1



## METHODOLOGY FOR ESTI **MATING NONROAD EMISS IONS** 

**I. INTRODUCTION**  This following methodology provides a description of the procedures used to gen erate 2002 and 2009 county

- level pollutant emission estimates for nonroad mobile engines included in the United States Environmental Protectio n Agency ’s (EPA’s) NONROAD2005 M odel, as well as locomotive engines and aircraft operations. For the NONROAD2005 Model engines, emission estimates were calculated for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NO x), and carbon monoxide (CO) , particulate matter (PM 10 ), fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) . Revised geographic allocation files for NONROAD2005 Model option files and revised housing unit data used for the model runs are also included. The National Mobile Inventory Model (NM IM ) was used to develop emissions of ammonia (NH 3 ) for 2002 and 2009 since the NONROAD2005 Model does not have that capability

. 

## II. **200 2 NONROAD MODEL SOUR**  **CE CATEGORY EMISSIONS**  The Department used EPA’s Final NONROAD2005 Model to generate 2002 and 2009 annual emissions for the Philadelphia area, which includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery , and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania. The Department prepared NONROAD2005 model optio n files that account for temperatures and gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) values representative of the Philadelphia 5

- county area for summer weekday s. The Philadelphia 5

- county area was treated as its own climactic zone. The average RVP value used fo r the 5

- county area was 6.7. Minimum, maximum, and average temperatures for July

for each region were obtained from the Penns yl vania State Climatologist website, Pennsylvania State Climatologist, Penn State University , 2002 Temperature Data by Weather Sta tion which is available at http://pasc.met.psu.edu/PA_Climatologist/cityform.html . The RVP and temperature inputs were applied to all equipment categories to obtain both summer day and annual emissions. Table 1 lists the counties included in the Philadelphia area and the weather station where the temperature data were obtained for each of the regions. Table 2a and 2b presents the RVP and temperature data used in the model runs for e ach region of Penns yl vania. The Department used EPA’s Final NONROAD 2005 Model and NMIM to generate 2002 and 2009 annual e missions for the 5

- c ounty Philadelphia area

. The Department prepared NONROAD2005 Model option files that account for average temperatures and gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) values representative of the entire year.2 **Table 1. Regions of Pennsy lv**  **ania and A ssociated Maintenance A**  **reas Region**  **Weather Station Counties in Region**  **F IPSST**  **FIPSCNTY** Southeast Philadelphia Bucks County 42 017 Chester County 42 029 Delaware County 42 045 Montgomery County 42 091 Philadelphia County 42 101
**Table 2a. Summer Day NONRO**  **AD Model Temperature**  **and RVP Inputs**

**Temperature*** **Region Season**  **Ma ximum**  **Mi nimum**  **Av erage**  **RVP**** Southeast Summer 87 69 78 6.7 * Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit ** RVP in pounds per square inch (psi)

**Table 2b. A nnual**  **Av erage Day**  **NONRO AD**  **Model Temperature and RVP Inputs** 

**Tempera ture** * **Region Ma**  **ximum Mi**  **nimum Av**  **erage RVP** ** Southeast 66 49 57 6.7 * Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit

EPA

- recommended diesel fuel sulfur levels for marine and land equipment for all years were used as inputs to the model, as outlined in Diesel Fue l Sulfur Inputs for the Draft NONROAD2004 Model used in the 2004 Nonroad Diesel Engine Fuel Rule , April 27, 2004. In past versions of the NONROAD Model, state recreational marine vessels populations were underestimated when compared to boat registration s tracked b y the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). EPA’s population of recreational marine vessels in the model now seem more representative of the number of boat registrations that the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission tracks. We used EP A’s default values in the model runs. We also examined geographic allocation factors for residential lawn and garden equipment. These improvements are discussed further in the next section. All other categories rel y on default data included in the model for population and activity estimates.
Residential L awn and Garden Equipment The EPA’s NONROAD2005 model uses 2003 U.S. Census data of all housing units in Pennsylvania to allocate residential lawn and garden equipment, even though EPA guidance states that emissions should be based onl y on the number of single detached, single attached, and double housing units. EPA’s method in the NONROAD2005 Model alters the allocation of lawn and garden emissions in some Pennsylvania counties si gnificantl y. The Department will use data3

