# Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze
FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

Work Assignment: 5

- 12 Contract No: EP

- D

- 07

- 102 Task No: 16 Version: 1

Date Due March 23 , 201 2

Prepared for US EPA, Region 9

Prepared by ICF International 620 Folsom St Suite 200 San Francisco

, CA 94107Technical Analysis f or Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012.v1 ii March 23, 2012Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regiona l Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012.v1 iii March 23, 2012 

# Table of Contents

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1

2. Data Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1
2.1. Identified Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1
2.2. Identified Data Needs

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2
2.3. D ata Collection Approach

................................ ................................ ............................ 5

3. Modeling Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6
3.1. Data Preprocessing

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6
3.1.1. Source Population

................................ ................................ ............................ 6
3.1.2. A nnual VMT Estimates

................................ ................................ ..................... 7 3.2. MOVES Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 3.3. Spatial Allocation of Emissions

................................ ................................ .................... 8

4. Analysis of Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10
4.1. Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10
4.2. Comparison to Prior Estimates

................................ ................................ .................. 13
4.3. Spatial Allocation of Emissions

................................ ................................ .................. 14

5. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 16

6. Appendix A: Additional Data Preprocessing Details

................................ ...................... 18
6.1. Vehicle Age Distribution by Vehicle Type

................................ ................................ ... 18
6.2. Speed Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18
6.3. Source Population

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 6.4. VMT Fraction by Vehicle Source and Road Type

................................ ...................... 21
6.5. Meteorological Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 21
6.6. Mon thly, Daily, and Hourly VMT Fractions

................................ ................................ . 21 6.7. Ramp Fraction

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 21
6.8. Fuel Supply and Fuel Formulation

................................ ................................ ............. 21Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012.v1 iv March 23, 2012Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Introduction

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 1 March 23, 2012 

# 1. Introduction

ICF International, though the Uni versity of North Carolina, is assisting the US EPA, Region 9 Air Division in developing Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to establish air quality programs for Arizona and Hawaii pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 169A and Regional Haze Rule (RHR),
40CFR 51.308. Several tasks are addressed under this work assignment. The present report deals solely with an update to the on

- road

, mobile source emission inventory for the State of

Hawaii under Task 16.

This update is intended to account for recent changes in economic projections as a result of the recent global recession not considered in prior analysis. It also accounts for changes in the inventory resulting from a migration from EPA’s MOBILE6 model to the current MOVES model

for on

- road emissions

.

The technical portion of this task consisted of three basic components:

Assessment of existing data and methods ;

Collection and assembly of remaining data needed for analysis;

P erforming emissions analysis with the MOVES model to produce an inventory of NOx,
SO 2 

### , total PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### , CO, and NMHC for years 2005, 2008, and 2018 at the county
level for each of the five Hawaiian counties and the State as a whole ; and

Assessing the fraction of emissions within each of H awaii ’s counties influencing the t wo Class 1 Visibility Areas : Hawaii Volcanoes and H aleakala National Parks

.

This report documents each of these phases.



# 2. Data Sources

2.1. Identified Methods

ICF received a variety of data through EPA provided by from the State of Hawaii prepared for their most recent analysis. 1 

### Th e documentation and data included : 1. A comparison of the two existing inventories performed with various methods and purposes for calendar year 2005, one for AirSHED and one prepared for the NEI. All data was provided by the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH).
2. Various emails provided to EPA by DOH documenting current model inputs
3. Various MOBILE6 model input data files for the previously conducted 2005 and 2018 inventories. However, only input data was provided. No control or master files were included

.

1 "On

- road Emissions Estimates for the Hawaiian Islands, Technical Memorandum", May 25, 2007 Appendix A to "Final Emission Inventory Report: Data Population of Air System for Hawaii’s Emissions Data (AirSHED), April 12,
2010 , Environ

.Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road M obile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 2 March 23, 2012 

### Based on these items, we agree with the prior assessments that the AirSHED estimates are superior to NEI estimates for our purposes since they take into accou nt Hawaii’s local

information more completely. However , neither set is complete for 2018. Also, the use of the
MOVES model had notably not yet been included in the AirSHED estimates.

Based on the information provided and available data, ICF determined an approach to perform this analysis with the MOVES model and assessed the remaining data needs for a limited update of the current AirSHED inventory for 2002, 2005, and 2018

.

