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 415.899.0700March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide va riety of vessel types and uses. Table ES-1 describes the different types of commercial mari ne activity. This work determined emissions from these categories for 2005.

Table ES-1. Commercial vessel types. (All engine ty pes 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, 2280004030 1 Commercial Fishing Market fishing Great Lakes

2280002040, 2280004040 1 Military Coast Guard and Navy Great Lakes

1 Gasoline fueled.

The purpose of this work was to update the comm ercial 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 cate gories listed in Table ES-1. Th e 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 ofCleveland and DuluthSuperior, where more of the ships use smaller en gines and lower sulfur fu els 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 y ear available) data. Given the schedule for this project, ENVIRON updated the emission rates for commerci al fishing and Coast Guard vessels, but did not gather new activity data estimating change s in activity. In general, ENVIRON did not change the 2004 activity rates to project 2005 em issions because activity of commercial marine vessels has not been growing ove r 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 pr ovided to LADCO in county-specific summary data files with this report.March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc Table ES-2. Five state 2005 emissions (metric tonnes/year) by vessel type for commercial marine emissions. Vessel Type HC 1 CO NOx PM 1 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 E missions 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 cat egory 1 marine engines (taken from Table 5-3, EPA 1999B)............................................................................................2 Table 4. EPA primary exhaust emission stan dards for US flagged vessels (g/kW-hr) .........3
Table 5. Emission factors propulsion engines, g/kWh...........................................................4 Table 6. Emission factor adju stment factors at low loads......................................................5 Table 7. Auxiliary engine emission factors, g/kWh...............................................................5
Table 8. Assumed sulfur leve ls in marine diesel fuels...........................................................6 Table 9. Marine engine test cycles time in mode...................................................................6 Table 10. Fuel consumption (ga llons 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 compressi on-ignition engine categories............................................12 Table 15. Marine engi ne speed designations .........................................................................12 Table 16 Deep draf t vessel ship types...................................................................................12
Table 17 Vessel movements a nd time-in-mode descriptions................................................13March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions 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 in ventory by mode (this work) ...................................................15
Table 21. Cleveland Laker inve ntory by mode (Harkins, 2006) ...........................................16 Table 22. Cleveland Salty i nventory by mode (this work) ....................................................16 Table 23. Cleveland Salty inve ntory 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 La kes freight links........................................................................................10March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions 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 Au thority (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 Mi chigan 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). Als o, ENVIRON defined source categ ory codes (SCC) that do not appear in the official EPA list of SCC to reta in as much disaggregation as possible though all SCC 2280002021 through 2280002029 can be summed in to 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 Statistics 2280002023 Push Boats Barge Freight 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, 2280004030 1 Commercial Fishing Market fishing Great Lakes State registration and catch tonnage 2280002040, 2280004040 1 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 vess els of similar design except push boats are used exclusively to push barges, while tugs are self-propelled suppo rt vessels with a V-shaped bow designed for vessel assist and other general pur poses 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’ (o cean-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) moveMarch 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 2 other freight in the Great Lakes, but these are restri cted to within 5 miles of shore. Other vessels include ferries, excursion boats (including such vessels that might be us ed for group day trips, dinner cruises, and casinos), dredge s (of various types), and commerci al fishing vessels. In other areas, such as in the U.S. gulf coast or near nava l 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 cyli nder displacement. The engine s correspond primarily to those used for propulsion power on large deep draft ve ssels (Category 3), auxiliary engines on large vessels and propulsion power for mid-sized (lar ger 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 Re gulatory 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 w ith the defined engine categories. In Tables 3 are the EPA-estimated base (precontrolled) emissi on 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 t ypically used for diesel engine s. The sulfur was converted to SO2 using 7.1 lb/gallon and accounting for the dire ct conversion of sulfur to particulate sulfate (2.247%) resulting in a SO2 emi ssion rate of 20.62 g/gallon.March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 3 Emissions standards for NOx have been institute d 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 st andards that will result in emission reductions from U.S flagged commercial marine vessels and those standards ar e 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 (U SACE, 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 num ber of gallons of fuel consumed. The technique
needed to be made flexible because activ ity data is available in many formats.

