# PECHAN

5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

703-813-6700 telephone 703-813-6729 facsimile

3622 Lyckan Parkway Suite 2002 Durham, NC 27707

919-493-3144 telephone 919-493-3182 facsimile

P.O. Box 1345 El Dorado, CA 95623

530-295-2995 telephone 530-295-2999 facsimile 

# Development of the VISTAS Draft 2002 Mobile Source Emission Inventory (February 2004 Version)

Prepared for:

VISTAS 59 Woodfin Place Asheville, NC 28801

Prepared by:

Maureen A. Mullen Kirstin B. Thesing E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

February 9, 2004

Pechan Rpt. No. 04.01.002/9440.000

### [ This page intentionally left blank]

# CONTENTS Page TABLES.........................................................................................................................

............... iv FIGURES........................................................................................................................

............... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................... vi I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 1 II. ONROAD METHODS AND DATA.................................................................................. 2 A. 2002 VMT DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................... 2 1. Conversion to Annual VMT................................................................................. 2 2. Projection to 2002................................................................................................. 3 3. Splitting VMT by Road Type............................................................................... 4 a. Allocation of VMT to Vehicle Type using Default VMT Mix Data............. 4 b. Allocation of VMT to Vehicle Type using State-Provided VMT Mix Data . 6 c. Allocation of VMT by Month........................................................................ 6 B. 2002 ONROAD EMISSION FACTOR DE VELOPMENT USING MOBILE6.2 ..... 8 1. General MOBILE6.2 File Structure ..................................................................... 8 C. 2002 ONROAD EMISSION INVE NTORY CALCULATIONS ............................. 17 D. DATA PROVIDED BY STA TE AND LOCAL AGENCIES .................................. 17 1. Temperature........................................................................................................ 21 2. I/M and ATP Programs ...................................................................................... 21 3. RVP and Fuel Programs ..................................................................................... 21 III. NONROAD METHODS AND DATA............................................................................. 22 A. NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES ...................................................................... 22 B. AIRCRAFT, COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSELS AND LOCOMOTIVES ........ 23 2. CMV Improvements........................................................................................... 28 a. Current Allocation Method.......................................................................... 28 b. Revised Port Allocation Method.................................................................. 29 3. Projection Methods............................................................................................. 40 IV. ONROAD REFUELING METHODS............................................................................. 42 A. CONTROLS .............................................................................................................. 42 B. METHODS................................................................................................................ 43 V. NONROAD REFUELING METHODS .......................................................................... 44 VI. SUMMARY OF RESULTS.............................................................................................. 45 A. ONROAD RESULTS................................................................................................ 45 B. NONROAD RESULTS............................................................................................. 47 VII. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMEND ATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT.............. 51 A. ONROAD SECTOR IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................. 51 B. NONROAD SECTOR IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................. 52 VIII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ .. 52

# TABLES

Table II-1. VMT Data Provided by State/Local Agencies ............................................................ 3 Table II-2. VMT Growth Factors Used for Virginia ..................................................................... 4 Table II-3. Allocation of VMT from HPMS Ve hicle Categories to MOBILE6 Vehicle Types for 2001........................................................................................................................... ................ 5 Table II-4. Default VMT Seasonal and Monthly Temporal Allocation Factors............................ 7 Table II-5. Default Speeds Modeled by Road Type and Vehicle Type....................................... 16 Table II-6. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Alabama ...................................................... 18 Table II-7. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Florida......................................................... 18 Table II-8. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Georgia........................................................ 19 Table II-9. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Kentucky..................................................... 17 Table II-10. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Mississippi ................................................ 18 Table II-11. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by North Carolina .......................................... 18 Table II-12. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by South Carolina .......................................... 19 Table II-13. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Tennessee.................................................. 19 Table II-14. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Virginia ..................................................... 20 Table II-15. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by West Virginia............................................ 20 Table III-1. Summary of Comments by S/L/ T Agencies on NONROAD Model Input Values Distributed in July 2003....................................................................................................... ... 22 Table III-2. Summary of S/L/T Agency Data Incorporated into the Draft VISTAS 2002 Other Nonroad Inventory.............................................................................................................. .... 23 Table III-3a. Replacement Procedures for 1999 Locomotive Emissions for Pickens and Tuscaloosa County, Alabama ................................................................................................. 24 Table III-3b. Replacement Procedures for 1999 Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions for Palm Beach County, Florida ................................................................ 25 Table III-3c. Replacement Procedures for 1999 Aircraft and Locomotive Emissions for Davidson County, Tennessee.................................................................................................. 26 Table III-3d. Replacement Procedures for 1999 Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions for Sample Counties in Virginia ................................................................ 27 Table III-4. Port Areas Located in VISTAS and Adjoining States.............................................. 32 Table III-5. List of VISTAS Port s and Ports of Adjoining States ............................................... 33 Table III-6. Definition of Port Areas Obtained from Waterborne Commerce ............................ 36 Table III-7a. Growth Factors for Ra ilroad Distillate Fuel Oil Use.............................................. 40 Table III-7b. 2002 National Rail Transportation Energy Use by Fuel Type............................... 41 Table III-8. Growth Factors for Commercial Marine Vessel Distilla te and Residual Fuel Oil Use ........................................................................................................................ ............ 42 Table IV-1. Onroad Stage II Control Programs........................................................................... 43 Table V-1. 2002 Draft Stage II Re fueling Emissions by State.................................................... 45 Table VI-1. 2002 VISTAS Onroad Emissions and VMT by State.............................................. 46 Table VI-2. 1999 NEI Version 2 Onroad Emissions and VMT by State .................................... 46 Table VI-3. Change in Onroad Emissions and VMT from 1999 NEI Version 2 to VISTAS 2002 Inventory...................................................................................................................... ........... 47 Table VI-4. 2002 VISTAS Annual Onroad Refueling Emissions............................................... 47 Table VI-5. Summary of Draft 2002 Nonroa d Sector Annual Emissions by State ..................... 48 Table VI-6. Summary of Draft 2002 NONR OAD Model Emission Estimates by State............. 49

### Table VI-7. Summary of Draft 2002 Other Nonroad* Emission Estimates by State.................. 50



# FIGURES

Figure II-1. Header Section of MOBILE 6.2 Input File Including VOC Exhaust and PM 10 

### Emission Factors............................................................................................................... .............. 9 Figure II-2. Header Section of MOBILE6.2 Input File Including VOC Evaporative and PM 2.5 

### Emission Factors............................................................................................................... ............ 10 Figure II-3. Run Data Section of a MOBILE6.2 Input File......................................................... 11 Figure II-4. Run Data Section of a MOBILE6.2 Input File with Significant Local Inputs......... 11 Figure II-5. Sample Scenario for a Typical MOBILE6.2 Input File ........................................... 15 Figure III-1. VISTAS Region and Surrounding States, Underway NO x 

### Emissions ................... 30 Figure III-2. VISTAS Re gion and Surrounding States, Port NO x 

### Emissions ............................. 31 Figure III-3. VISTAS Re gion and Surrounding States, Revised Port Emissions of NO X 

### ............ 35

# ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ATADS Air Traffic Activity Data System ATP anti-tampering program BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics BTU British thermal unit CMV commercial marine vessels CNG compressed natural gas CO carbon monoxide DOT Department of Transportation EIA Energy Information Administration EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards GF growth factor HDDV heavy-duty diesel vehicle HDGV heavy-duty gasoline vehicle HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System I/M inspection and maintenance LDDT light-duty diesel truck LDDV light-duty diesel vehicle LDGT light-duty gasoline truck LDGV light-duty gasoline vehicle LPG liquified petroleum gas LTO landing and takeoff MC motorcycle mg milligram NAPAP National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program NEI National Emission Inventory NH 3 

### ammonia NO x 

### oxides of nitrogen OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality Pechan E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. PM 2.5 

### particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers PM 10 

### particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers ppmv parts per million volume RFG reformulated gasoline RVP Reid vapor pressure SCC source classification code S/L/T State/Local/Tribal SO 2 

### sulfur dioxide USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VISTAS Visibility Improvement-State and Tribal Association of the Southeast VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound

### 1 

# I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

The Visibility Improvement – State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) has contracted with E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) to prep are a 2002 mobile source emissions inventory. The purpose of this emi ssions inventory is to support the modeling and assessment of speciated particulat e matter with an aerodynamic diam eter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 

### ). Through this contract, Pechan first prepared an inventory review document. This document summarized several re gional and national emission inventory efforts and identified strengths and weaknesses associated with the use of these inventories in regional haze modeling. This document also summarized data submittals by State and local air agencies within the VISTAS region that could be us ed in the VISTAS 2002 mobile source emissions inventory.

Since that time, the State and local air agenci es have updated their submittals for the mobile source sectors, including both onroad vehicles and nonroad engines. In July of 2003, Pechan delivered sets of inputs to the NONROAD model option files and MOBILE6.2 input files and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data for each Stat e and local agency to review. For the onroad sector, the MOBILE6.2 input files and VMT data represented Pechan’s pr ocessing of the State and local inputs in a consistent manner fo r use in calculating the 2002 onroad emissions inventory. The MOBILE6.2 input files and VMT data included as much of the local data supplied by the State and local agencies as possible, with missing information filled in with appropriate default data. The data delivered by P echan for the State and local agencies to review related to the nonroad sector was primarily in th e form of temperature and fuel data that would be used as inputs to the NONROAD model. It should be noted that the nonroad sector inputs were completed first and did not include some of the later temperature and fuel updates that did get incorporated in the onroad data.

The State and local agencies were given a brief period to review, comment upon, and make updated submittals to the onroad and nonroad input s that were delivered in July 2003. After receiving these comments and updated data, Pechan updated the appropriate MOBILE6.2 input files, VMT data, and nonroad inputs with the revised State and local data. Pechan then calculated 2002 onroad and nonroad emissions fr om these inputs. Pechan presented the preliminary results of these emission inve ntories at a VISTAS meeting on August 28, 2003. These draft August 2003 emission estimates , including inputs and methodology, were documented in a draft report circulated to VISTAS in October 2003. This October 2003 report also included documentation of draft 2002 refuel ing emissions from onroad and nonroad sources. The VISTAS States were asked to review this document, as well as the supporting files provided by Pechan, and provide comments or revisions by December 2003. Onroad and nonroad 2002 emissions for the VISTAS States have since b een calculated based on the updates provided by the States. This report documents the input s and methodologies used in the February 2004 version of the VISTAS 2002 onroad and nonroad mobile source emission inventories.

