,890,213 28,006,409 28,732,724 30,268,732

Ohio River 84,238,537 83,085,263 94,373,783 93,529,533 91,697,677 83,027,511 89,820,545

Mississippi above the 

Missouri 34,264,628 40,760,732 35,507,994 36,180,816 35,641,058 34,602,029 31,901,668

Mississippi Between 

Missouri and Ohio 51,261,419 64,649,042 52,607,979 44,360,390 50,904,864 45,265,442 32,215,131
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 8 

The geographic allocation of the fuel consumption was accomplished using lock freight statistics 

available from the Army Corp of Engineers (http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/lpms/lpms.htm). 

Given the schedule for this work, ENVIRON relied on the previous spatial allocation (ENVIRON, 

2004) that used the most recent lock statistics available for calendar year 1999. The freight 

statistics through each lock were used to estimate the ton-miles for river segments. The tonmiles between two locks were calculated using the average freight tonnage of two locks 

multiplied by the river mileage between the two locks as demonstrated for the Illinois River in 

Table 11. For river segments below or above the last available lock, the freight of the last lock 

was used if no other estimates were available. The ton-mile estimate for each river link, between 

each lock or at the end of the river system such as the Ohio-Mississippi confluence, was 

normalized across each river system to allocate the total fuel consumption by river system in 

Table 10. So while the spatial allocation was based on historic data, the overall activity along 

the river was based on the most recent data available. 

Table 11. Example: activity apportionment along the Illinois River. 

Illinois River 

Lock Miles 1999 kTon KTon-mile Apportioned 

Thomas J. O’Brien1 326.5 7,372 

Cook Co. Line1 298 est. 

 110,669 1.3% 

Lockport 291.1 16,039 

 81,888 0.9% 

Brandon Road 286 16,074 

 245,202 2.8% 

Dresden Island 271.5 17,747 

 496,345 5.7% 

Marseilles 244.6 19,156 

 275,672 3.2% 

Starved Rock 231 21,384 

 1,924,601 22.2% 

Peoria 157.7 31,129 

 2,585,671 29.8% 

LaGrange 80.2 35,598 

 2,953,044 34.0% 

Mississippi2 0 38,044 est. 

Totals 8,673,094 100.0% 

1

 Lock above the SAG Channel confluence (confluence is roughly equivalent to the Cook Co. line shown here) so 

activity contained in Chicago – South Branch and Sanitary and Ship Canal activity estimates 

2- Estimated based on added tonnage along Mississippi river

The procedure used here to apportion the fuel consumption was developed because the freight 

tonnage typically increases as the river flows. So the fuel consumption and therefore emissions 

are more appropriately apportioned to the lower reaches of the river using this method. 

The fuel consumption for each between-lock river segment was apportioned to the county using 

the relative river mileage within each county for each segment. For the Illinois River, the fuel 

consumption and emissions were allocated to the county that encompassed or were split between 

two Illinois counties if they bordered the river. For the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, the fuel 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 9 

consumption and emissions were divided by two to reflect that these rivers form the borders of 

the LADCO states and states outside of the region of interest. 

Once the fuel consumption was estimated the emissions were predicted based on the typical 

engines installed on push boats. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Vessel Characteristics, 

2006) provides vessel characteristics for push boats. Because the emission factors depend 

primarily upon the power of the engines (as Table 3 shows, Category 1 engines above 1000kW 

had similar emission factors to Category 2 engines shown in Table 5 for medium speed engines) 

the fraction of the power available in push boats registered in the LADCO states was divided into 

those with propulsion power above and below 2680 horsepower (assuming 2 engines with rated 

power of 1000 kW). Smaller engines provided only 20% of the push boat power and 80% by 

larger engines, so the average emission factor for push boats was determine using these fractions 

and the estimates in Table 3 for engines between 225 –1000 kW and those above 1000 kW. The 

emission factors in specific units (g/kW-hr or g/hp-hr) were converted gallon units using the 

specific fuel consumption estimate of 0.345 lb/hp-hr and fuel density of 7.1 lb/gallon as used to 

convert specific emissions to gallons units in the EPA’s (1997) locomotive emissions estimates. 

The emission factors used in this work are shown in Table 12. 

Table 12. Emission factors (g/gallon) used for push boats. 

Engine\Pollutant HC NOx CO PM SO2 NH3 

<1000 kW 4.14 153.4 23.0 4.6

>1000 kW 4.14 199.4 38.3 4.6

Avg. 4.14 190.2 35.3 4.6 16.7 0.116

Great Lakes Barge Traffic 

For freight transfers on the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard restricts barge traffic within 5 miles of 

shore (http://www.port.mil.wi.us/bargewebpage.html), so freight transfers within these limits 

were considered to be barge only. The links that are outlined by USACE (2006) and shown in 

Figure 1 where barge links roughly correspond to those blue links ringing the shore. Some 

freight transfers between the outlet of the Illinois River system (through the Chicago River, SAG 

Channel, or Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) to other Great Lakes ports such as Burns Harbor 

or Indiana Harbor may be more direct. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 10 

Figure 1. Great Lakes freight links. 

The tonnage along each freight link was provided by USACE (2006) with spatial descriptions of 

each link. The links described as Lake “Spines,” and those described as “Access” links coming 

from large ports serving deep draft vessels shown in red in Figure 1 were sorted out for barge 

traffic leaving only links around the lake rather than those in the middle of the lakes. The links 

described in this data include lengths and longitude and latitude where the links lengths and 

position are only approximate representations but the actual vessel movements may not be 

restricted to these specific positions but were used as such for the county spatial allocation. 

The tonnage and link lengths were multiplied to estimate ton-miles of freight movements. The 

fuel consumption associated with these vessel movements was assumed to be 549 ton-miles per 

gallon from the previous work (ENVIRON, 2004), the same as the lower Mississippi between 

the Missouri and Ohio rivers and the most fuel efficient push boats freight transfers within the 

LADCO region. The best estimate of fuel consumption was used because the Lake transfers have 

no significant locks, turns, passing traffic, or current to contend with, as opposed to river 

movements, which reduce the fuel efficiency of these freight movements. The fuel consumption 

estimate was then used to convert the Table 12 emission rates to units useful for estimating 

emissions with ton-mile as the activity indicator and shown in Table 13. 