Category 2 and 3

Category 2 engines are used in larger vessels for propulsion and auxiliar y power, and category 3 engines almost exclusively for propulsion pow er. 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 an alysis included emissions da ta 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 (slo w-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 devel opment of Duluth-Superior and Cleveland based on the Entec study.March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 4 It should be noted that Entec does not list PM factors for either PM 10 or PM 2.5 . The PM 10 to PM 2.5 conversion factor used here is 0.92. While the NONROAD model uses 0.97 for such conversion based upon low sulfur fu els, a value of 0.80 was suggested in a report from Lyyränen et al. (1999) for high sulfur fuel s. A reasonable value seems to be closer to 0.92 because higher sulfur fuels in medium and slow speed engines would tend to produce larg er particulates than high-speed engines on low sulfur fuels.

PM 10 and SO 2 emission factors were based upon r ecommendations from ENVIRON and provided as Appendix A.

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

Cat. Speed Sulfur NOx CO HC PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 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

1.5% 13.2 1.1 0.5 0.71 0.66 6.16 2 MSD

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 PM 10 emission factors uses the following equation:

PM 10 EF(g/kWh) = PM 10 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 relati onship holds that 2.247% of fu el sulfur converts to H 2 SO 4 :7H 2 O (molecular weight 7 times that of sulfur). Br ake 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 PM 10 EF at 0% sulfur was taken from the ARB (2005) methodology at 0.25 g/kWh at 0.1% sulfur.

Emission factors for SO 2 emissions were calculated using the below formula assuming the remaining 97.753% of the fuel sulfur was converted to SO 2 (as described above, the remaining 2.247% is assumed to be emitted directly as par ticulate sulfate) and ta king into account the molecular weight difference between SO 2 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 a nd the brake specific fuel consumption tends to increase. Thus, while mass emissions (grams per hour) decrease with low loads, the engineMarch 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 5 power tends to decrease more quickly, thereby in creasing the emission factor (grams per engine power) as load decreases. Energy and Environm ental 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 SO 2

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 th ese auxiliary engine emission f actors 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 ar e 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 engine s 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 1.23March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions 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 inventor y (ENVIRON, 2004) development for Category 3 rulemaking, an average sulfur level of 3% su lfur 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 fuel ed on EPA non-road diesel fuel. As part of the inventory provided by Mr. Harkins (2006), fuel types used in propulsion engi nes were provided. Estimates of sulfur levels for the various fuels are provid ed in Table 8. Because most ships use the same fuel for both propulsion and auxiliar y 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 r oughly corresponding to comme rcial 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 lo ad. If it could be determined th at the vessels found in the Coast Guard list were used for commercial purposes in cluding ferries or other commercial functions
then the E-3 load factor was used. Else the lowe r E-5 load factor was used primarily for vessels that were obviously excursion vessels in cluding 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 E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 7 Often fuel consumption can be easier obtained wh ich 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 emi ssion 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 emi ssions. 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 ri vers. The freight movements and lock statistics (USACE, 2006) are well documented through river lock system s down to the Mississipp i – Ohio confluence.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, 2006) has b een 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 consum ption including the confi guration of the barges (how many barges can be operated per tug, the nu mbers of empty barges, the wait (idle) time at each lock, and other factors used by TVA to estimate fuel cons umption along each route. TVA provided fuel consumption estimates and efficien cy (ton-mile per gallon of fuel consumed) along river systems in the LADCO area.

River Barge Traffic

The fuel consumption by barge traffic on rive r 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 ea ch river segment. The Calumet-SAG Channel, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the S outh Branch of the Chicago River are all found exclusively within Cook County, while the other river systems re flect 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 36,180,81 6 35,641,058 34,602,029 31,901,668 Mississippi Between Missouri and Ohio 51,261,41 9 64,649,042 52,607,979 44,36 0,390 50,904,864 45,265,442 32,215,131March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 8 The geographic allocation of the fuel consumpti on 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 relie d on the previous spatial allocation (ENVIRON, 2004) that used the most recent lock statistics available for ca lendar year 1999. The freight statistics through each lock were used to estima te the ton-miles for river segments. The tonmiles between two locks were calculated usi ng the average freight tonnage of two locks multiplied by the river mileage between the two lo cks 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 syst em to allocate the total fuel consumption by river system in Table 10. So while the spatial allocation was ba sed 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’Brien 1 326.5 7,372
Cook Co. Line 1 298 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% Mississippi 2 0 38,044 est.
Totals 8,673,094 100.0%

1 Lock above the SAG Channel confluence (confluence is r oughly 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 th e river flows. So the fuel cons umption and therefore emissions are more appropriately apportioned to the lo wer reaches of the river using this method.