### 2 

# II. ONROAD METHODS AND DATA

A. 2002 VMT DEVELOPMENT

Table II-1 summarizes the type of VMT da ta submitted by each agency. Depending upon the data submitted by the individual State or agen cy, up to three different procedures were performed on the data. First, VMT data that were not provided at the annual level were converted from daily VMT to annual VMT. Second, VMT provided for years other than 2002 were grown from the base year provided. Fi nally, the VMT were allocated by vehicle type, if not already at that level of detail. The section discusses each of these proc edures in more detail.

It should be noted that although the format and content of the VMT provided by the VISTAS State and Local agencies varied significantly from agency to agency, this draft 2002 VISTAS inventory is based at a minimum on county/ro adway type specific VMT, as provided by the individual agencies. This is a significant improvement over th e spatial allocation methods used in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Emission Inventory (NEI) for onroad vehicles.

1. Conversion to Annual VMT

For use in the emission calculations, Pechan’s ul timate goal with the VMT data was to develop an annual 2002 VMT database by county, roadway type , and vehicle type. As indicated in Table II-1, the VMT data were submitted using three di fferent time periods: annual, average annual day, and summer day. No temporal adjustments were applied to VMT data submitted as annual VMT. VMT data submitted as average annual day VMT were multiplied by 365 to convert from an average day to the annual time period. The Jefferson County, Kentucky VMT were submitted as summer day VMT. All annual VMT values were converted to units of millions of miles per year. Therefore, any VMT values submitted as miles were divided by a factor of 1,000,000 and VMT values submitted in units of 1,000 miles were divided by a factor of 1,000.

The Jefferson County, Kentucky VMT submittal in cluded a single factor for converting the summer day VMT to average annual day VMT. Thus, the Jefferson County summer day VMT data were first multiplied by a factor of 0.97752 (the temporal conversion factor provided by Jefferson County) to obtain average annual day VMT. The VMT data were then multiplied by 365 to obtain the annual VMT.

### 3 Table II-1. VMT Data Provid ed by State/Local Agencies

State/Area Time Perio

d 2002 Actual VMT by County/Ro ad Type/Vehic

le Type 2002 Actual VMT by County/Ro

ad Type 2002 Projected VMT by County/Ro

ad Type 2002 VMT from TDM by County/Ro ad Type/Vehic

le Type 1999 Actual VMT by County/Ro ad Type/Vehic

le Type

Alabama AAD X

Florida AAD X

Georgia AAD X

Kentucky AAD X Jefferson County, KY SD X

Mississippi ANN X

North Carolina AAD X

South Carolina ANN X

Tennessee AAD X

Virginia ANN X

West Virginia ANN X X

Time Period Codes: AAD=Average Annual Day, SD=Summer Day, ANN=Annual



### 2. Projection to 2002

As indicated in Table II-1, the Virginia VMT submittal was for a base year of 1999 rather than 2002. Thus, these VMT data needed to be projec ted to 2002 before calculating emissions. For Virginia, growth factors were developed by roadway type for the period from 1999 to 2001 based on historical VMT data by roadway type from Table VM-2 “Functional System Travel” in DOT’s Highway Statistics series (DOT, 1999 and 2001). The growth factors, presented in Table II-2, were calculated by dividing Virginia’s 2001 VMT for each of the 12 roadway types from Highway Statistics 2001 by the corresponding 1999 VMT from Highway Statistics 1999 . For the period from 2001 to 2002, the growth factors were developed using data obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Traffic Volu me Trends report (DOT, 2002). This monthly publication provides a comparison of prelimin ary 2002 VMT estimates with comparable 2001 VMT. For several roadway types, these data are provided only at a national level. However, for the combined rural interstates and arterials, these data are presented by State. The resultant data, used to project the 2001 Virginia VMT to 2002, are shown in Table II-2. The 2001 to 2002 growth factors represent the 2002 VMT divide d by the 2001 VMT, based on the data Virginia for the rural interstates and arterials and on th e national data for the remaining roadway types. Once the growth factors were developed, the Virginia 1999 VMT data were first multiplied by the appropriate 1999 to 2001 growth factor a nd then by the appropriate 2001 to 2002 growth factor.

### 4 Table II-2. VMT Growth Factors Used for Virginia

Roadway Type Roadway Type Portion of SCC Virginia 1999 to 2001 VMT Growth Factor Virginia 2001 to 2002 VMT Growth Factor Rural Interstate 110 1.043 1.035 Rural Other Principal Arterial 130 1.050 1.035 Rural Major Arterial 150 1.130 1.035 Rural Major Collector 170 0.982 1.011 Rural Minor Collector 190 1.032 1.011 Rural Local 210 0.923 1.011 Urban Interstate 230 1.050 1.024 Urban Other Freeway & Expressway 250 0.984 1.011 Urban Other Principal Arterial 270 1.061 1.011 Urban Minor Arterial 290 0.991 1.011 Urban Collector 310 0.925 1.013 Urban Local 330 0.690 1.013

Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation, Feder al Highway Administration, “Traffic Volume Trends, December 2002”, (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.htm); Highway Statistics 1999 , and Highway Statistics 2001 (http://www.fhwa.do t.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.htm)



### 3. Splitting VMT by Road Type

The final step in developing a consistent 2002 VMT data base was to allocate VMT from the county and roadway type level of detail to the county/roadway type/vehicle type level of detail. As shown in Table II-1, the Jefferson Count y, Kentucky; Mississippi; Virginia; and West Virginia VMT data supplied for these jurisdicti ons already included the vehicle type level of detail, so this final adjustment was not needed for these areas. For the remaining areas, some provided VMT mix by vehicle type fractions while others provided no information on the allocation of VMT by vehicle. In this latte r case, default VMT fraction data from EPA’s MOBILE6 model were used.

The States for which MOBILE6 default VMT mix data were used are: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky (excludi ng Boone County, Campbell County, Kenton County, and Jefferson County), and South Carolina. It should be not ed that Georgia initially provided VMT fractions based on Georgia's HPMS classification count data , but after review of ten years of these data determined that they are not reflecting the tr end towards increasing tr avel by light trucks. Georgia therefore decided it was more conservativ e to assume MOBILE6 default VMT fractions.

a. Allocation of VMT to Vehicle Type using Default VMT Mix Data

To calculate 2002 VMT at the county/roadway type /vehicle type level using national default data, the VMT totals by county and roadway t ype need to be allocated among the 28 MOBILE6 vehicle types. This was done based on the di stribution of the 2001 rural and urban VMT among the six Highway Performance Monitoring System s (HPMS) vehicle types found in Table VM-1

### 5 (“Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data - 1999 - by Highway Category and Vehicle Type”) of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Highway Statistics 2001 ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/ hs01/index.htm) and a mapping of these HPMS vehicle categories to the 28 MOBILE6 vehicle types. This mapping of the MOBILE6 vehicle types to the HPMS vehicle types was developed by EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) and is used in the development of the NEI. The data first needed to be expanded to the 28 vehicle type level of detail to obtain the proper cross reference between the HPMS and MOBILE6 vehicle types since the eight vehicle t ypes used in the final VISTAS VMT data base cannot be directly mapped to the HPMS vehicle cate gories. First, the VMT totals for each of the six HPMS vehicle categories were calculated as a fraction of the total VMT. This calculation was performed separately for the rural VM T and the urban VMT. The resulting 2001 VMT fractions for rural VMT and urban VMT are s hown in Table II-3. No te that 2002 VMT are not yet available at this level of detail. Usi ng the default MOBILE6 VMT fractions for 2001 (since the HPMS data represents 2001), taken fr om a MOBILE6 output file for 2001, the MOBILE6 VMT fractions were renormalized among all MO BILE6 vehicle types mapped to a given HPMS vehicle category. This renormalization is shown in the final column of Table II-3.

Table II-3. Allocation of VMT from HPMS Vehicle Categories to MOBILE6 Vehicle Types for 2001

HPMS Vehicle Category HPMS 2001 Rural VMT Fractions HPMS 2001 Urban VMT Fractions MOBILE6 Vehicle Category MOBILE6 2001 VMT Fractions by

HPMS Category Passenger Cars 0.5454 0.6065 LDGV 0.9980 LDDV 0.0020 Motorcycles 0.0039 0.0031 MC 1.0000 Other 2-Axle 4-Tire Vehicles 0.3368 0.3375 LDGT1 0.1565 LDGT2 0.5211 LDGT3 0.1585 LDGT4 0.0729 LDDT12 0.0005 LDDT34 0.0032 HDGV2B 0.0658 HDDV2B 0.0216 Single-Unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 0.0332 0.0212 HDGV3 0.0376

HDGV4 0.0206 HDGV5 0.0436 HDGV6 0.0934 HDGV7 0.0437 HDDV3 0.1023 HDDV4 0.0867 HDDV5 0.0380 HDDV6 0.2138 HDDV7 0.3205 Combination Trucks 0.0770 0.0300 HDGV8A 0.0001 HDGV8B 0.0000 HDDV8A 0.2191 HDDV8B 0.7808 Buses 0.0037 0.0017 HDGB 0.1920 HDDBT 0.3258

### 6 HDDBS 0.4822 Total 1.0000 1.0000



### To calculate VMT by vehicle type, each VMT va lue representing a given county and road type was multiplied by the product of the HPMS VM T fraction (selected depending upon whether the road type represent VMT on rural or urba n roads) and the corresponding MOBILE6 VMT fraction by HPMS category. This process result ed in 28 VMT values at the county/roadway type/vehicle type level of detail for each count y/roadway type VMT value in the original VMT file.