Since there is no direct EPA guidance on using MOVES to perform FIP analyses, w e d etermined to rely principally on EPA’s Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity 2


### to guide this analysis. Although that document is technically designed to “pro vide guidance on the use of MOVES for inventory development in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and for regional emissions analysis for transportation conformity determinations”, it is the most appropriate guidance to follow for this analysis . Other docum ents, including EPA’s Using MOVES for Estimating State and Local Inventories of On

- Road Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption 3 

### , the MOVES User Guide 4 

### , and o ther miscellaneous sources, including prior ICF reports and proposals for relevant projects were also consulted

.


# 2.2. Identified Data Needs

We followed the guidance discussed above for the methodology to employ the MOVES model at a county level for each of the four counties in Hawaii with significant on

- road activity for three years: 2005, 2008, 2018

. W e first produced an inventory of all the needed inputs for an analysis

at this scale , then reviewed all the information provided and assessed its suitability for the present MOVES analysis to identify remaining data needs.

In addition to the technical assessment , a guiding concern for this analysis wa s available time

. Given the highly compressed schedule under which this project was performed

, a guiding principal of the analysis was to rely on currently provided information as much as possible , while simultaneously exploring the availability of other data from various Federal, State and Local

sources. However, budget and time severely limited the amount of new data collection allowed.

Exhibit 1 lists the final set of data whose needs were identified and provides an overview of the method employed in the analysis. “Input Level” refers to one of two principal inputs for the MOVES model, the “main” module or the “CDM” (County Data Manager). Details are provided
below.

2 EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 042

, December 2009

. 3 EPA

- 420

- D

- 12

- 001

, January 2012 ( Public Draft )

4 EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulato r (MOVES) User Guide for MOVES2010a ( EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 036 August 2010 )Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Invent ory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 3 March 23, 2012 Exhibit 1 . Identified Approach and Data Needs for Update of HI On

- Road Inventory

Input Default Data

in MOVES? Input

Level Typical Data

Source General Approach

Meteorological Data Yes CDM MOVES defaults, old MOBILE6 inputs, or raw data We implement ed a local average daily temperature range,

similar to the seasonal analysis in the SIP/Conf guidance. This uses a local average temperature profile for a period (month ly for a given year ) based on average minimum and maximum temperatures). For 2005 we used historical data from the prior MOBILE analysis ( min/max Temperature and Absolute Humidity ) provided by EPA along with official EPA converter tools. For 2008, we used the MOVES input files provided by EPA ( hourly T and RH ). For 2018, we use d the MOVES default average monthly temperature and humidity data for each county , which reflect the 30

- year climate normals for each county

.

Source (Vehicle) Type Population National data

available, but local data preferred CDM Local registration

data

– heavy truck data is often difficult to obtain MOVES needs population data for all 6 HPMS vehicle types

by county as a basic input. Tools do not exist for interim values from ex isting data. ICF collected 2005 and 2008 total vehicle registration values by county from the State. Other years were also collected. 2018 was estimated by projecting 2011 values (the last year available).

Age Distribution National data

available, but local data preferred CDM Local registration

data

– MOVES national data for heavy vehicles if no better local

source No local inputs of registration distribution or appropriate

MOBILE datasets were available. We relied on EPA’s national default age distribu tion for MOVES.

Vehicle Type VMT National data

available, but local data preferred CDM Travel model or

HPMS This is the key metric for more current values than the prior

analysis. We collected 2005, 2008, and other year HPMS VMT values and road type fractions. These were manually converted to MOVES required formats. We estimated 2018 values by projecting 2010 values (the most current year available) based on EIA annualized projections of national average VMT growth by vehicle categories.

Month, Day, Hour VMT Fractions Yes, but local

data preferred CDM MOVES, HPMS,

count stations Data collection was attempted but no relevant values were

obtained. MOVES defaults were used in all cases.

Average Speed Distribution Yes, but local

data preferred CDM Travel model Unable to collect prior data files ( WRAP average speeds by roadway type ) from State or identify additional data (e.g.

, TDFM output s ). Instead relied on MOVES national default values.Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 4 March 23, 2012 Input Default Data

in MOVES? Input

Level Typical Data

Source General Approach

Road Type Distribution No CDM Travel model Manually computed from HPMS values collected, alongside “Vehicle Type VMT” for 2005 and 2008. 2008 values assumed also for 2018.

Ramp Fraction Yes CDM Travel model Used national defaults (8%).

Fuel Supply/ Formulation Yes CDM MOVES or MOBILE6 Relied on MOVES defaults for all years except 2008, where

the model linearly interpolates between available data. For 2008 used HI DOH

- provided gasoline formulations and default diesel formulations.

I/M Program Yes CDM MOVES or MOBILE6 N ot used. No I/M programs in HI.

Domain/Scale N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable for

project dependent on analysis type. A nalyze d at County scale

.