The fuel consumption for each between-lock rive r 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 th e county that encompassed or were split between two Illinois counties if they bordered the river. For the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, the fuelMarch 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions 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 outs ide of the region of interest.

Once the fuel consumption was estimated the em issions were predicted based on the typical engines installed on push boats. The Army Corp s 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, Categor y 1 engines above 1000kW had similar emission factors to Category 2 engine s shown in Table 5 for medium speed engines) the fraction of the power availabl e in push boats registered in th e 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 be tween 225 –1000 kW and those above 1000 kW. The emission factors in specific un its (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 USAC E (2006) and shown in Figure 1 where barge links roughly correspond to t hose blue links ringing the shore. Some freight transfers between the outlet of the Illin ois 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 E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 10 Figure 1. Great Lakes freight links.

The tonnage along each freight li nk was provided by USACE (2006) wi th 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 show n in red in Figure 1 were sorted out for barge traffic leaving only links around the lake rather th an those in the middle of the lakes. The links described in this data include lengths and l ongitude and latitude where the links lengths and position are only approximate repr esentations but the actual vessel movements may not be restricted to these specific positions but were used as such for the c ounty spatial allocation.

The tonnage and link lengths were multiplied to estimate ton-miles of freight movements. The fuel consumption associated w ith these vessel movements was assumed to be 549 ton-miles per gallon from the previous work (ENVIRON, 2004), the same as the lo wer 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 consump tion was used because the Lake transfers have no significant locks, turns, passi ng traffic, or current to cont end 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 activ ity 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 0.0002March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 11 OTHER TUGS

Tugs, as defined by USACE (2006) separate of pus h boats, are working vessels other than those push boats used to transport freight. These tugs c ould 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 s undry needs throughout the Great Lakes area or along the major river systems.

The Coast Guard provides through the Army Corp s (USACE, Vessel Charact eristics, 2006) the number of vessels and their characteristics, inst alled power and other data , for a wide variety of boats and distinguishes tugs from push boats. Th e 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 th e 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 pr evious effort (ENVIRON, 2004) to identify a reasonable hour per year estimate. The survey response from five opera tors included activity es timates 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 servic e, was 1831 hours and used for these emissions estimates. It is possible that this was an undere stimate 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 thes e 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 deta iled port inventory information prepared for Cleveland and Duluth-Superior. Detailed ship ca lls for those two harbors were obtained from Richard Harkins, previously of the Lake Carrie rs Association. The por t 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 inform ation. These data were matched with Lloyds Register Ship data to provide ship characte ristics 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 ar e typically foreign ships that travel into the Great Lakes through the Saint Lawr ence River out into the Atlantic and are usually Category 3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defi nes 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 E missions 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 kW 1 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 1 5. Most ships have diesel engines, although some older ships are steamships.

Table 15. Marine engine speed designations. Speed Category Engine RPM 1 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 di fferently, but it makes most sens e 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 th at has unique emission characteristics. While thereMarch 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions 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 Har bor 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 MEPA 1 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 MCR 2 . 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 da ta is generally taken as 94 pe rcent of the maximum service speed. Cruise distance is defined here as 7 nautic al miles from where the ship begins to slow down to enter the port. The slowing from crui se 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 th e 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 por t call data provided by Mr. Harkins.

Propulsion Engine Load Factors

In the previous inventory (ENVIRON, 2004), pro pulsion engine load factors were estimated from a modification of the Propeller curve.March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions 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 cons idered to include aux iliary engines and could be used to estimate auxiliary power when hotel ling. In newer methodologies, propulsion engine
load factors are calculated dire ctly from the propeller curve ba sed upon the cube of actual speed divided by maximum speed (at 100% maximum c ontinuous 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 us ed previously in the inventory development.
The main difference is that in the new calcu lations, auxiliary engine s are not included but addressed separately.

In Starcrest’s (2003, 2004) two most recent inventor ies, 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 it s 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 cal culated 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 combin ed with propulsion engines in the previous inventory. In the methodology suggested here, auxiliary engine maximum continuous rating power and load factors should be calculated se parately from propulsion engines and different emission factors applied. Most propulsion engine s 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 pa rt 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 aver age 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 di fferences in the types of ships ca lling on that port if possible, these ratios and engine speeds were used in th e 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 wa s provided by propulsion engines in all modes but hotelling.
Several recent studies have show n that auxiliary engines are on a ll 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 engineer s, and pilots during its vessel boarding programs. Auxiliary load factors should be used in c onjunction with total auxiliaryMarch 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 15 power. Auxiliary load f actors listed in Table 19 are used togeth er 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

Miscellaneous 1 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 methodol ogy, so values from the Star crest Vessel Boarding Program were used. This is used for ITBs.