As an example, Table II-3 shows that the HPMS Passenger Car vehicle category accounts for 54.54 percent of the total VMT on rural road types and that the MOBILE6 LDGV category accounts for 99.8 percent of the VMT in the HPMS Passenger Car category. Therefore, a VMT value representing rural interstates w ould be multiplied by 0.5454 times 0.9980 (0.5443), to obtain the VMT total on rural in terstates from LDGVs. Once all county/roadway type VMT values were expanded to the corresponding set of values of VMT at the county/roadway type/28 MOBILE6 vehicle type level of detail, the VMT data base was then totaled at the eight vehicle type level of detail (LDGV, LDGT1, L DGT2, HDGV, LDDV, LDDT, HDDV, MC).

b. Allocation of VMT to Vehicle Type using State-Provided VMT Mix Data

Both North Carolina and Tennessee provided VMT mix data at the eight vehicle type level of detail. The Tennessee data was provided for te n different county groupings, with a VMT mix provided for six aggregated road way type categories. North Carolina provided statewide VMT mix fractions for each of the 12 roadway types. Since the VMT mix data for these two States were already at the eight vehi cle type level, the procedure for allocating VMT by vehicle type was simpler than the procedure described above using the default data. Each county/roadway type VMT value was matched to the correspond ing VMT mix for that county and roadway type and then separately multiplied by each of the eight VMT mix fractions to create eight VMT values by county/roadway type/veh icle type that would sum to the original VMT value at the county/roadway type level of detail.

c. Allocation of VMT by Month

The resulting annual county-level, vehicle, and roadway type-specific VMT data were temporally allocated to months during the emi ssion calculations. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) temporal allocati on factors were used to apportion the VMT to the four seasons. Monthly VMT data were obtain ed using a ratio between the number of days in a month and the number of days in the corres ponding season. These temporal factors are shown in Table II-4. Several States provided some leve l of information on temporal adjustment factors for their VMT. These data were not used in this draft version of the 2002 VISTAS emission inventory due to time constraints. However, any State or local ly supplied temporal adjustment factors will be included in the final versi on of the 2002 VISTAS onroad emission inventory.7Table II-4. Default VMT Seasonal andMonthly Temporal Allocation FactorsRoadway Seasonal VMT FactorsVehicle TypeRoadwayTypeWinterSpringSummerFallLDV,LDT,MCRural0.21600.23900.28900.2560LDV,LDT,MCUrban0.23400.25500.26500.2450HDVAll0.25000.25000.25000.2500Monthly VMT FactorsVehicle TypeRoadwayTypeJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLDV,LDT,MCRural0.07440.06720.08050.07790.08050.09420.09740.09740.08440.08720.08440.0744LDV,LDT,MCUrban0.08060.07280.08590.08320.08590.08640.08930.08930.08080.08350.08080.0806HDVAll0.08610.07780.08420.08150.08420.08150.08420.08420.08420.08520.08240.0861

### 8 

## B. 2002 ONROAD EMISSION F ACTOR DEVELOPMENT USING MOBILE6.2

The onroad emission factors used in the ca lculation of the VISTAS 2002 onroad emission inventory were generated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 emission factor model. In the development of the MOBILE6.2 input files, Pech an attempted to include as much of the relevant data supplied by the State and local agencies as possible, while at the same time, maintaining a generally similar overall structure to the MOBILE6.2 input files, such th at the output emission factors could easily be matched to the appropriate VMT va lues. This section first discusses the overall general structure of the MOBILE6.2 input files. This is followed by details explaining how this general structure was adapted to include the Stat e and local agency data and summaries of the types of data provided by each agency.

1. General MOBILE6.2 File Structure

Each MOBILE6.2 input file is di vided into three sect ions: the header section, the run data section, and the scenario section. Information cont ained in the header sect ion is primarily related to defining the output format and content desired by the user. For the processing of the VISTAS emission calculations, the database output format, a ggregated to the daily level, was the desired output format. In addition, for proper mode ling of the VOC emissions, it was desired to calculate the exhaust VOC emissions separately from the evaporative VOC emissions. However, within the constraints of MOBILE6.2 in the daily aggregated database output format, it is not possible to obtain evaporative and exhaust VOC emission factor s broken out separately within each scenario. It is also not possibl e to obtain emission factors for both PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### within a single MOBILE6.2 scenario. Ther efore, two sets of MOBILE 6.2 input files were created—one set to model VOC exhaust, NO x 

### , CO, SO 2 

### , PM 10 

### , and NH 3 

### emission factors and a second set to model VOC evaporative and PM 2.5 

### emission factors. Figure II-1 illustrates the header section of a sample VISTAS MOBILE6.2 input file us ed to generate the VOC exhaust, NO x 

### , CO, SO 2 

### , PM 10 

### , and NH 3 

### emission factors. Similarly, Figure II-2 illustrates the header section of a sample VISTAS MOBILE6.2 input file used to generate the VOC evaporative and PM 2.5 

### emission factors. The primary difference between these two header sections is in the selection of the emission types included, using the DATABASE EMISSIONS command and in the selection of the pollutants to be included in the output. In Figure II-1, having the firs t two flags set to “2” following the DATABASE EMISSIONS command i ndicates that the startup and running exhaust emission factor components will be incl uded in the output emissi on factor table. In Figure II-2, the last six flags of the DATAB ASE EMISSIONS command line are set to “2” to obtain the evaporative emission factor components in the emission factor output file. In Figure II-2, the pollutants SO 2 

### and NH 3 

### are eliminated from the PARTICULATES command line, as the emission factors for these pollutants will be repor ted in the output file resulting from the file shown in Figure II-1.

### 9 MOBILE6 INPUT FILE :

> HEADER 01 0012002 - EXHAUST - PM 10.0

REPORT FILE : Vistas02/Output02/V0100110.TXT REPLACE

DATABASE OUTPUT :

WITH FIELDNAMES :

DAILY OUTPUT :

DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2211 1111

PARTICULATES : SO4 OCARBON ECARBON GASPM LEAD SO2 NH3 BRAKE TIRE

AGGREGATED OUTPUT :
EMISSIONS TABLE : Vistas02/TB1_02/V0100110.TB1 REPLACE



### Figure II-1. Header Section of MOBILE 6.2 Input File Including VOC Exhaust and PM 10 

### Emission Factors

### 10 MOBILE6 INPUT FILE :

> HEADER 01 0012002 - EVAPORATIVE - PM 2.50

REPORT FILE : Vistas02/Output02/V0100125.TXT REPLACE

DATABASE OUTPUT :

WITH FIELDNAMES :

DAILY OUTPUT :

DATABASE EMISSIONS : 1122 2222

POLLUTANTS : HC

PARTICULATES : ECARBON SO4 OCARBON GASPM LEAD BRAKE TIRE

AGGREGATED OUTPUT :
EMISSIONS TABLE : Vistas02/TB1_02/V0100125.TB1 REPLACE



### The next section of the MOBILE6 input files is the r un data section. This section includes data that applies to all scenar ios in the input file. Figure II-3 s hows an example of this section for a county using default data. The only commands in cluded in this example tell MOBILE6 that the HC emission factors should be expressed in te rms of VOC and that refueling emission factors should be excluded from the output. It should be noted that refueling em issions were calculated using a separate set of input files, but were excluded from the onroad input files here since refueling emissions are included in the area source inventory rath er than the onroad inventory. Chapter IV discusses the onro ad refueling MOBILE6 input fi les and emission calculations. Comments in Figure II-3 indicate that this input file is using default regi stration distributions and diesel sales fractions. For a ny input files that represent counties for which registration distribution, diesel sales fractions, or trip length distributions have been provided or that have an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, anti- tampering program (ATP), or low emission vehicle program in place in 2002, additional inputs are required in the run data section of the MOBILE6.2 input file. Figure II-4 shows an example of an input f ile including all of these data. Some of these data inputs are included directly in the MOBILE6.2 input file, while other data are contained in external text files that are name d by the commands in the run data section. For questions regarding the specif ics of any of the MOBILE6 input commands listed, the MOBILE6 User’s Guide should be consulted.

Figure II-2. Header Section of MOBILE 6.2 Input File Incl uding VOC Evaporative and PM 2.5 

### Emission Factors

### 11 RUN DATA :

>

EXPRESS HC AS VOC :

NO REFUELING :

* MOBILE6 Default Registration Distributions Applied

* MOBILE6 Default Diesel Sales Fractions Applied

RUN DATA :

>

EXPRESS HC AS VOC :

NO REFUELING :

REG DIST : Vistas02\ExtFiles\R02_ARLI.RDT

* Diesel Sales Fractions Source File - E:\TrendsM6_New\Vistas02\ExtFiles\D02_ARLI.DSF DIESEL FRACTIONS :

0.0012 0.0023 0.0026 0.0027 0.0029 0.0015 0.0008 0.0011 0.0001 0.0006

0.0013 0.0015 0.0006 0.0014 0.0006 0.0099 0.0087 0.0446 0.0685 0.0857

0.1922 0.1481 0.1132 0.0959 0.0126

0.0056 0.0221 0.0167 0.0235 0.0126 0.0119 0.0206 0.0136 0.0155 0.0127

0.0246 0.0206 0.0222 0.0184 0.0227 0.0115 0.0310 0.0568 0.0508 0.1211 

### Figure II-3. Run Data Secti on of a MOBILE6.2 Input File

Figure II-4. Run Data Section of a MO BILE6.2 Input File with Significant Local Inputs

### 12 0.1077 0.2126 0.0711 0.0286 0.0176

0.0056 0.0221 0.0167 0.0235 0.0126 0.0119 0.0206 0.0136 0.0155 0.0127

0.0246 0.0206 0.0222 0.0184 0.0227 0.0115 0.0310 0.0568 0.0508 0.1211

0.1077 0.2126 0.0711 0.0286 0.0176

0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0115 0.0111 0.0145

0.0115 0.0129 0.0096 0.0083 0.0072 0.0082 0.0124 0.0135 0.0169 0.0209

0.0256 0.0013 0.0006 0.0011 0.0001

0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0115 0.0111 0.0145

0.0115 0.0129 0.0096 0.0083 0.0072 0.0082 0.0124 0.0135 0.0169 0.0209

0.0256 0.0013 0.0006 0.0011 0.0001

0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.2578 0.2515 0.3263

0.2784 0.2963 0.2384 0.2058 0.1756 0.1958 0.2726 0.2743 0.3004 0.2918

0.2859 0.0138 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.7715 0.7910 0.8105