Calculation Type N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. U se d inventory mode.

Time Aggregation N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. Analyzed at hourly resolution for both weekday and

weekend . Results aggregated to annual basis.

Calendar Year N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. M odel ed three years (individually): 2005, 2008, and 2018

Evaluation Month N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. A ll months included.

Type of Day N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. Weekday and weekend values included.

Evaluation Hour N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. All hours analy zed.

Geographic Bounds N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. Analysis done for each county individually

Vehicle Type N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. A ll vehicle/fuel type combinations included. Default gasoline,

diesel, and CNG fractions assumed for all years and counties.

Road Type N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. All 5 road types used , with d istributions based on available

data (see above )Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 5 March 23, 2012 Input Default Data

in MOVES? Input

Level Typical Data

Source General Approach

Pollutants and Processes N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. All processes (and supporting pollutants) relevant for

NMHC, NOx, SO2, total PM10, PM2.5, and CO included.

Strategies N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. No changes to AVFT, retrofit, or rate

- of

- progress

parameters. Only the default MOVES parameters included for all analysis years. This is in accordance with SIP/Conf rules, which do not allow assumed future changes in alternate fuel or engine technologies unless those alternate technologies are required by regulation or law.

Activity N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. Only emissions considered

Emissions Detail N/A. User

selection only. Main User selectable

dependent on project goals. Emissions calculated at annual level (as noted above.



# 2.3. Data Collection Approach

To collect the information identified above, we first followed EPA guidance and contacted Scott

Takamoto at Hawaii’s Department of Health (DOH). Mr. Takamoto provided a collection of input files for previous modeling efforts including input files for the MOBILE6 model and some MOVES input files. Key files which were collected and used include meteorological data for

2005 and 2008

, 2008 VMT fraction by road type , and custom fuel

- formation information for the gasoline blend used in Hawaii in 2008

. Mr. Takamoto also provided ICF with vehicle population values based on registration data by county for each of year from 1997 to 2010.

ICF also contacted FHWA’s Off ice of Highway Policy Information and the U.S. Energy

Information Administration (EIA) , especially to collect values related to VMT and activity projections to 2018

. From the Hawaii DOT

, Mr. Goro Sulijoadikusumo also provided A DVMT

values for 1993 through 2007, Vehicle Type VMT estimates, and a summary of registered

vehicle s in Hawaii for calendar year 2008. Additionally, Mr. Yibo Hsu of the HI DOT, provided
HPMS Reports for years 2006 through 2010

, used to determine the ADVMT per county used in determining the VMT fraction s by road and source type.

Finally, John Maples and Victoria Z aretskaya at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)

were contacted to identify available data o n predicted vehicle population and VMT growth
factors for the State of Hawaii

. However, no such materials are available. Further we were cautioned against using regional ( Census Division 9 ) data, as any results would be skewed toTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 6 March 23, 2012 

### California values. Ultimately, national

- scale projections of vehicle population and VMT growth

ra te s were obtained from the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook. 5



# 3. Modeling Methods

With the above data and methods, ICF modeled four of the five counties in Hawaii:

 

### Hawaii County ( FIPS 15001)

 

### Honolulu County (15003)

 

### Kauai County (15007)

 

### Maui County (15009)

using the MOVES model for the years 2005, 2008, and 2018, in a total of 12 MOVES county

level simulations. Kalawao County (15005) was not modeled as the DOH indicated that an insignificant amount of VMT occurs there, given the 2010 population of 90 people

.


# 3.1. Data Preprocessing

A number of pre

- processing steps were co nducted in order to prepare raw inputs collected for
use in the MOV ES modeling application. The critical pieces are discussed below, while Appendix A provides additional detail on preparing the inputs outlined in Exhibit 1

.



## 3.1.1. Source Population

MOVES requires the vehicle population for each county and vehicle type as a principal input

. The re are no defaults for this data.

ICF obtained detailed vehicle registration data for years 1990 to 201 1 and used the county

specific Hawaii registration data from 2005 and 2008 to populate the source populations in
MOVES for each of these two years. Deta ils in allocating these values are presented in

A ppendix A.

Data were extrapolated to 2018 using 201 1 vehicle registration data and national growth rate values for car stock and light truck stock (0.76% and 1.64%, respectively) from the 2011 Annual Energ y Outlook (AEO) d ata base

. First, vehicle registration numbers in 201 1 were allocated to MOVES source type values using the approach described above. Then, annual average growth

rate projections for cars and light truck from the year 2011 to 2018 were calcu lated using AEO data (Baseline Case, Transportation Sector, using the table “Light

- duty vehicle stock by technology type ” Table ). Vehicle population estimates used in the MOVES modeling are in

Exhibit 12 in Appendix A.