obtained by

E.H. Pechan from the 2000 Census, updated to 2002, and used in the state’s 2002 inventory on the number of single detached, single attached, and double housing units for both the state and all counti es in the state. Table 3 presents the Census data (Bureau of the Census, 2003), which can be found in 2000 County and State Housing Units by Unit Type, Census 2000, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/. The total number of housing units was inc orporated into the NONROAD2005 M odel geographic allocation factor file, PA HOUSE.ALO, for use in allocating state

- level lawn and garden equipment populations to all Pennsylvania counties for 2002.

**Table 3. Number of Single and Double -**  **Fami ly** **Housing Units from 2002 Census**

**County # 1**  **- Unit Detached** 

**Housing Units # 1**  **- Unit A**  **ttached Housing Units**  **# 2 -**  **Unit**

**Housing Units Total # of** 

**Housing Units** Adam s 24,549 2,206 1,490 28,245 Allegheny 345,479 46,899 29,002 421,380 Armstrong 22,268 824 1,0 14 24,106 Beaver 54,418 2,312 2,863 59,593 Bedford 14,684 248 501 15,433 Berks 78,946 32,377 5,803 117,126 Blair 36,919 1,844 2,668 41,431 Bradford 16,861 232 1,224 18,317 **Bucks 141,951**  **30,506 5,425**  **177,882** Butler 46,271 2,523 2,215 51,009 Cambria 44,453 3,795 2,882 51,130 Cameron 1,749 35 176 1,960 Carbon 14,431 5,104 990 20,525 Centre 27,786 2,691 1,749 32,226 **Chester 99,549**  **25,911 3,155**  **128,615** Clarion 11,635 118 471 12,224 Clearfield 24,829 412 1,064 26,305 Clinton 10,141 662 711 11,514 Colum bia 16,856 1,328 1,388 19,572 Crawford 24,430 397 1,933 26,760 Cumberland 51,934 10,450 2,792 65,176 Dauphin 52,961 20,195 3,848 77,004 **Delaware 93,642**  **64,529 9,361**  **167,532** Elk 11,355 79 807 12,241 Erie 70,504 2,955 9,504 82,963 Fayette 41,679 3,094 2,473 47,246 Forest 1,660 8 18 1,686 Franklin 34,720 4,292 2,073 41,085 Fulton 4,084 56 133 4,273 Greene 10,387 481 416 11,284 Huntingdon 12,463 331 686 13,480 Indiana 23,215 825 1,232 25,272 Jefferson 14,276 237 729 15,242 Juniata 6,455 355 166 6,976 Lackawanna 53,357 3,328 12,626 69,311 Lancaster 98,364 32,122 7,370 137,856 Lawrence 28,316 799 1,489 30,604 Lebanon 27,272 8,647 2,225 38,144 Lehigh 59,753 29,474 5,118 94,3454 **Table 3. Number of Single and Double -**  **Fami ly** **Housing Units from 2002 Census County**  **# 1 -**  **Unit Detached**