0.8068 0.8280 0.8477 0.7940 0.7488 0.7789 0.7842 0.6145 0.5139 0.5032

0.4277 0.0079 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001

0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8473 0.8048 0.8331

0.7901 0.7316 0.7275 0.7158 0.5647 0.3178 0.2207 0.1968 0.1570 0.0738

0.0341 0.0414 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000

0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4384 0.3670 0.4125

0.3462 0.2771 0.2730 0.2616 0.1543 0.0615 0.0383 0.0333 0.0255 0.0111

0.0049 0.0060 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6078 0.5246 0.5767

0.5289 0.5788 0.5617 0.4537 0.4216 0.4734 0.4705 0.4525 0.4310 0.3569

0.3690 0.4413 0.3094 0.1679 0.1390

0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8443 0.7943 0.8266

0.7972 0.8279 0.8177 0.7440 0.7184 0.7588 0.7567 0.7431 0.7261 0.6602

0.6717 0.7344 0.6107 0.4140 0.3610

### 13 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9989 0.9987 0.9989

0.9977 0.9984 0.9982 0.9979 0.9969 0.9978 0.9980 0.9979 0.9976 0.9969

0.9978 0.9982 0.9974 0.9965 0.9964

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.8857 0.8525 0.8795

0.9900 0.9105 0.8760 0.7710 0.7502 0.7345 0.6733 0.5155 0.3845 0.3238

0.3260 0.2639 0.0594 0.0460 0.0291

> ANTI-TAMP PROG : E:\TrendsM6_New\Vistas02\ExtFiles\VA_ATP2002.ATP

ANTI-TAMP PROG :

89 68 50 22222 21111111 1 12 098. 22112222

> Exhaust I/M - IDLE test program #1

I/M PROGRAM : 1 1983 2050 2 TRC 2500/IDLE

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1968 1980

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 21111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 35.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 98.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 2.0 2.0

> Exhaust I/M - ASM final program #2

I/M PROGRAM : 2 1983 2050 2 TRC ASM 2525/5015 PHASE-IN

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1981 2050

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY : 2 35.0

### 14 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 98.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 2.0 2.0

I/M EFFECTIVENESS : 0.94 0.94 0.94

> Exhaust I/M - IDLE test program #1

I/M PROGRAM : 3 1983 2050 2 TRC 2500/IDLE

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1981 2050

I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 21111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 35.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 98.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 2.0 2.0

> Evap I/M - Gas Cap test program #3

I/M PROGRAM : 4 1998 2050 2 TRC GC

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1973 2050

I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 21111111 1

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 98.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 2.0 2.0

94+ LDG IMP : Vistas02\ExtFiles\NLEVNE.D

> WeekDay Trip Length Distribution

WE DA TRI LEN DI : Vistas02\ExtFiles\WeekTLD2.wdt



### The third and final section of the MOBILE6.2 input files contains the scenario data. For this VISTAS inventory, each speed and road type comb ination or speed distribution were modeled in twelve consecutive scenarios representing the temp erature and fuel properties applicable in each month. Thus, if a State agency supplied an average speed/road type combination for each of the 12 HPMS road categories, the corresponding MOBILE6.2 input fi le would have 144 scenarios. The first scenario would represent January temp erature and fuel conditions at the speed and MOBILE6 roadway type for the first speed/roadwa y type provided (typically rural interstates). This would be followed by the February scenario modeled for the same speed and roadway type,

### 15 and so on through the twelfth scenario represen ting December conditions for the same speed and roadway type combination.

Figure II-5 illustrates a sample scenario from one of the VISTAS MOBILE6.2 input files. This is the first scenario in the file—therefore, it represents Ja nuary temperature and fuel conditions. The month of a given scenario in the VISTAS MOBILE6.2 input files can be determined by the last two digits of the SCENARIO RECORD command line. In this case, the last two digits are “01” indicating January. It should be note d that the only options for the EVALUATION MONTH command are “1” indicating January or “7” indicating July. For the VISTAS input files, the EVALUATION MONTH was set to “1” for all months from January through June and to 7 for months from July through December. Wh en this flag is set to “1”, it indicates that MOBILE6 will use a January registration distribution. When the flag is set to “7”, MOBILE6 ages the registration by a half year , applying a half year of fleet turnover to the distribution. The EVALUATION MONTH setting can also affect the reductions from reformulated gas programs. However, by including the SEASON command, as shown in Figure II-5, the EVALUATION MONTH flag setting will not affect reformulated gasoline reductions. With the SEASON flag set to “2”, winter reformulated gasoline rules wi ll be applied in areas with a reformulated gas program modeled (using the FUEL PROGRAM comma nd). Summer reformulated gas rules and reductions will be applied when the SEASON flag is set to “1” if reformulated gas has been modeled. In all of the VISTAS input files, th e SEASON flag was included for all areas, whether or not a reformulated gasoline program was m odeled. This flag has no effect when the FUEL PROGRAM command is not used. The SEASON flag was set to “1” for the months of May through September and to “2” for the remaining months.

SCENARIO RECORD : 010010215.0_M01

>FV FILE: SCENARIO: 1

CALENDAR YEAR : 2002

EVALUATION MONTH : 1

MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 38.0 60.0

ALTITUDE : 1

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV SEASON : 2

AVERAGE SPEED : 15.0 Arterial

FUEL RVP : 12.5

PARTICLE SIZE : 10.0

DIESEL SULFUR : 500.0 

### Figure II-5. Sample Scenario fo r a Typical MOBILE6.2 Input File

### 16 Local speed data were provided by the agen cies in Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. A set of 12 monthly s cenarios was developed for each speed input for these States, with one exception. The No rthern Kentucky (Boone County, Campbell County, and Kenton County) and Jefferson County, Kentucky i nputs were speed dist ribution files, rather than average speeds by individual roadway t ypes (one for Northern Kentucky and one for Jefferson County, Kentucky). In this case, only 12 scenarios were mode led in total in the Jefferson County and Northern Kentucky input f iles, with the Jefferson County or Northern Kentucky speed distribution referenced in each scenario, respectively. No speed information was provided for Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, or West Virginia. The average speeds modeled in these files were the default sp eeds used in the NEI. These speeds are shown in Table II-5 and vary by both roadway type a nd vehicle category. It should be noted that several agencies provided speed information for ra mps. Since the VMT data file is organized by SCC and no SCC currently exists for ramp VMT, the ramp speed information could not be used directly. In some cases, the fraction of VMT occurring on ramps was provided. In these cases, this information was combined with the fr eeway speeds, following the guidance in the MOBILE6 user’s guide to determine the overall freeway speed including the ramp speed, at 34.6 mph (the assumed value for ramp speeds in MOBILE6), and the fraction of VMT occurring on the ramps.

Table II-5. Default Speeds Modeled by Road Type and Vehicle Type (mph)

Speed (mph) and MOBILE6 Road Type

HPMS Road Type Light Duty Vehicles Light Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Rural Interstate 60 Freeway 55 Freeway 40 Freeway Rural Principal Arterial 45 Arterial 45 Arterial 35 Arterial Rural Minor Arterial 40 Arterial 40 Arterial 30 Arterial Rural Major Collector 35 Arterial 35 Arterial 25 Arterial Rural Minor Collector 30 Arterial 30 Arterial 25 Arterial Rural Local 30 Arterial 30 Arterial 25 Arterial Urban Interstate 45 Freeway 45 Freeway 35 Freeway Urban Other Freeway and Expressway 45 Freeway 45 Freeway 35 Freeway Urban Principal Arterial 20 Arterial 20 Arterial 15 Arterial Urban Minor Arterial 20 Arterial 20 Arterial 15 Arterial Urban Collector 20 Arterial 20 Arterial 15 Arterial Urban Local Local Local Local



### Another optional input included in the scenario section of the MOBILE6 input files is the VMT mix by 16 MOBILE6 vehicle categories. Th ese vehicle categories are based on the 28 MOBILE6 vehicle categories, but w ith gasoline and diesel vehicl es of the same weight class combined together. When no information was provided on VMT mix, the MOBILE6 defaults were used. Local VMT mix information provi ded by Tennessee, Virginia, and Jefferson County, Kentucky were included in the MOBILE6.2 input f iles. In some cases, the same VMT mix was applied to all scenarios. In other cases, the VMT mixes were sp ecific to roadway type, so the VMT mix would vary according to the roadway type being represented in the scenario.

### 17 

## C. 2002 ONROAD EMISSION INVENTORY CALCULATIONS

Once the MOBILE6.2 input files were set up and run through the MOBILE6.2 model, onroad emissions were calculated by multiplying the monthly VMT for a given county, roadway type, and vehicle type by the emission factor modele d for the same month, county, vehicle type and roadway type. Because the MOBILE6.2 input files were set up to create output files in the form of database tables, the output is provided by each of the 28 MOBILE6 vehicle types. Thus, the emission factors first were aggregated to the ei ght vehicle categories in cluded in the VMT files. This was done using the VMT Fraction data provid ed in each of the MOBILE6 output files. For each of the MOBILE6 vehicle types included in one of the eight vehicle types needed, the VMT fractions were renormalized within that cate gory. These eight vehicle categories are sometimes referred to as the MOBILE5 vehicle categor ies. For example, the LDGT1 and LDGT2 MOBILE6 vehicle categories are both included in the MOBILE5 LDGT1 category. In this case, the MOBILE6 LDGT1 VMT fraction was divide d by the sum of the MOBILE6 LDGT1 and LDGT2 VMT fractions. The same was done w ith the MOBILE6 LDGT2 VMT fraction, so that the renormalized MOBILE6 LDGT1 and LDGT2 VM T fractions should now sum to 1. Next, these normalized VMT fractions were multip lied by the corresponding MOBILE6 emission factor and all of these weighted emission factors for a given scen ario, within a MOBILE5 vehicle category were summed to obtain the weighted emission factors at the MOBILE5 vehicle category level. The VMT fractions included in the MOBILE6 output file s are affected by the registration distribution, diesel sales fractions, and VMT mi xes supplied in the MOBILE6.2 input files. Areas that used the MOBILE6 defau lts for each of these inputs should all have the same VMT fractions, although even in these cases, there are two sets of VMT fractions—one for the months from January through June and another for the months July through December. This occurs due to the aging of the registration di stribution caused by the use of the EVALUATION MONTH flag, as discussed above. These emi ssion factors, now at the MOBILE5 vehicle category level, were multiplied by the correspond ing VMT values to obtain monthly emissions by county, roadway type, and vehicle category.