Table 13. Emission rates (g/ton-mile) for push boats assuming 549 (ton-mile/gallon) fuel 

consumption rate. 

HC CO NOx PM – 10 SO2 NH3 

0.0075 0.0643 0.3465 0.0084 0.0304 0.0002
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 11 

OTHER TUGS 

Tugs, as defined by USACE (2006) separate of push boats, are working vessels other than those 

push boats used to transport freight. These tugs could be used in a variety of other activities such 

as providing assist to larger deep draft vessels near ports, short movements of barges in and 

around ports, and as supply vessels or other sundry needs throughout the Great Lakes area or 

along the major river systems. 

The Coast Guard provides through the Army Corps (USACE, Vessel Characteristics, 2006) the 

number of vessels and their characteristics, installed power and other data, for a wide variety of 

boats and distinguishes tugs from push boats. The vessels, identified as tugs, were associated 

with emissions in the county of the port of registry as provided through the Army Corps 

information. It is likely that some or all of the boats also operate outside the county of the port 

listed for a significant fraction of their time. 

The activity of these vessels is unknown, so a small survey of vessel operators in the LADCO 

states was undertaken in the previous effort (ENVIRON, 2004) to identify a reasonable hour per 

year estimate. The survey response from five operators included activity estimates for a total of 

35 tugs of which 6 were no longer in service but appeared in the vessel list. The average annual 

usage, including those no longer in service, was 1831 hours and used for these emissions 

estimates. It is possible that this was an underestimate because newer vessels may have replaced 

those tugs that are no longer in service and are not yet in the Army Corps data. The annual usage 

estimate of 2309 hours for eliminating the responses from those tugs no longer in service may be 

more appropriate but was not used. Because these vessels are workboats, the E3 test cycle load 

factor of 0.69 was used to estimate emissions. 

DEEP DRAFT VESSELS 

Estimates for deep draft vessels relied upon detailed port inventory information prepared for 

Cleveland and Duluth-Superior. Detailed ship calls for those two harbors were obtained from 

Richard Harkins, previously of the Lake Carriers Association. The port calls provided by Mr. 

Harkins included ship name, number of calls, maneuvering and hotelling times, tons of cargo 

carried and fuel used, along with other information. These data were matched with Lloyds 

Register Ship data to provide ship characteristics such as ship power, engine design and 

designation, ship type, service speed and ship dead weight tons. Ship calls were divided between 

Lakers and Salties. Lakers typically operate only within the Great Lake area and contain a 

combination of Category 2 and 3 ships. Salties are typically foreign ships that travel into the 

Great Lakes through the Saint Lawrence River out into the Atlantic and are usually Category 3. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines engine categories by the displacement per 

cylinder of the engine as shown in Table 14. These categories relate to land-based engine 

equivalents. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 12 

Table 14. EPA marine compression-ignition engine categories. 

Category Specification Use Approximate Power 

Ratings 

1 

Gross Engine Power ≥ 37 kW1

Displacement < 5 liters per 

cylinder

Small harbor craft and 

recreational propulsion < 1,000 kW 

2 Displacement ≥ 5 and < 30 

liters per cylinder 

OGV auxiliary engines, 

harbor craft, and smaller 

OGV propulsion 

1,000 – 3,000 kW 

3 Displacement ≥ 30 liters per 

cylinder OGV propulsion > 3,000 kW 

1 EPA assumes that all engines with a gross power below 37 kW are used for recreational applications and are treated 

separately from the commercial marine category. 

Engine speed designations are shown in Table 15. Most ships have diesel engines, although 

some older ships are steamships. 

Table 15. Marine engine speed designations. 

Speed 

Category Engine RPM1 Usual Engine Stroke Type 

Slow < 130 RPM 2 

Medium 130 – 1,400 RPM 4 

High > 1,400 RPM 4 1 RPM = revolutions per minute. 

Ship Types 

Deep draft vessels vary greatly in speed and generating capacity based on ship type. Various 

studies break out vessel types differently, but it makes most sense to break vessel types out by 

the cargo they carry. Table 16 lists various deep draft vessel types that are used in this study. 

Table 16. Deep draft vessel ship types. 

Ship Type Description 

Bulk Carrier Self-propelled dry-cargo ship that carries loose cargo. 

General Cargo Self-propelled cargo vessel that carries a variety of dry cargo. 

Passenger Ship Self-propelled passenger ships. 

Tanker Self-propelled liquid-cargo vessels including chemical tankers, petroleum 

product tankers, etc. 

ITB Integrated Tug/Barge 

Activity Determinations 

The description of a vessel’s movements during a typical call is best accomplished by breaking 

down the call into modes that have similar speed characteristics. Vessel movements for each call 

are described by using four distinct time-in-mode calculations. Each time-in-mode is associated 

with a speed and, therefore, an engine load that has unique emission characteristics. While there 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 13 

will be variability in each vessel’s movements within a call, these time-in-modes allow an 

average description of vessel movements at each port. Time-in-modes were estimated for each 

vessel call occurring in Duluth and Burns Harbor for the analysis year. The time-in-modes are 

described in Table 17. 

Table 17. Vessel movements and time-in-mode descriptions. 

Summary Table 

Field Description 

Call 

A call is one entrance and one clearance from the MEPA1

 area. An 

entrance is defined as entering the breakwater (port entrance) of the port, 

while a clearance is defined as leaving the breakwater of a port. 

Cruise (hr/call) 

Time at service speed (also called sea speed or normal cruising speed) 

usually considered to be 94 percent of maximum speed and 83 percent 

of MCR2

. Calculated for each MEPA area from the start of the RSZ and 

includes 7 nautical miles out into the Great Lakes. 

Reduced Speed 

Zone (RSZ) 

(hr/call) 

The RSZ is when the ship is traveling at less than service speed due to a 

mandated area or for navigational reasons. The RSZ are estimated here 

as the distance to slow from service speed to maneuvering speed and is 

estimated at 3 nautical miles. RSZ speeds are estimated as the average 

between service speed and maneuvering speed. 

Maneuver 

(hr/call) 

Time in the MEPA area between the breakwater and the pier/wharf/dock 

(PWD). Maneuvering within a port is estimated to occur at 4 knots on 

average. 