5 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/tools.htmTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 7 March 23, 2012 

## 3.1.2. Annual VMT Estimates

Annual VMT by HMPS vehicle class is the second critical element required for MOVES modeling. No defaults are provided.

E stimates for each of six vehicle types were estimated using Highway Performance Monitoring System (HMPS) reports for 2005, 2008, and 2010 (for extrapolation to 2018). The HPMS reports vehicle mileage by island for various road types. These reports include the total VMT by all vehicle typ es, which are not separated by vehicle type. However, the reported travel activity by vehicle type and functional class for Hawaii in 2008 was reported in a separate HPMS document. By coupling the total VMT by road type and the fractional VMT by vehicle ty pe, we estimate d total VMT by vehicle type for MOVES input

. Note that , with this method, all years
used the same values for fraction of VMT by vehicle type, since we were only able to identify
data for 2008.

VMT estimates by vehicle type for 201 8 were det ermined as follows. We applied VMT growth

rates to HPMS values for 201 0 uniformly for all counties. Annualized VMT growth rate s were calculated for light

- duty vehicles, commercial light trucks, and freight trucks using AEO data

, equaling 1.59%, 2.49%, and 2.45%, respectively. These values were calculated using the online
AEO data viewer (Baseline Case, Transportation Sector, using the table “ Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption ” Table ). Results are presented in Exhibit 2
and also in Exhibit 13 of Appendix A

.

Exhibit 2

. Total VMT by county, in bil lions of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year for 2005, 2008, and 2018Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 8 March 23, 2012 

# 3.2. MOVES Analysis

The MOVES input s discussed in Section 3.1 were used in simulations of count ywide emissions for each combination of year and county, for a total of 12 unique MOVES simulations

. All analyses were conducted with MOVES 2010a.



# 3.3. Spatial Allocation of Emissions

An additional task requested under this work assignment was the determination of the fraction
of on

- road emissions within each county that influences the two Class 1 Visibility Areas:

Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks.

ICF based this analysis on available, link

- based, HPMS data provided by the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 6 

### The data available here represent s only calendar year 2008

, do not include vehicle

- specific data , and do not cover all roadways or al l VMT in the State

. However, it is the best available information at the required spatial scale.

As shown by Exhibit 3 , the HPMS data cover most of the roads in Hawai i County, but only some of the roads in Maui County (some on the western half of Maui Island, and none on the islands of Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Molokai). For each available link, the 2008 AD VMT value s were determined by multiplying the AADT values in the da tabase by the link’s length.

The locations of the monitors were representing each park were p rovided by EPA. A radius of

150 km was chosen for each park following EPA recommendations. Finally, we estimated the fraction of emissions influencing each park a s the fraction of 2008 VMT in the HPMS data for each county that lies within each buffer. The same fractions are assumed for each year.

6 http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2011/Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 9 March 23, 2012 Exhibit 3

. HPMS 2008 Link Based VMT, Radii of Influence, and Class 1 Visibility AreasTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 10 March 23, 2012 

# 4. Analysis of Results

4.1. Emissions

Exhibit 4 presents t he principal results of the MOVES analysis : the total of all primary emissions for each species of concern for each y ear . This table describes emissions of key pollutants for each year and county. Note that the total PM components listed here are the sum of exhaust,

brake wear , and tire wear. Exhibit 5 shows the trend for three key species across the three

years graphically. Exhibit 6 shows the calculated results for each individual species modeled for

every year. Exhibit 7 shows stacked bar graphs for calculated statewide pollutant totals, with the fraction of contribution by vehicle motor type for each of the three years modeled. Note that the total tonnage for each species, in thousands of metric tons per year, is sho wn below the species name in each case, to allow comparison of relative values across years.