## D. DATA PROVIDED BY ST ATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES

The sections above describe some of the data that was supplied by the VISTAS State and local agencies for use in the development of the 2002 onroad emission inventory. Tables II-6 through II-15 summarize the data supplied by each agency in a consistent fashion. These tables primarily list the data that were actually used in this an alysis. This section provi des additional information on the data supplied by these agencies as well discussing why some of the data supplied could not be used.

### 18 Table II-6. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Alabama

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual daily VMT by county/road type MOBILE6 Input Files MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Monthly Temperatures Monthly 2002 temperatures by county RVP Data March-September RVP values Speed Data Registration Data Fuel Information I/M Program Information N/A Other



### Table II-7. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Florida

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual daily VMT by county/road type MOBILE6 Input Files MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Supplied counties in each of 3 temperature regions Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Summer RVP values provided Speed Data Registration Data Fuel Information I/M Program Information N/A Other

### 19 Table II-8. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Georgia

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual average annual daily VMT by county and functional classification prepared by Georgia DOT MOBILE6 Input Files Provided MOBILE6 sample input files MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Provided summer RVP values Speed Data Provided 2002 statewide speeds by road type (speeds based on VMT-weighted average speeds, from a 2002 loaded highway network for the 13-county Atlanta area) Registration Data Provided one MOBILE6 registration distribution for 13- county Atlanta area and one MOBILE6 registration distribution for rest-of-state Fuel Information Provided information on Georgia gasoline program, applied to 25 counties I/M Program Information Provided I/M inputs for 13-county Atlanta area in MOBILE6 format Other Provided VMT temporal adjustment factors by month and day of week for each road type (not used in the 01/04 inventory)

### 20 Table II-9. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Kentucky

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual daily VMT by county/road type MOBILE6 Input Files Provided sample MOBILE6 input files for several counties MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Provided temperature stations to be used for several counties Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Provided summer RVP for several counties

Speed Data Provided average speed by road type for several county groupings Registration Data Fuel Information Verified counties in reformulated gasoline program I/M Program Information I/M program information provided Other Jefferson County, Kentucky Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency

VMT Data 2002 summer day VMT from TDM by county/road type/vehicle type

MOBILE6 Input Files Provided MOBILE6 input files r epresenting the four different vehicle control combinations found in Jefferson County MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Provided Jefferson County VMT mix in MOBILE6 format Counties by Temperature Region Monthly Temperatures Provided 2002 actual monthly temperature data for Louisville area RVP Data Provided summer and winter RVP values Speed Data Provided speed distribution file for Jefferson County

Registration Data Provided registration distribution for Jefferson County in MOBILE6 format Fuel Information Reformulated gasoline modeled I/M Program Information I/M program information provided Other Provided absolute humidity data Boone County, Campbell County, and Kenton County, Kentucky Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual daily VMT by county/road type MOBILE6 Input Files MOBILE5 Input Files Provided MOBILE5 input file fo r Northern Kentucky counties VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Provided summer and winter RVP values Speed Data Provided speed distribution file for Northern Kentucky

Registration Data Provided registration distribut ion for Northern Kentucky in MOBILE6 format—LDGVs and LDGT1s only Fuel Information Reformulated gasoline modeled I/M Program Information I/M program information extracted from MOBILE5 input file Other Provided Northern Kentucky VMT distributions by facility type and

### 21 by hour in MOBILE6 format

### 22 Table II-10. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Mississippi

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data Provided 2002 actual annual VMT by county/road type/vehicle type MOBILE6 Input Files MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Provided statewide RVP by season Speed Data Registration Data Fuel Information I/M Program Information N/A Other



### Table II-11. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by North Carolina

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual daily VMT by county/road type MOBILE6 Input Files MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Indicated counties within each of several temperature regions in state Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Speed Data Provided average speed data by road type for several groups of counties and rest-of-state Registration Data Provided registration data for several groups of counties and rest-of-state based on 2001 data Fuel Information I/M Program Information Provided written description of I/M program Other

### 23 Table II-12. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by South Carolina

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual annual VMT by county/road type MOBILE6 Input Files MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Supplied counties in each of 7 temperature regions Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Speed Data Registration Data Fuel Information I/M Program Information N/A Other



### Table II-13. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Tennessee

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual daily VMT by county/road type

MOBILE6 Input Files Provided MOBILE6 input files for groups of counties covering state MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Provided VMT mix fractions by road type Counties by Temperature Region Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Provided summer RVP information

Speed Data Provided average speed data by road type for groups of counties Registration Data Provided registration data for most counties Fuel Information I/M Program Information Provided in MOBILE6 input files Other

### 24 Table II-14. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by Virginia

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 1999 actual annual VMT by c ounty/road type/vehicle type MOBILE6 Input Files Provided MOBILE6 input files for representative counties MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information Counties by Temperature Region Provided listing of counties within each of several temperature regions

Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Provided summer RVP data Speed Data Speed data provided for each VMT record Registration Data 2002 county-level registration data provided for nonattainment counties Fuel Information Verified counties in reformulated gasoline program I/M Program Information I/M and ATP inputs provided in MOBILE6 formats; verified counties that implement I/M Other LEV progam modeled statewide; provided diesel sales fractions



### Table II-15. Summary of Onroad Data Provided by West Virginia

Data Element Data Supplied by Responsible Agency VMT Data 2002 actual annual VMT by county/road type/vehicle type MOBILE6 Input Files Supplied several sample MOBILE6 input files MOBILE5 Input Files VMT Mix Information VMT data included vehicle type splits Counties by Temperature Region Supplied counties in each of 4 temperature regions Monthly Temperatures RVP Data Supplied summer RVP value statewide Speed Data Supplied speed data in MOBILE6 input files--speed data determined to be inappropriate for this analysis Registration Data Fuel Information I/M Program Information N/A Other

### 25 1. Temperature

The default average daily maximum and minimum temperature data for each month used in this analysis was obtained from the National Climatic Data Center. This temperature data was actual 2002 data. It should be noted that a number of agencies provided information on ozone season or summer temperatures. This information coul d not be used in this analysis, as the ozone season temperature data are based on several year s of temperature data and do not represent the average daily minimum and maximum monthly temper atures that were needed for this analysis. Information was provided by Alabama, Kentucky, No rth Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia related to monthly temperature. In some cases, this data divided the counties within the State into several temperature region s and listing a city that should be used for obtaining the temperature data. In these cases, a temperature station from the National Climatic Data Center database was selected from the de sired city, and this co rresponding temperature set was applied to the counties listed by the States. Several of the States provided their own full set of 2002 temperature data either Statewide or by county. These data were included in the analysis, replacing the default te mperature data for those States.

2. I/M and ATP Programs

Several agencies provided I/M and ATP inputs in the form of MOBILE5 input files. Pechan converted these inputs to MOBILE6 inputs, following the guidance in the MOBILE6 user’s guide. Agencies that provided the data in MOBILE5 format should review the MOBILE6 I/M and ATP inputs carefully to make sure that the conversions fully capture the actual programs as they were implemented in 2002. In addition, from information provided by North Carolina, Tennessee, and Jefferson County, Kentucky, the I/ M and ATP programs should only be applied to a portion of the VMT in the corresponding c ounties. For the North Carolina and Tennessee I/M counties, duplicate MOBILE6.2 input files were created that eliminate the I/M and ATP programs. The VMT from these counties was divided according to the fraction of the VMT subject to I/M and the fraction of the VMT not s ubject to I/M. These fractions were provided by the corresponding agencies in North Carolina and Tennessee. The VMT data for each I/M county was then divided according to these VM T fractions to obtain one set of VMT for the portion of vehicles subject to I/ M and another set for those not subject to I/M. The emission factors from the I/M files were multiplied by the portion of the VMT subject to I/M while the emission factors from the files without the I/ M were multiplied by the remaining portion of the VMT. In Jefferson County, Kentucky, a similar pro cedure was followed. However, in this case, the county also has a sign ificant portion of VMT from vehicles registered in Indiana that are not subject to I/M or that do not have reformulated gasoline. Thus, the Jefferson County VMT was divided into four subsets and four MOBILE6 i nput files were developed representing the four groups of vehicle types traveling in the county.

3. RVP and Fuel Programs

Default RVP by county and month were obtained fr om the data used in the 2002 NEI. The NEI fuel data are based on year 2000 fuel survey data for January and July, with data for intermediate months calculated by interpolation. RVP data for July were applied from May through September, the months when Phase II RVP regulations are in effect. For States that supplied

### 26 July, summer, or ozone season RVP values, thes e values were also applied from May through September. If winter RVP values were supplie d, these values were app lied directly in each of the remaining months. As mentioned above, re formulated gasoline programs were modeled where appropriate. Georgia provided additiona l fuel inputs to captu re the RVP and sulfur content values of its low sulfur gasoline program.



# III. NONROAD METHODS AND DATA

A. NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES

Pechan used EPA’s draft NONROAD2002a model to generate 2002 annual emissions for the majority of nonroad engines. To improve the accuracy of these model runs, we asked State/ Local/Tribal (S/L/T) contacts to provide seas onal or monthly gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) and temperature; appropriate data on re formulated gasoline (RFG), oxygenated fuel and Stage II programs, and diesel fuel sulfur levels. In addition, to improve the activity data inputs, we asked whether S/L/T agencies had collected information on equipment populations or activity (e.g., hours of use or load factors) to use in place of default populations in the NONROAD model. No S/L/T agencies provided activ ity data to replace the model defaults.