Hotelling (hr/call) 

Hotelling is the time at a PWD when the vessel is operating auxiliary 

engines only. Auxiliary engines are operating at some load conditions the 

entire time the vessel is manned, but peak loads will occur after the 

propulsion engines are shut down. The auxiliary engines are then 

responsible for all onboard power or are used to power off-loading 

equipment, or both. 

1 MEPA = Marine Exchange/Port Authority. 

2 MCR = maximum continuous rating. 

Cruise speed listed in Lloyd’s data is generally taken as 94 percent of the maximum service 

speed. Cruise distance is defined here as 7 nautical miles from where the ship begins to slow 

down to enter the port. The slowing from cruise speed to maneuvering speed occurs over the 

next 3 nautical miles and ends at the port entrance. The speed for this reduced speed zone is the 

average between the ship cruise speed and the maneuvering speed of 4 knots. Maneuvering is 

the time when the ship travels from the breakwater to the PWD. Hotelling time is estimated as 

the time when the ship is at the PWD with the auxiliary engines on. Both cruise and RSZ times 

were calculated based upon the individual ship speed and distance. Maneuvering and hotelling 

times were taken directly from the port call data provided by Mr. Harkins. 

Propulsion Engine Load Factors 

In the previous inventory (ENVIRON, 2004), propulsion engine load factors were estimated 

from a modification of the Propeller curve. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 14 

Load Factor = 0.1 + 0.7*(actual speed/cruise speed)3

The 10% minimum for zero actual speed was considered to include auxiliary engines and could 

be used to estimate auxiliary power when hotelling. In newer methodologies, propulsion engine 

load factors are calculated directly from the propeller curve based upon the cube of actual speed 

divided by maximum speed (at 100% maximum continuous rating [MCR]) and auxiliary engine 

loads calculated separately. 

Load Factor = (actual speed/maximum speed)3

Since cruise speed is estimated at 94 percent of maximum speed, the load factor at cruise is 

calculated at 0.83 which is very close to the 0.8 used previously in the inventory development. 

The main difference is that in the new calculations, auxiliary engines are not included but 

addressed separately. 

In Starcrest’s (2003, 2004) two most recent inventories, they found that load factors as low as 2 

percent were possible. These lower factors are possible, because ships often cycle their 

propulsion engine on and off during maneuvering to reduce speeds below the dead slow setting 

of approximately 5.8 knots. In fact, during its vessel boarding program at the Port of Los 

Angeles, Starcrest found container ships had engines stopped 25 to 50 percent of their time 

during maneuvering. While load factors were calculated using the above propeller law for each 

call, load factors below 2 percent were set to 2 percent as a minimum. 

Treatment of Auxiliary Engines 

As stated above, auxiliary engines were combined with propulsion engines in the previous 

inventory. In the methodology suggested here, auxiliary engine maximum continuous rating 

power and load factors should be calculated separately from propulsion engines and different 

emission factors applied. Most propulsion engines are considered slow speed or medium speed 

Category 2 or 3 engines, while most auxiliary engines are considered medium speed Category 2 

engines. Since hotelling emissions are a large part of port inventories, it is important to 

distinguish propulsion engine emissions from auxiliary engine emissions. 

In 2005, California Air Resources Board (ARB, 2005) conducted an Oceangoing Ship Survey of 

327 ships in January 2005. Table 18 shows average auxiliary engine power compared to 

propulsion power obtained from the ARB survey. While it is important to determine proper 

ratios for each port because of differences in the types of ships calling on that port if possible, 

these ratios and engine speeds were used in the new typical port inventory development as a 

surrogate for auxiliary power. 

Load factors for auxiliary engines vary by ship type and operating mode. It was previously 

thought that power generation was provided by propulsion engines in all modes but hotelling. 

Several recent studies have shown that auxiliary engines are on all of the time, with the largest 

loads during hotelling. Table 19 shows the auxiliary engine load factors determined by Starcrest, 

through interviews conducted with ship captains, chief engineers, and pilots during its vessel 

boarding programs. Auxiliary load factors should be used in conjunction with total auxiliary 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 15 

power. Auxiliary load factors listed in Table 19 are used together with the total auxiliary engine 

power from Table 18. 

Table18. Auxiliary engine power ratios (ARB, 2005 Survey). 

Average Auxiliary Engines 

Ship Type 

Average 

Propulsion 

Engine 

(kW) Number 

Power 

Each 

(kW) 

Total 

Power 

(kW) 

Engine 

Speed 

Auxiliary to 

Propulsion 

Ratio 

Bulk Carrier 8,000 2.9 612 1,776 Medium 0.222 

Passenger Ship 39,600 4.7 2,340 11,000 Medium 0.278

General Cargo 9,300 2.9 612 1,776 Medium 0.191 

Miscellaneous1 6,250 2.9 580 1,680 Medium 0.269 

Tanker 9,400 2.7 735 1,985 Medium 0.211 

1 Miscellaneous ship types were not provided in the ARB methodology, so values from the Starcrest Vessel Boarding Program 

were used. This is used for ITBs. 

Table 19. Auxiliary engine load factor assumptions. 

Ship-Type Cruise RSZ Maneuver Hotel 

Self-Unloader1 0.17 0.27 0.45 0.30 

Bulk Carrier 0.17 0.27 0.45 0.22 

Passenger Ship 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.64 

General Cargo 0.17 0.27 0.45 0.22 

Miscellaneous 0.17 0.27 0.45 0.22 

Tanker 0.13 0.27 0.45 0.67 

1 Self-unloaders were assigned a higher hotelling load factor than bulk carriers due to the fact that auxiliary 

engines are used during unloading. 

Cleveland Port Inventory 

Using the methodology discussed above, emissions for ship calls in 2005 were calculated using 

the call information provided by Mr. Harkins (2006). Results are shown in Table 20 by mode for 

Lakers and compared against Harkins’ results in Table 21. 

The main difference is in the maneuvering mode due to the fact that Mr. Harkins did not apply 

the low load emission factor adjustment factors during maneuvering. Installed power is the ship 

propulsion power multiplied by calls. 

Table 20. Cleveland Laker inventory by mode (this work). 