**Housing Units # 1**  **- Unit A**  **ttached Housing Units**  **# 2 -**  **Unit**

**Housing Units Total # of** 

**Housing Units** Luzerne 82,363 15,404 9,435 107,202 Lycoming 31,568 2,812 2,99 8 37,378 McKean 13,794 158 972 14,924 Mercer 34,859 735 1,817 37,411 Mifflin 12,327 1,788 966 15,081 Monroe 40,696 1,726 1,457 43,879 **Montgomery 163,211**  **53,370 9,599**  **226,180** Montour 4,769 645 346 5,760 Northampton 60,344 19,729 4,755 84,828 Northum berland 21,955 9,280 1,657 32,892 Perry 12,209 733 398 13,340 **Philadelphia 48,724**  **359,877 46,425**  **455,026** Pike 15,501 395 299 16,195 Potter 5,263 62 281 5,606 Schuylkill 32,695 17,989 2,092 52,776 Sn yder 10,263 644 526 11,433 Som erset 22,159 1,236 1, 312 24,707 Sullivan 2,165 18 84 2,267 Susquehanna 12,139 180 711 13,030 Tioga 11,076 150 753 11,979 Union 9,341 652 527 10,520 Venango 17,197 227 1,080 18,504 Wa rren 13,031 239 930 14,200 Wa shington 60,711 3,891 3,187 67,789 Wa yn e 14,311 249 750 15 ,310 We stm oreland 113,694 4,839 5,997 124,530 Wyom ing 7,858 159 412 8,429 York 95,921 20,218 6,102 122,241 **Total 2,724,746**  **860,086 235,658**  **3,820,490**
After the model runs, model outputs were processed to develop annual emissions inventories for VOC, NOx, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and NH 3 . Nonroad equipment refueling, either b y portable container or at the gasoline pump, is being accounted for under Pennsylvania’s area source inventory . As such, spillage and vapor displacement VOC e mission estimates were subtracted from the total VOC emission estimates for all NONROAD 2005 Model emissions. Therefore, only exhaust, crankcase, and evaporative diurnal components are included in these VOC estimates. Emissions from nonroad equipment were tabulated in both source classifi cation code format

. 

## III. **2002 LOCOMOTIVE EMIS SIONS** 
Much of the lo comotive emissions were captured from a 1999 survey conducted by

the Department included hydrocarbon (HC) and NO x for the following locomotive source cate gories: 2285002006 : Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Line Haul Locomotives: Class IOperations 2285002007: Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Line Haul Locomotives: Class II/ III Operations 2285002008: Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Line Haul L ocomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak)5

2285002010: Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Yard Locomotives All line haul locomotive emissions were grouped into one SCC category in the appendix, 2285002005. Norfolk Southern and CSX Corporations purchased Conrail. The takeover of Conrail’ s assets occurred in June 1999. For that reason, it was a very bad time to develop a representative emission inventory

for these railroads. Both Conrail and Norfolk Southern suffered major gridlock in Penns yl vania and beyond during 1999. Consequently , f uel consumption and air emissions for these two railroads were greatl y reduced in 1999. The Department requested and received 2002 fuel usage from these railroad companies and developed a 2002 emissions inventory for them. Fuel consumption increased 60 p ercent from 1999 to 2002. Clearly , this was not due to normal economic growth. All other emissions from railroad companies operating in Pennsylvania in 1999 were grown with a growth factor to obtain 2002 emissions. To estimate 2009 locomotive emissions, the Department projected the 20 02 inventory to 2009 using national fuel consumption information supplied to the Department b y the Association of American Railroads in combination with emissions factors developed b y EPA and presented on the EPA website in the Emissions Factors for Locomotives , EPA420

- F

- 97

- 051, December 1997, Table 9, Fleet Average Emission Factors For All Locomotives. According to the Association of American Railroads, national railroad annual fuel consumption has grown consistently at abo ut 1.6 percent over the last 15 years. We used the following normalized emission growth factors for locomotive emissions. These numbers compare well with the EPA Economic Growth Analy sis S ys tem (EGAS ) 5.0 in the near

- term i.e. 2009. EGAS 5.0 may be down loaded from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/egas5.htm. In the Regulatory

Support Document for locomotive emission standards, national emissions account for future, phased

- in controls that will reduce NO x , PM, and HC emissions as well (EPA, 1997). Relevant em ission factors SOx and NH 3 for locomotives do not exist. Emissions of SOx and NH 3 by

locomotives were not included in the inventory

. Emission reductions, which include rule effectiveness and rule penetration, are estimated based on the percent change in emissions from the base year to a given projection year. Normalized fuel use and emission factors for locomotives are given in Table 4. The Department chang ed the 2002 locomotive emissions for NO x , PM, SOx and VOC by the normalized percentages shown in T able 5 which account for changes in emissions

.
**Table 4. Normalized Growth for Fuel Use and Emission Factors for Locomotives Year**  **Normalized**