Exhibit 4

. Summary Table of Onroad vehicle emissions (metric tons) by county for key pollutants in 2005, 2008, and 2018

Year County Carb on

Monoxide (CO) Oxides of

Nitrogen (N O x) Non

- Methane

Hydrocarbons ( NMHC ) PM 10 - Total PM 2.5 - Total Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

2005 Hawaii 19,618 3,546 2,042 113 81 58

Honolulu 79,590 14,203 8,475 432 298 216

Kauai 9,150 1,746 913 53 39 28

Maui 17,674 3,259 1,871 105 75 52

2008 Hawaii 12,919 2,530 1,441 97 65 17

Honolulu 52,111 9,713 5,957 374 241 67

Kauai 5,986 1,198 661 43 30 8

Maui 11,586 2,256 1,338 89 59 15

2018 Hawaii 9,426 925 646 70 36 12

Honolulu 37,709 3,361 2,688 278 132 50

Kauai 4,291 454 309 30 15 6

Maui 8,558 836 636 64 31 11

2005 Statewide 126,032 22,754 13,301 703 491 354

2008 Statewide 82,602 15,696 9,398 603 394 107

2018 Statewide 59,984 5,575 4,280 441 214 79Technical Analys is for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 11 March 23, 2012 Exhibit 5

. Total on - road vehicle emissions in each county for each pollutant type for 2005, 2008, and 2018

Exhibit 6 . Total statewide vehicle emissions for each chemical species simulated , in metric tons/yearTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regi onal Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 12 March 23, 2012 Exhibit 7 . Fractional emissions by chemical species for each year and vehicle type.Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 13 March 23, 2012 

# 4.2. Comparison to Prior Estimates

In addition to the predicted values, w e also compared our results to the prior analysis

, 7 

### and all pollutants show trends that are consistent with previous MOVES

- to

- MOBILE comparisons for

2005. 8 

### A summary of statewide results found in this analyses versus the results from the 2010 CAB report are shown below in Exhibit 8

. For 2018 our results are lower than would be expected solely due to switching from MOBILE to MOVES, however this is largely due to the difference in our activity projections to 2018. Our projected 2018 VMT is around 20% less than the previous estimates , as shown below in Exhibit 9 . The prior estimates were projected from

20 05 values and do not take full account of the effects of the global economic recession

.

7 On

- road Emissions Estimates for the Hawaiian Islands, Tec hnical Memorandum, May 25, 2007, En viron International Corporation, Appendix A to FINAL EMISSION INVENTORY REPORT: DATA POPULATON OF AIR SYSTEM FOR HAWAII’S EMISSIONS DATA (AirSHED), Prepared for Hawaii Department of Health Clean Air Branch (a.k.a CAB Report).

8 Air Pollution Emissions from Highway Vehicles: What MOVES Tells Us, Megan Beardsley, Jim Warila, Gary Dolce, John Koupal, US EPA . Presentation at the 18 th Annual International Emission In ventory Conference: "Comprehensive Inventories

- Leveraging Technology and Resources", Baltimore, Maryland, April, 2009. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei18/session6/beardsley.pdfTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 14 March 23, 2012 Exhibit 8

. A comparison on current and prior s tatewide emissions estimates

Chemical Species CAB Report Current Analysis Percent Difference Relative to CAB Report

2002 2005 2018 2005 2008 2018 2005 2018

VOC / NMHC 17,878 17,486 8,827 13,301 9,398 4,280

- 16 %

- 4 7 %

CO 182,664 176,450 112,085 126,032 82,602 59,984

- 21 %

- 41 %

Nox 15,862 15,907 6,800 22,754 15,696 5,575 58 %

- 10 %

PM10 377 412 397 703 603 441 88 % 2 3 %

PM2.5 229 247 187 491 394 214 119 % 26 %

SO2 176 371 129 354 107 79 5 %

- 32 %

Exhibit 9

. Countywide t otal VMT in billions of miles from the current and prior analyse s

Geographic Location CAB Report Current Analysis Percent Difference Relative to CAB Report

2002 2005 2018 2005 2008 2018 2005 2018

Hawaii 1.38 1.65 2.24 1.65 1.64 1.84

- 0.03%

- 17.78%

Honolulu 5.51 6.25 8.41 6.25 6.37 7.09

- 0.04%

- 15.69%

Maui 1.24 1.43 1.93 1.43 1.42 1.60 0.32%

- 17.01%

Kauai 0.64 0.79 1.07 0.79 0.78 0.88

- 0.03%

- 17.73%

Statewide 8.77 10.12 13.65 10.12 10.21 11.41 0.02%

- 16.38%



# 4.3. Spatial Allocation of Emissions

As discussed in Section 3.3 , we also determined the fraction of emissions influencing each Class 1 Visibility Area based on 2008 VMT included in the BTS HPMS statistics and assuming a
150

- km buffer from each site. Exhibit 10 shows the es timate d fractions to be considered in portioning emissions for each year

.