Tonnes per year 

Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 3,581 30.262 1.215 1.171 1.134 2.515 8.858 

RSZ 3,581 6.988 0.281 0.258 0.249 0.575 1.934 

Maneuver 3,581 29.987 1.062 0.977 3.996 3.838 2.677 

Hotel 3,581 31.570 0.930 0.856 0.906 2.492 5.451 

Total 3,581 98.806 3.488 3.262 6.285 9.420 18.920 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 16 

Table 21. Cleveland Laker inventory by mode (Harkins, 2006). 

Tonnes per year Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 3,588 25.991 1.142 1.093 0.314 4.644 8.184 

RSZ 3,588 6.433 0.283 0.271 0.078 1.149 2.025 

Maneuver 3,588 17.654 0.543 0.516 0.189 3.167 3.176 

Hotel 3,588 28.025 1.058 1.010 0.301 5.154 6.903 

Total 3,588 78.104 3.026 2.889 0.883 14.114 20.288 

Similar calculations for Salties are shown in Table 22 and compared against Harkins’ inventory 

in Table 23. Again the major difference between the ICF results and Harkins’ results is that Mr. 

Harkins did not apply the low load adjustment factors to the emission factors for maneuvering. 

In addition, this work assumed that auxiliaries used RO while Harkins assumed they used a 

lower sulfur fuel. And a higher auxiliary load was used based on a realistic power and typical 

load factors especially during hotel modes. 

Table 22. Cleveland Salty inventory by mode (this work). 

Tonnes per year Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 518 7.771 0.469 0.431 0.258 0.601 4.621 

RSZ 518 1.618 0.101 0.093 0.052 0.125 1.001 

Maneuver 518 1.906 0.163 0.150 0.254 0.237 0.805 

Hotel 518 22.507 1.698 1.562 0.612 1.684 16.972 

Total 518 33.803 2.431 2.236 1.176 2.647 23.400 

Table 23. Cleveland Salty inventory by mode (Harkins, 2006). 

Tonnes per year Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 509 5.688 0.348 0.336 0.196 0.477 3.210 

RSZ 509 1.408 0.086 0.083 0.048 0.118 0.794 

Maneuver 509 1.024 0.063 0.060 0.035 0.086 0.578 

Hotel 509 8.247 0.228 0.216 0.083 1.531 1.154 

Total 509 16.366 0.725 0.695 0.362 2.212 5.737 

Duluth-Superior Port Inventory 

A similar procedure to Cleveland was performed on the Lakers and Salties that called upon 

Duluth-Superior. Results are shown in Table 24 by mode for Lakers and compared against 

Harkins’ (2006) results in Table 25. The main difference is in the maneuvering mode due to the 

fact that Mr. Harkins did not apply the low load emission factor adjustment factors during 

maneuvering. A higher auxiliary load was used based on a realistic power and typical load 

factors especially during hotel modes. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 17 

Table 24. Duluth-Superior Laker inventory by mode (this work). 

Tonnes per year Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 8,408 91.049 5.232 4.813 3.317 7.384 45.437 

RSZ 8,408 20.215 1.127 1.037 0.703 1.624 9.766 

Maneuver 8,408 36.180 2.572 2.367 4.536 4.378 10.554 

Hotel 8,408 98.297 4.620 4.251 2.769 7.616 38.759 

Total 8,408 245.741 13.552 12.467 11.326 21.003 104.516 

Table 25. Harkins Duluth-Superior Laker inventory by mode. 

Tonnes per year Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 8,515 85.096 4.700 4.530 2.030 10.925 40.063 

RSZ 8,515 21.061 1.163 1.121 0.502 2.704 9.916 

Maneuver 8,515 20.741 1.286 1.241 0.507 2.633 11.245 

Hotel 8,515 38.656 3.229 3.119 0.542 6.804 28.206 

Total 8,515 165.554 10.379 10.010 3.581 23.066 89.431 

Similar calculations for Salties are shown in Table 26 and compared against Harkins’ inventory 

in Table 27. Again the major difference between the ICF results and Harkins’ results is that Mr. 

Harkins did not apply the low load adjustment factors to the emission factors for maneuvering. 

In addition, ICF assumed that auxiliary engines used RO while Harkins assumed they used lower 

sulfur fuel. A higher auxiliary load was used based on a realistic power and typical load factors 

especially during hotel modes. 

Table 26. Duluth-Superior Salty inventory by mode (this work). 

Tonnes per year Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 697 10.145 0.625 0.575 0.338 0.786 6.170 

RSZ 697 2.107 0.134 0.123 0.068 0.162 1.328 

Maneuver 697 2.538 0.220 0.202 0.341 0.316 1.072 

Hotel 697 21.735 1.639 1.508 0.591 1.626 16.390 

Total 697 36.524 2.619 2.409 1.339 2.890 24.960 

Table 27. Harkins Duluth-Superior Salty inventory by mode. 

Tonnes per year Mode 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Cruise 655 9.056 0.441 0.429 0.304 0.702 4.063 

RSZ 655 3.736 0.182 0.177 0.125 0.290 1.676 

Maneuver 655 1.358 0.066 0.064 0.046 0.105 0.609 

Hotel 655 5.388 0.153 0.145 0.054 1.000 0.790 

Total 655 19.539 0.841 0.815 0.529 2.097 7.139 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 18 

Port Matching 

The remaining ports were estimated from the detailed inventories prepared for Cleveland and 

Duluth-Superior discussed above. Ports were matched to the two ports based upon port size and 

the ship types that call on the port. The modeled ports that were matched are shown in Table 28, 

along with the total tons of cargo shipped in 2004 taken from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(2004) and the percent of cargo that was shipped on bulk carriers in 1996 (Arcadis, 1999). 

Foreign calls at each port obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2004) for 

2004, the latest year available. Mr. Harkins indicated that traffic in 2005 was virtually identical 

to that in 2004. Emissions for foreign calls were determined from the matched port (Cleveland 

or Duluth-Superior) for identical ships of the same ship type, engine type and dead weight ton 

range as the modeled port. Cargo tonnage for foreign calls was estimated from the matched port 

data based upon the ratio of calls and dead weight tonnage of the ships calling on the modeled 

port. The portion of the cargo tonnage moved by foreign bulk carriers was compared against the 

total tonnage moved at the port times the percent of cargo moved by bulk carriers. The ratio of 

total Laker bulk carrier tonnage divided by the total foreign Laker bulk carrier tonnage was used 

to increase the number of calls of each ship type to account for domestic traffic. 