Seasonal average RVP and average, maximum and minimum temperature values were calculated based on the county-level, monthly RVP and temp erature data set prepared for onroad mobile sources. Information on RFG programs and oxyge nated fuels programs obtained for the onroad mobile sector was also used. In July 2003, Pech an distributed the inpu t values (RVP, percent O2, temperature, and Stage II control efficien cy) to be used for the draft NONROAD model 2002 inventory for review and comment by the VISTAS S/L/T agencies. Pechan obtained comments from the S/L/T agencies listed in Table III-1.

Table III-1. Summary of Comments by S/L/T Agencies on NONROAD Model Input Values Distributed in July 2003

State Comment Alabama Provided region specific data to replac e the statewide default values for RVP and ambient temperature Georgia Changed oxygen weight percent to zero for all counties Kentucky No Stage II programs in Bullitt and Oldham Counties Tennessee Revised RVP value for Davidson County Mississippi Revised statewide RVP by season Virginia No Stage II program in Charles City County



### Additional comments on the August 2003 NONROAD model temperature and RVP inputs were incorporated for consistency with data submitted for the onroad mobile modeling (e.g., North Carolina). In addition, the State of West Virg inia provided revised geographic allocation files for certain nonroad categories to impr ove upon the NONROAD model’s default county allocation.

Using the inputs shown in th e file “VISTAS NONROAD County Inputs.xls,” Pechan prepared seasonal option files for each of four seasons (w inter, spring, summer, and autumn), and ran the

### 27 NONROAD model at the county level. Model default values were used for all other inputs, with the exception of diesel fuel sulfur. A value of 2,500 parts per million volume (ppmv) was used instead of the default 2,318 ppm, since the defa ult represented a nati onal average including California’s lower diesel fuel sulfur level. Pechan summed the seasonal results, and then processed the model output to de velop a county-level, SCC-level annual emissions inventory for all pollutants except NH 3


### .
The NH 3 

### emissions for NONROAD model categorie s were developed using the following procedures. OTAQ recently reviewed the basis of NH 3 

### data summarized in a report entitled, “A Study of the Potential Impact of Some Unregulated Motor Vehicle Emissions” (Harvey, 1983). In conducting this review, OTAQ performe d an analysis of the available light-duty noncatalyst engine data to develop defensible gasoline nonroad emission factors on a mg/gallon basis (Harvey, 2003). For both gasoline noncatalyst a nd diesel engines, fuel based emission factors were developed from emission factors expressed on a gram/mile basis by accounting for the reported fuel economy of each tested engine. For gasoline non-catalyst engines, this resulted in a value of 115.8 mg/gallon, whic h is applied to county-level fuel consumption estimates for 2-stroke gasoline, 4-stroke gaso line and liquified petroleum ga s (LPG) equipment. From the diesel engine test data, a value of 83.3 mg/gall on was derived, which is applied to diesel fuel consumption estimates. County-level fuel consum ption for these engines, expressed in gallons, is an output from EP A’s NONROAD model.


## B. AIRCRAFT, COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSELS AND LOCOMOTIVES

For 2002 aircraft, commercial marine vessel s (CMVs), and locomotives, Pechan used 1999 emission estimates developed for EPA’s 1999 NEI Version 2 as base year estimates for the VISTAS region. These categories are not includ ed in the NONROAD model, and are hereafter referred to as “other nonroad.” Pechan then incorporated revised S/L/T estimates summarized in Table III-2, using the replacement procedures summarized in Tables III-3a through III-3d. Pechan tracked changes by labeling the defau lt 1999 NEI records as Ve rsion 2 (V2) and the revised S/L/T records as Version 3 (V3). In cases where PM2.5 estimat es were not provided, they were developed using the following category- specific fractions applied to the available PM 10 

### emission estimates: 1) Aircraft: 0.69; 2) Locomotive: 0.90; and 3) CMV: 0.92 (EPA, 2002). Commercial marine adjustments are de scribed in detail in the following section.

Table III-2. Summary of S/L/T Agency Da ta Incorporated into the Draft VISTAS 2002 Other Nonroad Inventory

State Description of Inventory Pollutants Alabama 1999 Locomotive emissions for Pickens and Tuscaloosa counties VOC, NO x , and CO

Florida 2001 Aircraft, Locomotive and Commercial Marine Vessel emissions for Palm Beach County VOC, NO x , CO, PM10, and SO x Tennessee 1999 Aircraft and Locomotive emissions for Davidson County VOC, NO x , CO, SO x , and primary PM 10 Virginia 1999 Statewide Inventory fo r Aircraft, Locomotive and Commercial Marine Vessels VOC, NO x , CO

### 28 Table III-3a. Replacement Procedur es for 1999 Locomotive Emissions for Pickens and Tuscaloosa County, Alabama

STATE

_ FIPS COUNTY

_ FIPS SCC Versi

on Notes START_ DATE END_ DATE VO C NOX CO

01 107 22850020 05 V3 7.73 179.7 22.8 1

01 107 22850020 05 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions 19990101 19991231 196 2.9 4564 3 579 4.5

01 107 22850020 10 V3 5.39 53.48 9.47

01 107 22850020 10 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions 19990101 19991231 5.39 53.48 9.48

01 125 22850020 05 V3 16.3 1 379.1 5 48.1 3

01 125 22850020 05 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions 19990101 19991231 338 4.9 7871 1.4 999 2.6

01 125 22850020 10 V3 9.29 92.15 16.3 3

01 125 22850020 10 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions 19990101 19991231 9.29 92.15 16.3 329Table III-3b. Replacement Procedures for 1999 Aircraft,Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Emissionsfor Palm Beach County, FloridaSTATE_FIPSCOUNTY_FIPSSCCVersionNotesSTART_DATEEND_DATEVOCNOXCOSO2PM10-PRIPM25-PRI120992275000000V3Apply a Growth Factor to 2001state-supplied aircraft emissions tobackcast to 1999Estimate PM2.5-PRI off PM10-PRI1999010119991231470.39805.944,121.411.980.00120992275001000V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912310.440.059.0300.190.13120992275020000V2Delete all records for this SCC199901011999123179.1275.5330.626.34120992275050000V2Delete all records for this SCC199901011999123113.932.37437.430.368.625.95120992275060000V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912319.231.19212.320.114.553.14120992280000000V3Apply a Growth Factor to 2001state-supplied cmv emissions tobackcast to 1999Estimate PM2.5-PRI off PM10-PRI199901011999123110.42115.600.979.9433.91120992280002100V2Delete all records for this SCC199901011999123125.5815.4107.5136.9534.331.55120992280002200V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912310.227.050.930.320.30.27120992280003100V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912316.8217.528.63115.69.488.73120992280003200V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912310.061.930.251.430.110.1120992285002000V3Apply a Growth Factor to 2001state-supplied locomotive emissionsto backcast to 1999Estimate PM2.5-PRI off PM10-PRI199901011999123128.19658.7883.6448.0915.50120992285002006V2Delete all records for this SCC199901016.11164.116.1710.264.073.663019991231120992285002008V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912310.4512.151.20.760.30.27120992285002009V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912316.78182.217.9511.394.524.07120992285002010V2Delete all records for this SCC19990101199912313.7564.366.7731.641.471Palm Beach County provided emission estimates corresponding to 2001; as such, 2001emission estimates were backcast to 1999 using growth factors presented in this reportbefore incorporation.

### 31 Table III-3c. Replacement Procedures for 1999 Aircraft and Locomotive Emissions for Davidson County, Tennessee

STAT

E_ FIPS COUNT Y_ FIPS SCC Versi

on Notes START_ DATE END_ DATE VOC NOX CO SO 2 PM1 0- PRI PM2 5- PRI

47 037 22750000 00 V3 Estimate PM2.5-PRI off PM10-PRI 1999010 1 1999123 1 232.12 5 634.35 1766 32. 13 39.2 5

47 037 22750010 00 V2 Delete all records for this SCC 1999010 1 1999123 1 1.7 0.2 35 0.0 2 0.75 0.52

47 037 22750200 00 V2 Delete all records for this SCC 1999010 1 1999123 1 187.45 649.92 782. 93 62. 34

47 037 22750500 00 V2 Delete all records for this SCC 1999010 1 1999123 1 4.72 0.8 148. 3 0.1 2 2.92 2.02

47 037 22750600 00 V2 Delete all records for this SCC 1999010 1 1999123 1 15.22 1.97 349. 97 0.1 9 7.51 5.18

47 037 22850020 00 V3 Estimate PM2.5-PRI off PM10-PRI 1999010 1 1999123 1 20.803 363.11 7 50.7 01 26. 36 8.89 3

47 037 22850020 06 V2 Delete all records for this SCC 1999010 1 1999123 1 31.91 857.26 84.4 6 53. 6 21.2 7 19.1 5

47 037 22850020 10 V2 Delete all records for this SCC 1999010 1 1999123 1 19.6 336.23 35.3 9 15. 68 8.54 7.69

### 32 Table III-3d. Replacement Procedur es for 1999 Aircraft, Locomotive, and

Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions for Sample Counties in Virginia

STAT

E_ FIPS COUNT Y_ FIPS SCC Versi

on Notes START

_ DATE END_ DATE VOC NO X CO S O 2 PM 10- PRI PM 25- PRI 51 001 22750010 00 V3 199901 01 199912 31 3.47 0.78 3.74

51 001 22750010 00 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions Keep SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5-PRI emissions 199901 01 199912 31 0.31 0.04 6.38 0 0.14 0.09

51 013 22750200 00 V3 199901 01 199912 31 145.8 21 992. 23 163 4.2 51 013 22750200 00 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions Keep SO2 emissions 199901 01 199912 31 271.1 7 940. 36 113 2.7 9 0. 2 51 001 22750500 00 V3 199901 01 199912 31 1.25 0.21 39.3 4 51 001 22750500 00 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions Keep SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5-PRI emissions 199901 01 199912 31 0.25 0.04 7.81 0. 0 1 0.15 0.11

51 001 22750600 00 V3 199901 01 199912 31 0.05 0.01 1.26

51 001 22750600 00 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions Keep SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5-PRI emissions 199901 01 199912 31 1.47 0.19 33.8 0. 0 2 0.72 0.5