Exhibit 10

. Countywide tot al VMT in billions of miles from the current and prior analyses

Hawaii County Fraction of emissions influencing Hawaii

Volcanoes Park 100%

Fraction of emissions influencing Haleakala Park 64%

Maui County Fraction of emissions influencing Hawaii

Volcanoes Park 0%

Fraction of emissions influencing Haleakala Park 100%Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inv entory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 15 March 23, 2012 

### That is, for Hawaii C ounty, 100% of on

- road, mobile source emissions can be considered to impact Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, while 64% of the county

- wide emissions can be considered to impact Haleakala National Park. For Maui County, 100% of the county

- wide emissions impact Haleakala National Park, while none impact Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. No other county’s emissions impact either Park.Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 16 March 23, 20 12 

# 5. Referenc es

Air Pollution Emissions from Highway Vehicles: What MOVES Tells Us, Megan Beardsley, Jim Warila, Gary Dolce, John Koupal, US EPA . Presentation at the 18 th 

### Annual International Emission Inventory Conference: "Comprehensive Inventories

- Leveraging Techno logy and Resources", Baltimore, Maryland, April, 2009. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei18/session6/beardsley.pdf

AirSHED vs. NEI: A table comparison of the two existing inventories prepared by the Hawaii Department of Health using 2005 emissions.

"County Specific VMT Data." 9 Mar. 2012. E

- mail correspondence between Yibo Hsu (Hawaii DOT) and Steven Keith (ICF)

.

"FW: County Specific VMT Data." 9 Mar. 2012. E

- mail correspondence between Daniel Jenkins (FHWA), Justin Clarke (FHWA), and Steven Keith (ICF)

.

"Fw: ICF GHG Data

- gathering." 8 Mar. 2012. E

- mail correspondence between Goro Sulijoadikusumo (Hawaii DOT), Jose ph Hausman (FHWA) and Steven Keith (ICF)

.

"Fw: Input Data for Moves

. " Date: 12/30/2011 02:22PM

, E

- mail correspondence between Gregory Nudd (USEPA) and ", Marianne Fuji Rossio Hawaii DOH.

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES): User Guide for MOVES2010a, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 036 August 2010.

On

- road Emissions Estimates for the Hawaiian Islands, Technical Memorandum, May 25, 2007. Appendix A to "Final Emission Inventory Report: Data Population of Air System for Hawaii’s Emissions Data (AirSHED), April 12, 2010, E nviron International Corporation

.

"RE: County Specific VMT Data." 12 Mar. 2012. E

- mail correspondence between Robert Rozycki (FHWA) and Steven Keith (ICF)

.

"RE: Requesting Information on GHG Inventory for HI." 9 Mar. 2012. E

- mail correspondence
between John Venezia (ICF) and Steven Keith (ICF)

.

"RE: State Specific Transportation Demand Data." 8 Mar. 2012. E

- mail correspondence

between John Maples (EIA) and Steven Keith (ICF)

.

"RE: State Specific Transportation Demand Data." 8 Mar. 2012. E

- mail correspond ence between Victoria Zaretskaya (EIA) and Steven Keith (ICF)

.

“ RE: Hawaii Vehicle Registration ”. 2 Feb 2012. E

- mail correspondence between Scott Takamoto (DOH) and Seth Hartley (ICF).Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 17 March 23, 2012 

### “ RE: MOVES Inputs for HI Emissions Inventory Update ”. 1 Mar 2012. E

- mail correspondence between Scott Takamoto (DOH) and Andy Shapiro (ICF).

State and County QuickFacts. Kalawao County, Hawaii. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County Housing U nit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report. U.S. Census Bureau. Last Revised: 31

- Jan

- 2012. Accessed 15 Mar

2012. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/15/15005.html

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity, EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 042, De cember

2009.

Tools for MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator) , US EPA

. Accessed 15 Mar. 2012. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/tools.htm

.

Using MOVES for Estimating State and Local Invento ries of On

- Road Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption, Public Draft, EPA

- 420

- D

- 12

- 001, January 2012.Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 18 March 23, 2012 

# 6. Appendix A: Additional Data Preprocessing Details

6.1. Vehicle Age Distribution by Vehicle Type

ICF was unable to find any Hawaii

- specific data reg arding the fraction by age of each vehicle type in Hawaii, so the MOVES defaults, taken from EPA’s MOVES tools website, 9 

### was used for each year. Separate defaults were used for each year but the same values were used across all

counties.



# 6.2. Speed Distribution

ICF was unable to find any Hawaii

- specific data for average speed fraction by source type, road type, and hour of the day from any sources. Thus the same MOVES defaults were used for all counties and years, exported from the tool.