Table 28. Port matching and cargo tonnage. 

Port Name Cargo (Tons) Bulk Carrier 

% of total Match Port1 

Toledo Harbor, OH 9,861,562 89% DS 

Ashtabula Harbor, OH 10,938,476 99% DS 

Indiana Harbor, IN 18,228,291 75% DS 

Conneaut Harbor, OH 8,026,733 86% DS 

Duluth-Superior Harbor, MN and WI 45,392,619 95% DS 

Detroit Harbor, MI 16,858,179 87% DS 

Port of Chicago, IL 24,602,157 21% DS 

Sandusky Harbor, OH 3,404,447 95% DS 

Cleveland Harbor, OH 15,774,611 86% CL 

Charlevoix Harbor, MI 1,462,735 63% CL 

Milwaukee Harbor, WI 3,155,896 73% CL 

Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 9,801,740 80% CL 

Port Dolomite, MI 3,505,309 83% CL 

Fairport Harbor, OH 2,771,713 82% CL 

Marblehead, OH 3,826,771 91% CL 

Marysville, MI 1,361,797 98% CL 

Drummond Island, MI 1,715,826 75% CL 

Marquette Harbor, MI 1,537,556 63% CL 

Calcite, MI 8,949,167 91% CL 

Muskegon Harbor, MI 2,683,861 99% CL 

Presque Isle Harbor, MI 10,134,332 99% CL 

Lorain Harbor, OH 3,007,249 98% CL 

Monroe Harbor, MI 948,293 93% CL 

Alpena Harbor, MI 3,274,896 100% CL 

Gary Harbor, IN 8,531,123 79% CL 

Marine City, MI 4,077,289 100% CL 

Escanaba, MI 6,620,080 91% CL 

Buffington Harbor, IN 1,449,395 77% CL 

Stoneport, MI 7,753,812 95% CL 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 19 

Port Name Cargo (Tons) Bulk Carrier 

% of total Match Port1 

St. Clair, MI 5,280,623 98% CL 

1 CL = Cleveland Harbor, DS = Duluth-Superior Harbor 

Because the foreign Laker traffic use mostly bulk carriers that are Canadian ships transferring 

cargo to the U.S. or U.S. ships transferring cargo to Canada via the Lakes only, it is likely that 

the foreign cargo Lakers are similar in design to the domestic bulk carriers. Data from USACE 

on Salties had been used directly to represent foreign ships. However because the USACE data 

provided ship name and Lloyds number, the vessels could be matched directly with Lloyds data 

to determine engine type, ship power and service speed. This information was used to calculate 

average ship power and speed by ship type, engine type and dead weight ton range by grouping 

Canadian foreign vessel traffic with the domestic Laker vessels. The engine power was used 

directly to calculate total engine load with the load factor and time in mode for both cruise and 

RSZ zones in order to estimate emissions. Emissions from the matched port (Duluth-Superior or 

Cleveland) were adjusted for the modeled port based upon the difference in the time in mode, 

load factor, and propulsion power between the modeled and matched ports. 

Emissions from deep draft vessels by port are given in Table 29. Emissions from ‘Lakers’ by 

port are given in Table 30. Emissions from ‘Salties’ by port are given in Table 31. The Duluth – 

Superior port activities span the Minnesota – Wisconsin border. So a crude assumption based on 

relative numbers of berths and likely activity of 1/3 the activity occurs in Wisconsin was used to 

apportion the emissions of this port. 

Table 29. Deep draft vessel emissions by port. 

Tonnes per year 

Port Name 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Duluth-Superior, MN 

& WI 9,105 282.27 16.17 14.88 12.66 23.89 129.48

Burns Waterway, IN 4,345 144.28 7.81 7.27 7.78 12.78 62.74

Indiana, IN 4,209 145.21 9.51 8.75 6.40 12.20 80.94

Cleveland, OH 4,098 132.61 5.92 5.50 7.46 12.07 42.32

Detroit, MI 3,169 125.78 7.52 6.92 5.34 10.48 64.17

Ashtabula, OH 2,514 80.93 4.90 4.51 3.92 6.97 40.68

Toledo, OH 2,442 30.05 2.09 1.93 1.09 2.38 19.77

Conneaut, OH 2,440 74.52 4.42 4.07 3.71 6.48 35.79

Calcite, MI 2,106 45.35 2.66 2.46 2.41 4.10 19.41

St. Clair, MI 1,869 46.20 2.32 2.12 2.60 4.22 15.84

Presque Isle, MI 1,854 20.25 2.60 2.50 0.79 1.73 22.94

Alpena, MI 1,728 35.31 2.71 2.49 1.56 3.08 22.03

Gary, IN 1,653 44.12 2.47 2.26 2.69 4.05 18.06

Chicago, IL 1,558 62.47 4.26 3.91 2.45 5.08 37.86

Stoneport, MI 1,552 26.68 1.85 1.77 1.29 2.39 14.40

Marine City, MI 1,446 37.41 1.79 1.63 2.07 3.41 11.94

Escabana, MI 1,305 25.32 1.44 1.36 1.46 2.34 10.36

Marblehead, OH 1,009 44.98 2.11 1.97 2.42 4.09 14.57

Milwaukee, WI 970 33.75 2.21 2.01 1.47 2.79 19.92

Muskegon, MI 912 22.98 1.00 0.93 1.22 2.08 6.76
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 20 

Tonnes per year 

Port Name 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Dolomite, MI 835 17.12 1.10 1.01 0.91 1.55 8.22

Lorain, OH 832 21.11 0.94 0.86 1.25 1.95 6.05

Sandusky, OH 822 24.92 1.65 1.52 1.16 2.13 13.61

Fairport, OH 617 16.17 0.72 0.69 0.98 1.50 4.90

Drummond Island, MI 482 11.17 0.64 0.58 0.61 1.02 4.56

Charlevoix, MI 410 13.71 0.49 0.46 0.71 1.24 2.80

Buffington, IN 295 6.92 0.30 0.28 0.37 0.63 1.99

Marysville, MI 287 8.20 0.38 0.35 0.47 0.75 2.55

Marquette Harbor, MI 185 4.03 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.38 1.56

Monroe Harbor, MI 124 4.03 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.36 0.91

Table 30. Laker emissions by port. 