Table 19. Auxiliary engine load factor assumptions.

Ship-Type Cruise RSZ Maneuver Hotel
Self-Unloader 1 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 ab ove, 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 Ha rkins’ 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 adju stment 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 18.920March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 16 Table 21. Cleveland Laker inventory by mode (Harkins, 2006). Tonnes per year Mode Installed Power (MW) NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 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 Ta ble 22 and compared against Harkins’ inventory in Table 23. Again the major difference between th e 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 auxiliarie s used RO while Harkins assumed they used a lower sulfur fuel. And a higher auxiliary load was used based on a rea listic 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 performe d 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 fact or 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 E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 17 Table 24. Duluth-Superior Laker inventory by mode (this work). Tonnes per year Mode Installed Power (MW) NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 Ta ble 26 and compared against Harkins’ inventory in Table 27. Again the major difference between th e 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 us ed RO while Harkins assumed they used lower sulfur fuel. A higher auxiliary lo ad 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 7.139March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 18 Port Matching

The remaining ports were estimated from the de tailed inventories prepar ed 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 shi pped 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 traffi c in 2005 was virtually identical to that in 2004. Emissions for foreign calls we re 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 fo reign 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 percen t of cargo moved by bulk carriers. The ratio of total Laker bulk carrier tonnage divided by the to tal foreign Laker bulk ca rrier tonnage was used
to increase the number of calls of each sh ip type to account for domestic traffic.

Table 28. Port matching and cargo tonnage.

Port Name Cargo (Tons) Bulk Carrier % of total Match Port 1

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% CLMarch 2007

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

Port Name Cargo (Tons) Bulk Carrier % of total Match Port 1

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

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

Because the foreign Laker traffic use mostly bul k carriers that are Canadian ships transferring cargo to the U.S. or U.S. ships transferring cargo to Canada via th e 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 vessel s could be matched directly with Lloyds data to determine engine type, ship power and servi ce speed. This information was used to calculate average ship power and speed by ship type, engi ne type and dead wei ght 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. Emissi ons from the matched port (Duluth-Superior or Cleveland) were adjusted for the modeled por t based upon the difference in the time in mode, load factor, and propulsion power betw een 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. Emi ssions 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 lik ely activity of 1/3 the activity oc curs 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 6.76March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 20 Tonnes per year

Port Name Installed Power (MW) NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 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 PM 10 PM 2.5 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 0.91March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 21 Table 31. Salty emissions by port. Tonnes per year

Port Name Installed Power (MW) NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 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 activi ty, USACE (2006) freight links (red links plus mid-Lake links shown in Figure 1) tonnage data was used to pr ovide 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 “ac cess” to each spine were defined as those associated with deep draft vessels because these shippi ng lanes are outside of the area designated as barge traffic. The port emission estimates extend out 10 nautical m iles from port (7 miles for cruise plus 3 miles for reduced speed and maneuvering), so ENVIR ON reduced the length of each access link by 10 miles. Multiplying the freight tonnage by the leng th of each link provides an activity indicator for deep draft vessels away from port.

In order to estimate emissions, the emission per t on-mile was estimated based on the cruise mode emission estimates for ports calls to Cleveland a nd 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 whic h the activity data was availabl e) 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 th e 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 0.0770March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 22 FERRIES, EXCURSION CRAFT, AND OTHER VESSELS

Ferries, excursion craft, and ot her vessels (primarily identi fied 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. Th e 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 frei ght vessels were excluded from review because the freight transfers were eith er 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 es timate 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 Grafton Calhoun Co. Illinois
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 h ours and are likely higher than typical for all
vessels. Because these vessels ar e those operating at a higher rate than other ferry runs and excursion craft, and these sche dules are likely maximum operating hours, an estimate of 1500 hours per year was used for all vessels in the USAC E 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 E missions 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 th ose labeled “Offshore Support” and “General cargo” were assumed to be workboats, so th e 0.69 load factor was used to
estimate emissions for these vessels. For “Passe nger (Cruise)” and “Passenger (Other)” (which
include excursion craft such as found at the Wisc onsin Dells) vessels, a lo wer 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 th e Great Lakes. Commerci al fishing boats were provided in the State registrati on databases for Michigan and Wisconsin. As shown in Table 35, these two states have the most important commer cial 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 vessel s with 299 boats registered in Michigan and
74 in Wisconsin. But the Wisconsin data did not iden tify 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 2.7March 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions 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, comme rcial marine vessels were identified from the boat registrations in Michig an and associated with recrea tional 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 appr oximate 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/fi sh/lakemich/Barney%20Devine.htm ) as a research vessel, which indicate that the engine had 10,000 hour s 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), separate d by diesel and gasoline inboard and outboard types based on the Michigan commercial fishi ng boats data, were used to create NONROAD commercial vessel NONROAD input f iles. 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 availa ble for Michigan, and th e Great Lakes counties
inboard allocation for th e 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 turnove r to 2005 was included in the emission calculations.