# 6.3. Source Population

Along with the county

- specific Hawaii registration data used to populate the source populations
in MOVES , a crosswalk was created to correlate the population bins in the registration bins to the MOVES model input bins. Exhibit 11 shows this crosswalk. In the case where multiple MOVES source types were matched, a partitioning of the vehicle registration type to all matching MOVES vehicle types was used to allocate the popula tion to the appropriate category.

9 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/tools.htmTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 19 March 23, 2012 Exhibit 11 . Crosswalk of Hawaii Vehicle Registration Type to MOVES Source and Fractional Allocation

Hawaii Vehicle Registration

Type MOVES Source Type and Vehicle ID Percent of Registration Data Partitioned to MOVES Category
Motorcycles Motorcycle (11) 100%

Car Passenger Car (21) 100%

Truck Passenger Truck (31) 74% Light Commercial Truck (32) 25% Motor Home (54) 1%

Bus Intercity Bus (41) 12% Transit Bus (42) 7% School Bus (43) 82%

Freight Truck Refuse Truck (51) 2% Single Unit Short

- haul Truck (52) 98% Single Unit Long

- haul Truck (53) 0% Combination Long

- haul Truck (62) 0%

Tr uc k /Tractor + Truck/Crane Combination Short

- haul Truck (61) 100%

a Default population fractions in MOVES were used to allocate a single Hawaii vehicle registration type to multiple MOVES source types

b It was assumed that there are no single unit long

- haul or combination long

- haul trucks in the state of

HawaiiTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Appendix A: Additional Data Preprocessing Details

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 20 March 23, 2012 Exhibit 12 . Estimated source type population by county and year (MOVES input)

MOVES Source Type 2005 2008 2018

Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Motorcycle 16,650 3,546 3,188 1,490 18,964 3,947 3,771 1,765 23,078 5,118 4,602 2,018 Passenger Car 594,100 132,620 125,169 54,910 595,825 133,722 121,249 52,722 661,651 146,095 136,240 58,867 Passenger Truck 44,687 14,833 17,044 12,005 43,071 17,031 17,296 12,099 46,223 19,383 17,605 13,216 Light Commercial Truck 14,929 4,955 5,694 4,011 14,389 5,690 5,778 4,042 16,415 6,883 6,252 4,694 Intercity Bus 227 33 32 1 206 32 24 1 244 37 25 3

Transit Bus 124 18 18 1 113 17 13 1 133 20 13 2

School Bus 1,557 229 222 9 1,416 219 162 9 1,677 253 167 26

Refuse Truck 772 240 161 56 822 263 183 66 907 278 189 75 Single Unit Short

- haul Truck 40,234 12,500 8,382 2,900 42,869 13,736 9,536 3,467 47,258 14,474 9,904 3,898 Single Unit Long

- haul Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motor Home 560 186 213 150 539 213 217 152 615 258 234 176

Combination Short

- haul Truck 737 227 142 27 1,390 291 173 19 2,342 342 161 188 Combination Long

- haul Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 714,577 169,387 160,265 75,560 719,604 175,161 158,402 74,343 800,543 193,141 175,392 83,163

Exhibit 13 . Calculated total VMT by county and year inputs for MOVES Modeling

Source Type (HPMSV ID) 2005 2008 2018

Hawaii Honolulu Maui Kauai Hawaii Honolulu Maui Kauai Hawaii Honolulu Maui Kauai Motorcycles (10) 1.24E+07 4.55E+07 1.14E+07 7.31E+06 1.23E+07 4.65E+07 1.14E+07 7.25E+06 1.37E+07 5.10E+07 1.28E+07 8.04E+06 Passenger Cars (20) 1.32E+09 5.39E+09 1.13E+09 5.99E+08 1.31E+09 5.49E+09 1.13E+09 5.94E+08 1.46E+09 6.08E+09 1.25E+09 6.63E+08

Other 2 axle

- 4 tire vehicles (30) 2.40E+08 5.99E+08 2.16E+08 1.41E+ 08 2.39E+08 6.09E+08 2.15E+08 1.40E+08 2.76E+08 7.02E+08 2.51E+08 1.60E+08

Buses (40) 9.31E+06 3.44E+07 8.26E+06 3.86E+06 9.27E+06 3.49E+07 8.26E+06 3.79E+06 1.10E+07 4.19E+07 9.79E+06 4.66E+06 Single Unit Trucks (50) 4.78E+07 1.17E+08 4.48E+07 2.91E+07 4.76E+07 1.19E+08 4.47E+07 2.89E+07 5.68E+07 1.41E+08 5.38E+07 3.42E+07 Combination Trucks (60) 1.95E+07 6.49E+07 1.69E+07 9.91E+06 1.93E+07 6.60E+07 1.69E+07 9.85E+06 2.30E+07 7.82E+07 2.02E+07 1.16E+07