**Fuel Use Growth**  **Normalized**

**NOx Emission**  **Factor Normalized** 

**VOC Emission**  **Factor Normalized** 

**CO Emission**  **Factor No**  **rmalized**

**PM Emission**  **Factor** 2002 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2009 1.1175 0.6765 0.8785 1.0000 0.86766 **Table 5 . Normalize**  **d Emissions Growth Factors for Locomotive**
**Year NOx**  **Emission Growth**  **(Fuel use growth ** * **emission factor)**  **HC/VOC**

**Emission Gro**  **wth (Fuel use**  **growth *** **emission factor)**  **CO Emission**

**Growth (Fuel use growth ** * **emission factor)**  **PM Emission**

**Growth (Fuel use growth ** * **emission factor)** 

2002 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2009 0.7560 0.9817 1.1175 0.9696

To estimate V OC emissions from HC, the Department applied a VOC/HC conversion factor of 1.005 to the HC emissions. This conversion factor was obtained from EPA’s Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine Vessel, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the Nati onal Emission Inventory, Volume I: Methodology (EPA, 2002). Estimated annual emissions were divided b y 365 to obtain a daily emission estimate which was assumed to be a good estimate for emissions during an average summer day. 

## IV. **AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS**
Ai rcraft emissions at Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), the largest airport in the state, were estimated using the most up

- to

- date information available, which was supplied by the City of Philadelphia. Aircraft related emissions were also estimated for Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE) using up

- to

- date information. The methodology for estimating emissions at PHL and PNE is explained in greater detail in Appendix F2. **Small airport emission estimation methodology.** Small aircraft emissions occur ring at airports in Bucks, Chester, and Montgomery Counties were calculated by using small airport operation statistics, which can be found at www.airnav.com and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) APO Terminal Area Forecast Detailed Report. Emission factors for a ty pical general aviation single engine, multi

- engine, and jet engine aircraft were derived by averaging the emissions factors from a basket of emission factors for common aircraft of each of the thre e ty pes of aircraft. Emission factors and operational characteristics contained in EDMS were used for this calculation. The proportion of operations between the three groups of aircraft was determined b y examining the number of each aircraft type based at each airport. For military operations at small airports, the ty pe of aircraft and its emission factors are sometimes identifiable. If not, emission factors calculated to represent an “average” military aircraft are used. Growth at small airports was estimated using estimates of future operations contained in the FAA APO Terminal Area Forecast Detailed Report. The normalized growth in operations was applied directl y to 2002 emissions to obtain growth in emissions. Changes in technology, such as a new engine design, which may result in more or less emissions was not taken into account.7

Fleet mix may

be slightly different in the future and this may also change emissions. This unpredictable effect was not taken into account.

**Military aircraft.** Willow Grove Naval Air Station (NAS) is located in Bucks County . Willow Grove is the source of significant air traffic and air emissions. It was estimated that NOx emissions were emitted at a rate of over one ton per day in 19 90. Since the terrorist event at the World Trade Center in 2001 , it has become difficult to obtain operations data from the military

. The Nav y refused to give the Department any operations data that would allow us to determine emissions produced from operations at Willow Grove. Therefore, emissions from Willow Grove are not included in our inventory

. 

## V. COMMERCIAL MARINE **VESSELS** Emissions from ship traffic in the Port of Philadelphia were estimated b y using primaril y the methodology

outlined in the Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, F inal Report 1 . A section in the report details the characteristics of ports on the Delaware River. Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay supplied ship arrival information. Ship arrivals for each pier, terminal, and facility were tabulated for the ye ar in the report titled Ship Arrivals for the Delaware River Ports 2003 2 , which included arrivals for years 1995

- 2003. Arrivals for 2002 were used for the 2002 inventory. By mutual agreement between Penns yl vania and New Jersey , downbound traffic no rth of the Pennsylvania

- Delaware border is included in the Pennsylvania emissions inventory while New Jersey captures all the upbound traffic north of the border. Most commercial marine vessel (CMV) emissions in the port are produced b y hotelling emission s and tugboat trips. Ship shifts and large vessel movements do not contribute significantly to emissions. The pollutants that are produced in the largest quantity by ships are NOx. **Large Vessel Emissions** Large oceangoing vessels use Category 3 marine engi nes and use primarily bunker fuel. The distance from the Delaware border for each shipping terminal was estimated using information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website, at www.wrsc.usace.arm y.mil 3 . EPA guidance was followed for estimating the time required for a ship to travel the Delaware River from its berth to the Delaware border. All commercial ship traffic must slow to approximately 60