Tonnes per year 

Port Name 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Duluth-Superior, MN 

& WI 8,408 245.74 13.55 12.47 11.33 21.00 104.52

Indiana, IN 4,155 141.97 9.29 8.54 6.29 11.94 78.74

Burns Waterway, IN 3,652 97.21 4.47 4.22 6.14 9.10 30.52

Cleveland, OH 3,581 98.81 3.49 3.26 6.29 9.42 18.92

Detroit, MI 2,694 98.80 5.61 5.16 4.36 8.35 45.92

Conneaut, OH 2,440 74.52 4.42 4.07 3.71 6.48 35.79

Ashtabula, OH 2,425 75.85 4.54 4.18 3.74 6.57 37.23

Calcite, MI 2,106 45.35 2.66 2.46 2.41 4.10 19.41

Toledo, OH 2,065 10.94 0.72 0.67 0.38 0.87 6.75

St. Clair, MI 1,869 46.20 2.32 2.12 2.60 4.22 15.84

Presque Isle, MI 1,854 20.25 2.60 2.50 0.79 1.73 22.94

Alpena, MI 1,728 35.31 2.71 2.49 1.56 3.08 22.03

Gary, IN 1,653 44.12 2.47 2.26 2.69 4.05 18.06

Stoneport, MI 1,552 26.68 1.85 1.77 1.29 2.39 14.40

Marine City, MI 1,446 37.41 1.79 1.63 2.07 3.41 11.94

Escabana, MI 1,305 25.32 1.44 1.36 1.46 2.34 10.36

Marblehead, OH 1,009 44.98 2.11 1.97 2.42 4.09 14.57

Chicago, IL 966 31.38 2.02 1.86 1.31 2.62 16.55

Muskegon, MI 877 20.71 0.83 0.77 1.14 1.91 5.06

Dolomite, MI 835 17.12 1.10 1.01 0.91 1.55 8.22

Lorain, OH 832 21.11 0.94 0.86 1.25 1.95 6.05

Sandusky, OH 822 24.92 1.65 1.52 1.16 2.13 13.61

Fairport, OH 617 16.17 0.72 0.69 0.98 1.50 4.90

Milwaukee, WI 614 10.47 0.55 0.50 0.66 0.97 3.90

Drummond Island, MI 482 11.17 0.64 0.58 0.61 1.02 4.56

Charlevoix, MI 410 13.71 0.49 0.46 0.71 1.24 2.80

Buffington, IN 295 6.92 0.30 0.28 0.37 0.63 1.99

Marysville, MI 287 8.20 0.38 0.35 0.47 0.75 2.55

Marquette Harbor, MI 175 3.70 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.35 1.32

Monroe Harbor, MI 124 4.03 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.36 0.91
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 21 

Table 31. Salty emissions by port. 

Tonnes per year 

Port Name 

Installed 

Power 

(MW) NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO SOx 

Duluth-Superior, MN 

& WI 697 36.52 2.62 2.41 1.34 2.89 24.96

Burns Waterway, IN 693 47.07 3.34 3.04 1.63 3.68 32.22

Chicago, IL 592 31.09 2.24 2.06 1.14 2.46 21.30

Cleveland, OH 518 33.80 2.43 2.24 1.18 2.65 23.40

Detroit, MI 475 26.98 1.91 1.76 0.97 2.13 18.25

Toledo, OH 377 19.11 1.37 1.26 0.71 1.52 13.02

Milwaukee, WI 356 23.28 1.67 1.51 0.81 1.82 16.02

Ashtabula, OH 89 5.08 0.36 0.33 0.18 0.40 3.45

Indiana, IN 54 3.24 0.23 0.21 0.12 0.25 2.19

Muskegon, MI 35 2.27 0.18 0.16 0.08 0.18 1.69

Marquette Harbor, MI 11 0.33 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.24

Mid-Lake Traffic 

To estimate the mid-lake deep draft vessel activity, USACE (2006) freight links (red links plus 

mid-Lake links shown in Figure 1) tonnage data was used to provide estimates of activity. The 

USACE uses text descriptions, and the links for the deep draft vessel in the middle of each lake 

are labeled “spines” with “access” links to each of those spines. The freight links along the 

“spine” of each lake and the “access” to each spine were defined as those associated with deep 

draft vessels because these shipping lanes are outside of the area designated as barge traffic. The 

port emission estimates extend out 10 nautical miles from port (7 miles for cruise plus 3 miles 

for reduced speed and maneuvering), so ENVIRON reduced the length of each access link by 10 

miles. Multiplying the freight tonnage by the length of each link provides an activity indicator 

for deep draft vessels away from port. 

In order to estimate emissions, the emission per ton-mile was estimated based on the cruise mode 

emission estimates for ports calls to Cleveland and Duluth described in this work. The cruise 

mode was defined as 7 miles each way (14 miles both ways) and together with the tonnage for 

each port in 2004 (the year for which the activity data was available) a ton-mile estimate for the 

cruise mode emission was made. The emissions in gram per ton-mile during the cruise mode 

were estimated and these estimates are shown in Table 32. The average of the two ports was 

used to estimate mid-Lake emissions using the 2002 freight tonnage data and link lengths from 

USACE (2006). 

Table 32. Emission rate (gram per ton-mile) for deep draft vessels. 

Port Vessel Type 

2004 

Tonnage HC CO NOx PM SO2 

Cleveland Laker 12,859,288 0.0063 0.0140 0.1681 0.0068 0.0492

 Salty 622,387 0.0296 0.0690 0.8919 0.0538 0.5304

Sub Average 0.0074 0.0165 0.2015 0.0089 0.0714

Duluth Laker 42,841,746 0.0055 0.0123 0.1518 0.0087 0.0758

Salty 1,845,156 0.0131 0.0304 0.3927 0.0242 0.2388

 Sub Average 0.0058 0.0131 0.1618 0.0094 0.0825

Lakes Average 0.0066 0.0148 0.1816 0.0091 0.0770
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 22 

FERRIES, EXCURSION CRAFT, AND OTHER VESSELS 

Ferries, excursion craft, and other vessels (primarily identified as support vessels) were 

determined from a list of vessels provided by the Coast Guard to the USACE (2004). The list 

includes the push boats, tugs, and other self-propelled craft. The other self-propelled craft 

includes a wide variety of vessels registered in the U.S. including freight, passenger vessel of all 

types, and a very few support vessels. The freight vessels were excluded from review because 

the freight transfers were either covered under the categories of deep draft or push boats. The 

remaining vessels were primarily ferries and excursion vessels. 