MILITARY VESSELS

The primary military vessels operating the Great Lakes are those of the Coast Guard 9 th District. The Coast Guard vessels include both larger cutter s using diesel fuel and gasoline-fueled inboard and outboard engines. The Coast Guard (2004) supplied fuel purchases for 2002 for the 9 th District; 766,505 gallons of di esel 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 po wer typically 2500 hp; http://www.uscg.mil/d9/grumil/unit/sturgeonbay/cgcmobilebay/cgcmobilebay1.html ) and other smaller engines for auxiliary power. So the la rge (>1000kW) Category 1 engine emission factors were used because they were approximately equi valent to the Category 2 emission factors. These
emission factors were converted to emission in terms of gr ams per gallon using the fuel consumption assumption used by EPA in deve loping locomotive emission factors, where locomotive engines are similar to the reported ma ke 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 estim ates from NONROAD mo del accounting for the
fleet turnover to 2005.

The 9 th District ( http://www.uscg.mil/d9/uscgd9.html ) encompasses the shores of the Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisc onsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indian a, Ohio, Pennsylvania and NewMarch 2007

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Comm_Marine\Report\Draft\ Commercial Marine E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 25 York. The emissions for the 9 th District activity were apportioned to each county using the shoreline length for the Great La kes including parts of Minnesota, Pennsylva nia, and New York. Therefore only part of the 9 th District’s activity occurs within the LADCO states.

EMISSION RESULTS

Emission results are presented in Table 36 for al l states. These include the emission totals by vessel category described initially and provi ded 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 HC 1 CO NOx PM 1 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. 199 9. Commercial Marine Activit y for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States, EP A 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 O ceangoing Ship Survey, Summary of Results,” September.

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

Energy and Environmental Analys is Inc. 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumpti on Data, EPA420-R-00-002, February.

Entec UK Limited. 2002. “Quantification of Em issions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements between Ports in the European Community, prepared for the European Commission,” July.

ENVIRON. 2005. “Shoreside Power Feasibility St udy 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 E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 26 ENVIRON. 2004. “LADCO Nonroa d Emission Inventory Project For Locomotive, Commercial Marine, And Recreational Marine Emission S ources,” Prepared for LADCO, December.

EPA. 2004. “Exhaust and Crankcase Emi ssion Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling— Compression Ignition Engines,” EPA Report No. EPA420-P-04-009, April.

EPA. 1999a. “Control Of Air Pollution From Ma rine Compression-Ignition Engines.” Part 94, Code of Federal Regulations, December, 1999. Published in the Federal Register
December 29.

EPA. 1999. “Final Regulatory Impact Anal ysis: Control of Emi ssions 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 w ith Richard Harkins of Lake Carriers Association, November 30.

ISO. 1996. “Reciprocating Inte rnal Combustion Engines – Exha ust Emission Measurement” Part 4 Test Cycles for Diffe rent Engine Applications.” International Standards Organization Regulations 8178, 1996 Edition.

Lyyränen, J., J. Jokiniemi, E. Kauppinen, and J. Joutsensaari. 1999. “A erosol 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 Fi sheries Service, Na tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Available Online at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commerci al/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 Vess el 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. “H ouston-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 E missions Draft 03_02_07.doc 27 TVA. 2006. “River Efficiency, Fuel Taxes, a nd Modal Shifts.” Bray, L.G., Dager, CA., Henry, R.L., Koroa, C., TR News, Transportation Research Board, July – August 2002. Fuel Consumption Update, personal communica tion 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. Naviga tion Data Center, Principal Ports of the United States, 2004, available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.m il/ndc/data/datappor.htm . And U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigati on Data Center, Vessel Entrances and Clearances, 2004, available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.m il/ndc/data/dataclen.htm

.