Total 1.65E+09 6.25E+09 1.43E+09 7.90E+08 1.64E+09 6.37E+09 1.42E+09 7.83E+08 1.84E+09 7.09E+09 1.60E+09 8.82E+08Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP R eport

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Appendix A: Additional Data Preprocessing Details

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 21 March 23, 2012 

# 6.4. VMT Fraction by Vehicle Source and Road Type

MOVES requires an input file which reports the fraction of VMT for each source type and road type combination, where the fraction of VMT equals one for each source type. Using the total VMT values methods described above, we calculated the fraction of VMT by vehicle type and road type in t he MOVES

- specified format. Note that these values were derived using HPMS VMT data by county for 2005, 2008, and 2018 using extroplated VMT data from 2011 and AEO VMT national growth rates. Partitioning of total VMT by vehicle type was conducted using
HPMS data for 2008 for all years which were modeled.



# 6.5. Meteorological Data

ICF was provided 2005 meteorological data for each county in the MOBILE6 modeling format. Meteorological data was converted from the MOBILE6 format into the MOVES format using the
MOVES processing tools found on their website (EPA 2011). In some cases meteorological data were provided for multiple islands within one county. ICF compared the results across the meteorological stations, and if values were found to be sufficiently similar, re sults were averaged across islands to calculate the single meteorological profile required for each county. This was conducted for Kauai county (averaging Kauai and Niihau Islands) and Maui County (averaging Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe Islands).

I CF was also provided 2008 meteorological data in a MOVES compatible format; no changes were made to these data, as they were already county

- specific.

Finally, default meteorological data in the MOVES database were used for each county in 2018.

This data re presents a 30

- year climate normal, and is specific to each county.



# 6.6. Monthly, Daily, and Hourly VMT Fractions

MOVES default monthly, daily, and hourly VMT fractions were used for partitioning VMT data

across the time

- periods modeled in MOVES. ICF was unable to find any Hawaii

- specific values. The same defaults were used for all years and counties.



# 6.7. Ramp Fraction

MOVES defaults were used for the the fraction of roadways that are ramps; ICF was unable to find any Hawaii

- specific values.



# 6.8. Fuel Supply and Fuel Formulation

MOVES default fuel formulations were used for years 2005 and 2018. These values are consistent with the status of current regulations regarding fuel formulations. However, a custom gasoline fuel formulation was used for 2008 which was provided to ICF by Scott Takamoto atTechnical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze FIP Report

– Task 16: On

- Road Mobile Emissions Inventory

UNC

- EMAQ (5

- 12)

- 012 .v1 22 March 23, 2012 

### the DOH. It was noted that the default fuel formulation values were changed using data obtained by the DOH regarding fuel formulation from Hawaii’s two refinieries (Chevron and Tesoro). The average values used here were from a full year of 2008 Chevron data and partial years of Tesoro September 2005

- January 2006 and April 2006

– July 2006 using ethanol. It was also noted that due to stable and warm climate of Hawaii, relative vapor pressure does not change seasonally, and there fore the custom fuel blend was updated to account for this. Finally, a custom formulation was required in 2008 but not other years due to the formulation of this parameter in the default MOVES database. Exhibit 14 presents the custom fuel blend used for 2008, along with a comparison of the default 2008 fuel blends versus the custom blend.

Exhibit 14 . Comparison of default 2008 gasoline fuel ble nds and custom 2008 Hawaii blend

Description Standard 2008 Default Blend 10 % Ethanol Default

2008 Blend Custom Hawaii 2008
Blend

Annual Market Share 11% (default, 0% used) 89%

(default, 0% used) 100%

(replaced default blends)

Fuel Formulation ID 7669 2276 9999 Relative Vapor Pressure 13.0886 13.0886 9.61

Sulfur Level 42.4925 42.4925 32.4

ETOH Volume 0 10 10

MTBE Volume 0 0 0

ETBE Volume 0 0 0

TAME Volume 0 0 0

Aromatic Content 28.7253 28.7253 23.98

Olefin Content 13.51 13.51 11.89

Benzene Content 0.8 0.8 1.06

E200 53.5964 53.5964 54.61

E300 87.604 87.604 90.47

Biodiesel Ester Volume 0 0 0

Cetane Index 0 0 0

PAH Content 0 0 0



### Note that the custom fuel blend used for 2008 was assumed to be used in 100% of gasoline vehicles. In all other cases, including 2008 diesel vehicles, the default fuel formulation and fuel usage fractions were used.