51 670 22800020 00 V3 Add SCC to the Inventory 199901 01 199912 31 3.3 18.1 6 6.94

51 670 22800021 00 V2 Sum up SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5- PRI emissions for SCCs 2280002100 and 2280002200 and add to SCC 280002000. After that, delete all records for SCC 2280002100 and 2280002200 199901 01 199912 31 10.12 323. 52 42.6 6 1 4. 7 13.6 1 12.5 2

51 670 22800022 00 V2 Sum up SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5- PRI emissions for SCCs 2280002100 and 2280002200 and add to SCC 2280002000. After that, delete all records for SCC 2280002100 and 2280002200 199901 01 199912 31 0.17 5.39 0.71 0. 2 4 0.23 0.21

51 670 22800030 00 V3 Add SCC to the Inventory 199901 01 199912 31 0.14 1.64 0

51 670 22800031 00 V2 Sum up SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5- PRI emissions for SCCs 2280003100 and 2280003200 and add to SCC 2280003000. After that, delete all records for SCC 2280003100 and 2280003200 199901 01 199912 31 2.7 86.3 1 11.3 6 4 5. 9 3.76 3.46

51 670 22800032 00 V2 Sum up SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 Emissions for SCCs 2280003100 and 2280003200 and add to SCC 2280003000. After that, delete all records for SCC 2280003100 and 2280003200 199901 01 199912 31 0.05 1.48 0.19 1. 0 9 0.08 0.08

51 199 22830020 00 V3 199901 01 199912 31 8.46 53.4 7 15.5 1

### 33 STAT

E_ FIPS COUNT Y_ FIPS SCC Versi

on Notes START

_ DATE END_ DATE VOC NO X CO S O 2 PM 10- PRI PM 25- PRI 51 199 22830020 00 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions 199901 01 199912 31 7.43 47.2 6 13.6 3 51 740 22850020 05 V3 Add SCC to the Inventory 199901 01 199912 31 3.76 100. 99 9.95

51 740 22850020 06 V2 Sum up SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5- PRI emissions for SCCs 2285002006 and 2285002007 and add to SCC 285002005. After that, delete all records for SCC 2285002006 and 2285002007. 1 199901 01 199912 31 0.7 18.7 7 1.85 1. 1 7 0.47 0.42

51 740 22850020 07 V2 Sum up SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5- PRI emissions for SCCs 2285002006 and 2285002007 and add to SCC 285002005. After that, delete all records for SCC 2285002006 and 2285002007. 1 199901 01 199912 31 0.08 2.26 0.22 0. 1 4 0.06 0.05

51 036 22850020 10 V3 199901 01 199912 31 0.59 10.1 3 1.06

51 036 22850020 10 V2 Replace VOC, NOx, and CO emissions Keep SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5-PRI emissions 199901 01 199912 31 1.99 34.1 5 3.59 1. 5 9 0.87 0.78

1 Other counties may also have emissions fo r SCCs 2285002008 and 2285002009. In these cases, sum up SO2, PM10-PRI, and PM2.5-PRI emissions for SCCs 2285002006, 2285002007, 2285002008, and 2285002009 and add to SCC 2285002005. After that, delete all record s for SCC 2285002006, 2285002007, 2285002008, and 2285002009.

### 34 2. CMV Improvements

This section describes procedures for impr oving the spatial distribution of CMV emission estimates for the VISTAS region. States that share borders with non-VISTAS States along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers have expressed concern about the representativeness of port emission estimates at a county-le vel. Revising the county-level emissions estimates would allow more accurate modeling of emissions in the VISTAS States.

Ideally, CMV emission estimates would be develope d using local activity data that account for vessel type, engine type and mode of operati on (cruise, maneuvering, and hotelling). Creating this type of “bottom-up” emission inventory requir es a large amount of effort. Therefore, Pechan utilized port-specific emission estimates devel oped for the 1999 NEI, dist ributed using a revised allocation methodology, which incorporates inform ation on the number of port facilities in each county.

a. Current Allocation Method

The current 2002 VISTAS commercial marine inventory is based on EPA’s 1999 NEI Version 2.0, projected to 2002 using appropriate growth fact ors. State-supplied data were incorporated by EPA or by Pechan for some VISTAS States fo r this category, includi ng Alabama, Virginia, West Virginia, and Palm Beach County, Florida.

The 1999 NEI estimated emissions for these cat egories according to the following SCCs:

SCC Descriptor 1 Descriptor 3 Descriptor 6 Descriptor 8 2280002100 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions 2280002200 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions 2280003100 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Residual Port emissions 2280003200 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Residual Underway emissions



### For the 1999 NEI, commercial marine diesel emissions were developed by obtaining 2000 emission estimates for all pollutants except SO 2 

### from OTAQ’s marine diesel regulatory background documentation ( Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis - Control of Emissions from Compression-Ignition Marine Engines ). To estimate emissions for 1999, 2000 estimates were backcast using growth factors obta ined from the draft RIA cited above. Steam-powered residual CMV emission estimates were developed by obtai ning fuel usage data from OTAQ and applying fuel-based emission factors (EPA, 1989). A similar method was used for diesel SO 2 

### emissions. National diesel usage was estimated assuming a sulfur content of 0.25 percent and EPA emission factors (EPA, 2002).

National diesel emissions were disaggregated in to port and underway emissions estimates based on the assumption that 75 percent of distillate fuel is consumed within the port, while the remaining fuel is consumed while underway, cons istent with EPA guidance. National residual emissions were disaggregated into port a nd underway emissions estimates based on the assumption that 25 percent of residual fuel is c onsumed within the port, while the remaining fuel is consumed while underway (EPA, 1989).

### 35 To allocate to counties, port emissions were assigned to the 150 larges t U.S. ports based on activity obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The percentage of total traffic for each port was calculated by dividing the port-level traffic by the total traffic. Emissions for each port were th en assigned to a single county.

Underway emissions are assigne d to counties based on a county = s shipping lane traffic. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS = ) National Transportation Atlas Databases-1999 contains data on the thousand tons per mile tr aveled for each shipping lane link in the United States (BTS-CD26). Where navi gable rivers form a county or State boundary, the shipping lane traffic is proportioned to individual counties based on the length of shoreline that is shared. For example, if two counties share a navigable ri ver, and both counties have the same length of shoreline, the shipping traffic is split evenly be tween the two counties. Shipping lanes that are not within counties, for example in the ocea n, are associated to States based on BTS assignments. These waterway weights are then evenly distributed among the counties within these States that have navigable waterways. Al l shipping activity is summed at the county-level and compared with national shipping activity to determine what portion of activity can be attributed to individual countie s. These proportions were used in disaggregating the national CMV emission estimates to the county level.

b. Revised Port Allocation Method

Figures III-1 and III-2 present emission maps for CMV port and underway NO x 

### emissions created from the 1999 NEI Version 2.0 data. For underway emissions, Pechan believes that the allocation procedure results in a reasonable distribution of county- level emissions. However, the methodology to allocate port emissions results in all the emissions being assigned to a single county. For example, Cabell County in West Virg inia is assigned all emissions for Huntington Port, but no emissions are allocated to Lawr ence County in Ohio, the county on the opposite river bank.

Port areas encompass multiple States and c ounties and in some cases, multiple waterways. Therefore, the emissions allocati on process must incorporate all c ounties in the vicinity of the port where activity is occurring. This is especially true for in land rivers where activity takes place on both riverbanks and for 10 river miles or more outside the port city. The revised methodology allocates port emissions based on a surrogate for port-rela ted activity in each county, rather than using a singl e county to define the port.36

Figure 1. VISTAS Region and Surrounding States VISTAS Region an d Surrounding States Underway NOx EmissionsNOx Emissions(Tons per Year)00 - 400400 - 800800 - 1,3001,300 - 2,4002,400 - 3,680E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.Date: December 11, 2003.Figure III-1. VISTAS Region and Surrounding States,Underway NOxEmissions37

Figure 2. VISTAS Region and Surrounding States VISTAS Region and Surrounding States Port NOx EmissionsNOx Emissions(Tons per Year)00 - 3,0003,000 - 7,0007,000 - 13,00013,000 - 26,00026,000 - 67,000E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.Date: December 11, 2003.Figure III-2. VISTAS Region and Surrounding States,Port NOxEmissions

### 38 The report, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1999 (USACE, 2000), hereafter referred to as Waterborne Commerce
, presents the cargo tonnage and number of vessel trips in major waterways of the United States. The report defines port areas, which USACE uses to develop the Top 150 Ports in the United Stat es by amount of cargo tonnage. As discussed in the previous section, the 1999 NEI allocates all the port emissions to these 150 ports based on the cargo tonnage handled by the port.

Pechan uses this allocation of emissions to each port area as the starting point of its revised allocation process. Table III-4 presents the po rts that are located in VISTAS and adjoining States, which are part of the Top 150 Ports.

Table III-4. Port Areas Located in VISTAS and Adjoining States

Port State Port State

Mobile AL Pascagoula MS
Guntersville AL Vicksburg MS
Helena AR Biloxi MS Port Everglades FL Greenville MS
Jacksonville FL Gulfport MS
Miami FL Wilmington NC
Port Canaveral FL Morehead City NC
Palm Beach FL Cincinnati OH Panama City FL Pittsburgh PA

Pensacola FL Charleston SC Tampa FL Georgetown SC
Port Manatee FL Memphis TN
Weedon Island FL Nashville TN
Savannah GA Chattanooga TN
Brunswick GA Norfolk Harbor VA
Mount Vernon IN Newport News VA
Louisville KY Hopewell VA
New Orleans LA Huntington WV Baton Rouge LA



### The next step was to develop a list of counties that make up the port area. Port area definitions were obtained from Waterborne Commerce . Table III-6 presents the port definitions for the VISTAS States and adjoining States. Using the port definitions by river mile, Pechan established which counties are included in each port area. In many cases, these port areas encompass multiple counties. For example, Pittsburgh is defined in Waterborne Commerce as:
Ohio River from Pittsburgh, PA to mile 40 (Pennsylvania/Ohio State Line); Allegheny River from Pittsburgh, PA to mile 72 (to head of project); Monongahela River from Pittsburgh, PA to mile 91 (to head of project).