- 70 percent power around the time that they enter into Pennsylvania. This translates into 8 

### Table 5. Normalized Grow **th in Aircraft Operations** County (Airport) 2002 2009 Bucks County (Do yl estown) 1.0000 1.0377 Chester County

(Chester County) 1.0000 1.0377 Montgomery

County (Perkiomen) 1.0000 1.03778

knots for tankers and 14 knots for container ships. An average speed of 11 knots was used for all ships. Once the vessel is within 3 to 4 miles of its intended berth or anchorage, it will continue at slow or dead

- slo w speed that ranges from 2 to 6 knots. We applied this methodology in reverse for a ship traveling out of its berth. An average speed of 4 knots was used for all vessels that are within 4 miles of their intended berth to calculate time for maneuvering. EPA guidance suggests that ships traveling with the current would travel three miles per hour faster than an upbound ship. Along the Delaware River near Philadelphia, speed limits are established in many areas that ships cannot exceed without causing dama ging wakes. We assume river currents effect to be zero, because pilots will travel at 11 knots regardless since the speed limit is about 11 knots in many places **Equation for estimating time**
**- in** 
**- mode:**  **T RSZ + MAN**  **= (D DB**  **– 4) / (S**  **60**
**- 70%**  **+S RC**  **) + 4/4 4**  Where: T RSZ + MAN = Time

- in

- mode for reduced speed zone and for maneuvering. D DB – 4 = Distance to the Delaware border minus four miles needed for

maneuvering speed (in nautical miles). (S 60

- 70% + S RC ) = Reduced speed plus the speed of the river current. 4/4 = Four miles for maneuvering divided b y four knots The length of time that each ship spent maneuvering in each county was calculated b y finding the length of the river that runs by each county . Total maneuvering emissions were then app ortioned to each county in the Philadelphia port. Emission factors used for maneuvering large ships for NOx, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur compounds, and particulate matter were 550 lb, 24lb, 60lb, 27 lb, and 33 lb, respectively , per 1000 gallons of fuel. Emission factors for class I CMV ships was obtained from Procedures For Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources 4

. **Hotelling Emissions** Hotelling emissions from large CMV were calculated by determining the number and types of vessels that visited Pennsylvania ports. The average number of hours that each type of ship spends hotelling during a ty pical port visit was obtained from Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, Final Report5 . Tugboats do n ot contribute to hotelling emissions. Fuel usage for hotelling was obtained from Procedures f or Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources 4

. Emission factors were the same factors used for locomotives and class II CMV engines as stated belo w. Emissions were distributed to the county level on the basis of the percentage of commercial vessel visits to each of the three Penns yl vania counties. **Tugboat Emissions** Tugboats use Category

2 marine engines and use primarily distillate fuel. Emissio ns from tugboat operations in the Port of Philadelphia were derived b y using the total number of tugboat9

trips supplied by the Waterborne Commerce of the United States 6 report for calendar ye ar 2002, found on the U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers website. Average trip distances were estimated from this report. The report gives the approximate origin of the tugs. Many tugs are involved in lightering operations that are south of the Penns yl vania/Delaware border. Average trip times were estimated b y using infor mation obtained in telephone calls to tugboat operators in Port of Philadelphia and the equations provided in Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, Final Report. 7 Tugboats were separated into six horsepower bins. Fuel usag e was estimated by using information found in Shipboard Marine Engines Emission Testing for the United States Coast Guard

. 8
**Table 6. Tugboat Fuel Use Characterization Horsepower Bin**  **Number of Tugs in the Port**  **Fuel Usage**