Ferries are used for either transportation or excursion and many are operated only seasonally. 

The ferries in the LADCO states are shown in Table 33 to confirm that the Coast Guard lists 

provided the operating ferries and to estimate operating times to estimate engine loads over the 

course of the year. 

Table 33. Sample ferry runs in the LADCO area. 

State Port 1 Port 2 Other Ports & 

Comments 

Bayfield La Point Madeline Island 

Sauk Columbia Merrimac Free Ferry 

Cassfield Iowa 

Washington 

Island 

Gills Rock Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Muskegon New since 2002 

Golden Eagle Iowa 

Illinois Grafton Calhoun Co. 

Brussels 

Ludington, MI Manitowoc, WI Badger Steamship 

Mackinac St. Ignace Mackinac City 

Beaver Island Charlevoix 

Manitou Islands Leland 

Algonac, MI Canada 

Michigan 

Munising Grand Island 

Port Clinton Put-in-Bay \ 

Bass Islands 

Sandusky Pelee Island 

Canada 

Ohio 

Marblehead Kelley’s Island 

In the previous work (ENVIRON, 2004) sample ferry runs were use to estimate the annual 

activity where the annual activity of a specific vessel could be estimated. These sample ferries 

shown in Table 34 produce a range of operating hours and are likely higher than typical for all 

vessels. Because these vessels are those operating at a higher rate than other ferry runs and 

excursion craft, and these schedules are likely maximum operating hours, an estimate of 1500 

hours per year was used for all vessels in the USACE list. By contrast the survey data for tugs 

indicated an annual usage of 1831 hours per year, so the reduced estimate of 1500 hours is 

reasonable for these seasonal operators. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 23 

Table 34. Selected ferry-operating hours. 

Ferry 

Activity 

Description 

Operating Hours 

(per crossing 

estimate) 

Annual Activity 

Estimate 

(hours/year) 

Badger (WI, MI) 

http://www.ssbadger.com/scheduleFares.asp 

60 days 2 

crossings 

80 days of 4 

crossings 

4 hours running 

1.5 hours at dock 

1,840 running 

690 at dock 

2,530 total 

Beaver Island (MI) 

http://www.bibco.com/ 

706 crossings 

April –Dec. 

2 hours running 

1 hours at dock 

1,412 running 

706 at dock 

2,118 total 

Jet Express (OH) 

(Maybe more than one boat) 

http://www.jet-express.com/schedules.html

5091 crossings 

May – Oct. 

0.5 hours per 

crossing 

2,546 total 

Cassville (WI) 

http://www.cassville.org/ferry.html#Schedule 

132 days 6 hours running per 

day 

789 total 

The load factor for ferries (labeled “Other Carriers (Specialized)” or “Other Carriers 

(Specialized)” in the USACE vessel lists) and other vessels including those labeled “Offshore 

Support” and “General cargo” were assumed to be workboats, so the 0.69 load factor was used to 

estimate emissions for these vessels. For “Passenger (Cruise)” and “Passenger (Other)” (which 

include excursion craft such as found at the Wisconsin Dells) vessels, a lower load factor of 0.34 

was used to estimate emissions. 

Dredging activity was derived from the total dredged material provided by USACE (2006). 

Emission rates were derived using results from another study (Starcrest, 2000), where emissions 

were estimated and associated with tonnage of material dredged of those emission estimates. 

COMMERCIAL FISHING 

Commercial fishing has a long tradition in the Great Lakes, but commercial fishing boats are a 

very small contribution to air emissions over the Great Lakes. Commercial fishing boats were 

provided in the State registration databases for Michigan and Wisconsin. As shown in Table 35, 

these two states have the most important commercial fisheries. The emission estimate for Ohio 

was determined from a ratio of the fish landings and emissions estimates for the other two States. 

There are relatively few commercial fishing vessels with 299 boats registered in Michigan and 

74 in Wisconsin. But the Wisconsin data did not identify vessel types, so only the Michigan fleet 

was used. 

Table 35. Fish landings in 2002 and 2005 (NMFS, 2007). 

2002 2005 

State 

Landings 

(tonnes) 

Value 

(million $) 

Landings 

(tonnes) 

Value 

(million $) 

Illinois 0 0 0 0 

Indiana 0 0 0 0 

Ohio 1,555 3.1 1,769 3.3 

Michigan 4,291 7.4 3,936 6.2 

Wisconsin 2,019 4.8 1,718 2.7 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 24 

The number of boats and operations are rather small compared with other commercial marine 

emission sources. However for completeness, commercial marine vessels were identified from 

the boat registrations in Michigan and associated with recreational boats powered by engines 

greater than 100 horsepower, an arbitrary lower power estimate of installed power among these 

299 commercially operated boats. 

In the previous work (ENVIRON, 2004) an approximate estimate of the annual usage for these 

boats was taken from information from an old commercial fishing vessel, the Barney Devine, 

purchased by the Wisconsin DNR 

(http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/lakemich/Barney%20Devine.htm) as a research vessel, 

which indicate that the engine had 10,000 hours on 1972 engine in 2004 averaging 476 hours per 

year. (The engine was a 1972, 235hp Cummins.) 

The boat totals for 2005 (same as 2002), separated by diesel and gasoline inboard and outboard 

types based on the Michigan commercial fishing boats data, were used to create NONROAD 

commercial vessel NONROAD input files. The NONROAD activity file was modified to use the 

476 hours per year estimate instead of the lower recreational hours estimate. With the modified 

NONROAD input files, the emissions were then estimated for these boats. The geographic 

allocation of the registration county was available for Michigan, and the Great Lakes counties 

inboard allocation for the Wisconsin information. No change in overall activity was assumed for 

2005, which seems a reasonable assumption based on the catch in the two years, however the 

NONROAD model fleet turnover to 2005 was included in the emission calculations. 

MILITARY VESSELS 

The primary military vessels operating the Great Lakes are those of the Coast Guard 9th District. 