**(gal/hr)** 0

- 750 7 25 750

- 1500 7 44 1500

- 3000 19 105 3000

- 5000 13 200 5000

- 8000 3 250 Total Tugs 49
Emission factors from tugboats and pushboats are nearl y nonexistent. Tugboat engines also known as ty

pe II marine engines are engineered and perform similarl y to locomotive engi nes. Since some locomotive engines are the same size and operate under similar load and activities as tugboat engines, emission factors of locomotive engines were used at the suggestion of Greg Janssen of EPA 9 . Emission factors of locomotives from the U. S. EPA website, www.epa.gov 12 show NOx , hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, sulfur, and particulate matter emissions at 609 lb , 50.6, 80.3, 20.3, and 20.6 lb, respectivel y, per 1000 gallons of fuel. Since these tugs are under load like locomotives, the emission factors of locomotives seem more appropriate than other emission factors available. **Distributing Tugboat Emissions to the County Level** The method outlined in allocating to the county level in Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States 11 was not followed due to the geographic shape of the port. Delaware and Philadelphia counties get most of the emissions from commercial vessels since that is where most of the trips are recorded. The app roximate number of tug trips to each county was estimated from trip statistics in Wa terborne Commerce of the United States report 12

. Emissions were allocated to the county level as described by

the equation below. Delaware and Philadelphia County

had rou ghl y the same amount of traffic while Bucks County had significantl y less tug traffic.10

**Equation for Allocating Tugboat Emissions to the County Level**
**T DC**  **= (TT PH**  **+ TT CH**  **+ TT SR** **) / 2 + TT TH**  **/ 3** Giving the example T DC = Hours tugboats spend traveling in Delaware County TT PH = Hours spent traveling from Philly Harbor to border TT CH = Hours spent traveling from Camden Harbor to border TT SR = Hours spent traveling from Schuyl kill River to border 2 = Number of counties ships pass TT TH = Hours spent trav eling from Trenton Harbor to border 3 = Number of counties ships pass **T DC**  **=** (6584 + 19737 + 4794)/2 + 1820/3 = 16,164 hours It was estimated that tugboats spend about 45% of their time in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties and 10% of their time in Bucks County . This estimate seems reasonable. **Ferry Emissions** Two ferries travel between Philadelphia and Camden seven times per day for eight months of the ye ar. The vessels are idling and not emitting too much in the way of NOx for a large portion of their d uty

- cycle. Emissions standards for boats operating at low load and of comparable size were obtained from the Shipboard Marine Engines Emission Testing for the United States Coast Guard

-Final Report 13

. **Other Emissions** There is good reason to bel ieve that significant emissions occur as a result of lightering emissions in the port. However, according to the Army Corps of Engineers and their consultant on the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project, Moffatt and Nichols, lightering operations occur south of the Pennsylvania border in Delaware

. The Coast Guard operates at least four vessels in the port, but it was impossible to obtain information on their operations. The U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers operates a dredging vessel in the Port of Ph iladelphia. The vessel, named Dredge McFarland, produced 197 tons of NOx and 60 tons of CO in 2002 according to the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project: General Conformity and Mitigation Analy sis 14 . No other pollutants were given. It was impos sible to ascertain exactly what percentage of time this ship exactly spent in Pennsylvania. Itwas roughl y estimated from the conformity anal ys is that about 20 percent of the operations that occurred in the Philadelphia

Camden

- Wilmington air basin occurre d north of the Pennsylvania/Delaware border. Therefore, it is assumed that 10 percent of all dredging emissions occurred in Pennsylvania and 10 percent in New Jersey

.11

**Emissions Growth** Emissions growth is based on two factors: future fuel consumption and future emissions standards. Emissions standards or programs that take place in the future will greatly lower emissions produced b y CMV engines. Fuel use growth and future emission reductions used to calculate total future emissions were based upon inf ormation contained in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines

. 15 Fuel use growth for CMV was obtained from Table 5.8 for Category 2 engines, “Baseline Emissions from Category 2 CIMarine Engines Operated in U.S. Waters,” 16 and from Table 5

- 11 for Category

3 engines in the regulatory impact analy sis. An average annual fuel use growth of 0.9 percent was estimated in the table fo r Category 2 engines. Fuel use for Category 3 engines is growing about 1.0% per ye ar . The methodology does not rel y on fuel use to estimate growth for Category 3 marine engines. It uses total emissions from Category 3 engines in port settings