The Coast Guard vessels include both larger cutters using diesel fuel and gasoline-fueled inboard 

and outboard engines. The Coast Guard (2004) supplied fuel purchases for 2002 for the 9th

District; 766,505 gallons of diesel and 209,216 gallons of gasoline. For 2005, no change in 

activity was assumed to meet the schedule for this work. 

The larger cutters of 140 feet or longer, typically use Category 2 or larger Category 3 engines for 

propulsion (installed power typically 2500 hp; 

http://www.uscg.mil/d9/grumil/unit/sturgeonbay/cgcmobilebay/cgcmobilebay1.html) and other 

smaller engines for auxiliary power. So the large (>1000kW) Category 1 engine emission factors 

were used because they were approximately equivalent to the Category 2 emission factors. These 

emission factors were converted to emission in terms of grams per gallon using the fuel 

consumption assumption used by EPA in developing locomotive emission factors, where 

locomotive engines are similar to the reported make and model of the marine engines used in 

these cutters. 

The gasoline-fueled engines used by the Coast Guard include both inboard and outboard engine 

types. The average emission factors in units of gram per gallon were developed using the 

average emissions and fuel consumption estimates from NONROAD model accounting for the 

fleet turnover to 2005. 

The 9th District (http://www.uscg.mil/d9/uscgd9.html) encompasses the shores of the Great 

Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 25 

York. The emissions for the 9th District activity were apportioned to each county using the 

shoreline length for the Great Lakes including parts of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New York. 

Therefore only part of the 9th District’s activity occurs within the LADCO states. 

EMISSION RESULTS 

Emission results are presented in Table 36 for all states. These include the emission totals by 

vessel category described initially and provided as EPA NIF files with this report. 

Table 36. Five state 2005 emissions (metric tonnes/year) by vessel type for commercial marine 

emissions. 

Vessel Type HC1 CO NOx PM1 SO2 

Deep Draft Vessels at Ports 69 122 1,400 82 651

Deep Draft Vessels (mid-Lake) 47 1,055 12,955 652 5,489

Push Boats on Rivers and Lakes 472 4,023 21,689 525 1,905

Tugs 98 857 4,575 110 397

Ferries 26 223 1,107 29 85

Other special (excursion) vessels 7 41 289 6 23

Support vessels 1 10 54 1 5

Dredges 2 22 122 3 66

Commercial Fishing 29 110 7 2 1

Military vessels (Coast Guard) 77 264 138 3 15

1

 HC converted to VOC and PM-total to PM10 and PM2.5 using EPA factors.

REFERENCES 

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller. 1999. Commercial Marine Activity for Great Lake and Inland 

River Ports in the United States, EPA Report EPA420-R-99-019, September. 

California Air Resources Board. 2005. “Emissions Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going 

Vessels,” Appendix D, October 17. 

California Air Resources Board. 2005. “2005 Oceangoing Ship Survey, Summary of Results,” 

September. 

Coast Guard. 2004. Personal communication with Renee Sykora, May 24. 

Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels 

Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, EPA420-R-00-002, February. 

Entec UK Limited. 2002. “Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship 

Movements between Ports in the European Community, prepared for the European 

Commission,” July. 

ENVIRON. 2005. “Shoreside Power Feasibility Study for Cruise Ships Berthed at Port of San 

Francisco,” Prepared for the Port of San Francisco. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 26 

ENVIRON. 2004. “LADCO Nonroad Emission Inventory Project For Locomotive, Commercial 

Marine, And Recreational Marine Emission Sources,” Prepared for LADCO, December. 

EPA. 2004. “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling—

Compression Ignition Engines,” EPA Report No. EPA420-P-04-009, April. 

EPA. 1999a. “Control Of Air Pollution From Marine Compression-Ignition Engines.” Part 94, 

Code of Federal Regulations, December, 1999. Published in the Federal Register 

December 29. 

EPA. 1999. “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from CompressionIgnition Marine Engines.” EPA420-R-99-026, November. 

EPA. 1997 “Emission Factor for Locomotives.” Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-F97-051, December. 

Harkins, R.W. 2006. “Great Lakes Marine Air Emissions – We’re Different Up Here!,” 

September 2006. And personal communication with Richard Harkins of Lake Carriers 

Association, November 30. 

ISO. 1996. “Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines – Exhaust Emission Measurement” 

Part 4 Test Cycles for Different Engine Applications.” International Standards 

Organization Regulations 8178, 1996 Edition. 

Lyyränen, J., J. Jokiniemi, E. Kauppinen, and J. Joutsensaari. 1999. “Aerosol characterization 

in medium-speed diesel engines operating with heavy fuel oils,” Journal of Aerosol 

Science, Vol. 30., No. 6. pp. 771-784. 

NMFS. 2007. “Annual Landings.” National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Available Online at: 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html last updated 

January. 

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC. 2004. “Port-Wide Baseline Air Emissions Inventory,” 

prepared for the Port of Los Angeles, June. 

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC. 2003. “The New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island 

Nonattainment Area Commercial Marine Vessel Emission Inventory, Vol. 1 - Report,” 

Prepared for the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, United States and the Army 

Corps of Engineers, New York District, April. 

Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC. 2000. “Houston-Galveston Area Vessel Emissions 

Inventory,” Prepared for the Port of Houston and the Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission, November 2000. Also Appendix C of HGA Post-1999 

ROP/Attainment Demonstration SIP, Texas Natural Resources Conservation 

Commission, December. 
March 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\Commercial Marine Emissions Draft 03_02_07.doc 27 

TVA. 2006. “River Efficiency, Fuel Taxes, and Modal Shifts.” Bray, L.G., Dager, CA., Henry, 

R.L., Koroa, C., TR News, Transportation Research Board, July – August 2002. Fuel 

Consumption Update, personal communication with C.A. Dager, November. 

USACE. 2006. Data available online at: for River Barge, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/lockchar/lockchar.htm, Vessel Characteristics, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/veslchar/veslchar.htm, Waterborne Commerce, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm, Dredging, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/dredge.htm. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Navigation Data Center, Principal Ports of the United 

States, 2004, available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/data/datappor.htm. And 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center, Vessel Entrances and 

Clearances, 2004, available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/data/dataclen.htm.