. These emission estimates can be found in the Final Regulatory Support Document : Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder. C orresponding baseline emission increases (absent controls) in carbon monoxide NOx, HC, CO, SOx, and PM are given

. **Category 2 Marine Engine Emissions** Emission reductions for NOx for Category 2 engines were obtained from Table 5

- 9, “Projected NOx Emission Reductions from Category 2 CI Marine Engines Operated in U.S. Waters.” 17 Table 5

- 9 was used for NOx because it shows emission reductions of Category 2 CI marine engines exclusively

. Table 5

- 15, Emission Reductions from Engines Subject to Tier 2 Standards 18 , was used to estimate emission reductions of PM and hydrocarbons for Category 2 vessels. The tables gave reductions for 2010. The reduction estimates were i nterpolated linearl y between 2000 and 2010 to obtain reductions and emissions for the year 2009. Table 7 shows the growth rates in emissions used to estimate emissions in the inventory

.

**Table 7. No rmalized Growth in Emissions produced by**  **Category 2 CM** **V in the U.S. (distillate fuel) Normalized Future Emission** 

**Factors Normalized Growth in Emissions**  **(CMV Growth * Normalized** **Future Emission Factors) Year**  **CMV Fuel Use**  **Growth CO** 

**& SOx**  **NOx VOC**  **PM CO**  **& SOx**  **NOx VOC**  **PM**

2002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 2009 1.065 1.000 0.960 0.980 0.924 1.065 1.022 1.043 0.98512

**Category 3 Marine Engine Emissions** The best estimates for emissions growth for Category 3 marine diesel engines were found in the United States Environmental Protection Agency document Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder , Table 7.2

- 1, Projected Emission Inventories from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines in Port Areas. 19 The growth in emissions from 2002 to 2009 was estimated b y interpolating between the ye ars given in Table 7.2

- 1 for the years 1996 and 2010. Emissions growth in Category 3 marine engines is much higher than Categ ory 2 marine engines

. Table 8 shows the emis sions increases of Category 3 CMV in port areas. **Growth in Emissions from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines in Port Areas in the U.S. Year**  **CO SOx**  **NOx VOC**  **PM** 2002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2009 1.249 1.046 1.187 1.247 1.215

1 United States Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, Final Report , Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 30, 1999.

2 Ship Arrivals for the Delaware River Ports 2002, Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay , 240

- 242 Cherry Street, Philadelphia PA 19106

- 1906

3 U.S, Army

Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data website, http://www.iwr.usace.army .mil/ndc/index.htm , July 19, 2001.

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Mobile Sources, Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources , EPA

- 450/4

- 81

- 026d (Revised), Ann Arbor Michigan, 1992, Chapter 7.

5 United States Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, Final Report , Table 8

- 5.

6 Website of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the United States, United States Army Corps of Engineers, July 19, 2001.

7 United States Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the Un ited States, Final Report , p. 8

- 5.13 8 Volpe National Transportation Sy stems Center and United States Coast Guard Headquarters Naval Engineering Division, prepared b y Environmental Transportation Consultants, Shipboard Marine Engines Emission Testing for th e United States Coast Guard Final Report , 1995.

9 Email exchange with Greg Janssen of U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Ann Arbor Michigan, January 24, 2001.

11 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, Final Report , p. 4

- 13.

12 Website of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the United States, United States Army Corps of Engineers, July 19, 2001.

13 Volpe National Transportation Sy stems Center and United States Coast Guard Headquarters Naval Engineering Division, prepared b y Environmental Transportation Consultants, Shipboard Marine Engines Emission Testing for the United states Coast Guard Final Report , 1995

14 Moffatt & Nichol, Walnut Creek, CA, General Conformity Analysis and Mitigation Report, Final Draft , February 2004.

15 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Engines and Compliance Division, Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines , November 1999.

16 Ib id., p. 109

17 Ib id., p. 110

18 Ib id., p. 115

19 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Qual ity , Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder , p. 7

- 6, EPA420

- R

- 09

- 004, January 2003.