### 39 Therefore, the Port of Pitts burgh includes the following count ies in Pennsylvania; Allegheny, Westmoreland, Armstrong, Washington, Fayette, Greene, Beaver. This process was repeated for all the port areas listed in Table III-4.

The next step in allocating emissions is to de velop a surrogate for the amount of CMV activity in each county of the port area. Pechan assumed th at the activity of vessels in each county is related to the number of port f acilities operating in a given c ounty. Port facilities include terminals, piers, wharves, and docks that are involved in all types of commercial activity and support services. Pechan obtained the num ber of port facilities in each county from The Port Series Reports (USACE, 2003). The USACE periodical ly surveys the commercial marine industry to obtain information on por t facilities and publishes it in The Port Series Reports . The reports give the name, location, operations, and describe the physical and inter-modal characteristics of the facilities. The data include s the location of the faci lity by river mile, State, and county.

For each port area, Pechan calcula ted the ratio between the numbe r of port facilities in each county to the total number of fac ilities in all counties that make up the port area. This ratio was used to allocate emissions for each port area to the county-level. Ta ble III-5 presents the allocation ratios for each county in the port areas. Some port areas were still encompassed by one county using the definition of the port from Waterborne Commerce . However, a number of port areas include multiple counties. Note that New Orleans and Pittsburgh do not include any counties in VISTAS States.

Table III-5. List of VISTAS Po rts and Ports of Adjoining States

Port State County Ratio Port State County Ratio Port State County Ratio Port Everglades FL Broward 1.0 AR Phillips 0.7778 TN Hamilton 0.7692 Jacksonville FL Duval 1.0 Helena MS Coahoma 0.2222 Chattanooga TN Marion 0.2308 Miami FL Miami-Dade 1.0 FL Charlotte 0.7500 VA Norfolk City 0.5568

Port Canaveral FL Brevard 1.0 Charlotte FL Lee 0.2500 VA Chesapeake City 0.3068

Palm Beach FL Palm Beach 1.0 IN Vanderburgh 0.3182 Norfolk

VA Portsmouth 0.1364 Panama City FL Bay 1.0 IN Posey 0.4773 VA Newport News 0.6500 Pensacola FL Escambia 1.0 Mount Vernon KY Henderson 0.2045 Newport News VA Hampton 0.3500 Tampa FL Hillborough 1.0 KY Jefferson 0.6596 VA Hopewell 0.5000 Port Manatee FL Manatee 1.0 Louisville IN Clark 0.3404 Hopewell VA Charles City 0.5000 Weedon Island FL Pinellas 1.0 LA St. Bernard 0.0858 PA Allegheny 0.5206 Savannah GA Chatham 1.0 LA Plaquemines 0.1231 PA Westmoreland 0.0412 Brunswick GA Glynn 1.0 LA Orleans 0.3284 PA Armstrong 0.0309 Pascagoula MS Jackson 1.0 LA Jefferson 0.4366 PA Washington 0.1340 Vicksburg MS Warren 1.0 LA St. Tammany 0.0224 PA Fayette 0.0412 Biloxi MS Harrison 1.0 New Orleans

LA Tangipahoa 0.0037 PA Greene 0.0567 Greenville MS Washington 1.0 NC New Hanover 0.8974 Pittsburgh

PA Beaver 0.1753 Gulfport MS Harrison 1.0 Wilmington NC Brunswick 0.1026 KY Greenup 0.0795 Morehead City NC Carteret 1.0 OH Hamilton 0.7931 KY Boyd 0.1023 Georgetown SC Georgetown 1.0 KY Kenton 0.0862 OH Gallia 0.1136 Nashville TN Davidson 1.0 Cincinnati KY Boone 0.1207 OH Lawrence 0.2273 Mobile AL Mobile 1.0 SC Charleston 0.7097 OH Scioto 0.1364 Guntersville AL Marshall 1.0 Charleston SC Berkeley 0.2903 WV Wayne 0.1136 TN Shelby 0.9123 WV Cabell 0.0795 Memphis AR Crittenden 0.0877 Huntington

WV Mason 0.1477

### 40 Pechan was directed to perform the reallocation for all VISTAS ports. Figure III-3 presents the reallocation of port emissions in all States except Alabama. Alabama’s CMV data were provided to EPA and already inco rporated into the 1999 NEI Version 2, and Pechan did not have access to the default 1999 NEI estimates for this State and category. Since State data take precedence, the inventory prepared by Pechan refl ects the incorporation of State data for those areas that developed independent CMV emission es timates, including Virginia and Palm Beach County, Florida. In addition, West Virginia pr ovided their own county fractions to allocate emissions for the Port of Huntington, using District -level data from the Army Corps of Engineers on tonnage of freight shipped and received. West Virginia also request ed that residual-fueled CMV activity/emissions be zeroed out for their State. States providing their own data are encouraged to review the allocations Pechan developed for their port areas, and to provide further comment or direction as needed.41Figure III-3. VISTAS Region and Surrounding States,Revised Port Emissions of NOX

### 42 Table III-6. Definition of Port Areas Obtained from Waterborne Commerce (USACE, 2000)

VISTAS PORTS

MOBILE, AL Entrance. bay and river channels, and channels into Chickasaw and Three Mile Creeks; Branch Channels; Theodore Ship Channel.

GUNTERSVILLE, AL Both banks of the Tennessee River at mile 358 to mile 363.

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL Atlantic Ocean to the Florida East Coast Railway Bridge at Jacksonville, 26.8 miles.

TAMPA, FL Gulf of Mexico to and including the channels of uppe r Tampa Harbor, 49.8 miles; Channel to Port Tampa and thence to Courtney Campbell Parkway, 17.5 m iles; Natural channel leading from Port Tampa Channel toward St. Petersburg, 1.8 miles; Alafia River Channel, 3.6 miles; Hillsborough River to City Waterworks Dam, 10 miles; Channels in “Little Manatee River, Fl; Port Manatee, Fl Harbor.”

MIAMI HARBOR, FL Atlantic Ocean to inner end of turning basin at Miami, 6 miles; Meloy Channel and thence natural channels along the easterly side of Biscayne Bay to Bakers Haulover Inlet, FL, about 11 miles; channel from turning basin to mouth of Miami River, 1.1 miles; existing Florida East Coast Railway Channel, Fishermans Channel from mouth of Miami River to Government Cut, 3.8 miles; and the channels reported under “Miami River, FL.”

EVERGLADES HARBOR, COLLIER COUNTY, FL - No definition given

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL Entrance Channel (Atlantic Ocean) to Barrier Beach inner channel and Turning Basins, thence a Barge canal through a lock in the perimeter dike and co ntinuing to the Intracoasta l Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami.

CHARLOTTE HARBOR, FL Gulf of Mexico to Municipal Terminal at Punta Go rda, about 29.5 miles; waterfront on Gasparilla Island from Port Boca Grande to Boca Grande, 4.5 mile s; and Myakka River to El Jobean, 4 miles.

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL Atlantic Ocean to Port of Palm Beach Terminals, 1. 7 miles; Lake Worth from Riviera Bridge to Southern Boulevard Bridge at West Palm Beach, 7.5 mile s; and “Palm Beach, FL side channel and basin.”

PORT MANATEE, FL 40 feet deep by 400 feet wide entrance channel and basin. The entrance channel extends approximately 3 miles in length from the turning basin to its intersection with Tampa Harbor main channel. Controlling Depth: 40 feet in entrance channel and turning basin.

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL Entrance channel, inside bay and Watson Bayou. Pr oject Depth: Approach channel, 34 feet; across Lands End, 32 feet; Watson Bayou, 10 feet.

### 43 Table III-6. Definition of Port Areas Obtained from Waterborne Commerce (USACE, 2000)

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL Entrance channel and entire harbor, including Bayou Chico. Project Depth: entrance, 35 feet; Inner Ha rbor, 33 feet; Bayou Chico, 15 and 14 feet.

WEEDON ISLAND, FL – no definition

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA From 32-foot contour in the ocean across the Barthr ough St. Simon Sound, Brunswick River, and Turtle River to the upper end of the Allied Chemical Co mpany’s Wharf, formerly Atlantic Refining Company Wharf, 20.4 miles; from Brunswick River through East River, to the upper end of the project in Academy Creek, 2.7 miles; from St. Simon Sound through Back River to Mill Creek, the upper end of Back River improvement, 2.9 miles; from Back River through Terry Creek to the Glynn Canning Company’s Wharf, 1.8 miles; a total distance of 27.8 miles.

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA From the 40-foot contour in the ocean to t he Continental Can Company Plant, 32.15 miles.

LOUISVILLE, KY Both banks of the Ohio River from mile 606 to mile 616 Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Project D epth: 9 feet at low water stages.

BILOXI HARBOR, MS Mississippi Sound, Biloxi Bay, Back Bay, and land cut to Gulfport Lake. Project Depth: East entrance channel, Mississippi Sound to Gulfport Lake, 12 feet: West entrance channel, Mississippi Sound to Biloxi Harbor, 10 feet; Ott Bayou, 12 feet.

GREENVILLE, MS From Mississippi River mile 537 AHP left descending bank in an easterly direction, an entrance channel, 8,000 feet long and 250 feet wide transitioning into the harbor and port area 10,000 feet long and 500 feet wide, then transitioning into Lake Ferguson, a channel 5,700 feet long and 250 feet wide.

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS Mississippi Sound Channel, Ship Island Pass Channel, and Small Craft Harbor about 4,300 feet long west of the anchorage basin. Project Depth: Mississippi Sound, 30 feet; Ship Island Pass, 32 feet; Small Craft Harbor, 8 feet.

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS Lower 4 miles of Dog River and lower 6.8 miles of Pascagoula River, Mississippi Sound, Bayou Casotte, and Horn Island Pass Channels.

VICKSBURG, MS From Mississippi River mile 437 AHP on left descendi ng bank in a northerly direction, a channel 14,500 feet long by 150 feet wide in the Yazoo Diversio n Canal, thence a dredged entrance channel 4,800 feet long and 150 feet wide, transitioning into a 300-foot wide dredged slack water harbor and turning basin 10,700 feet long.

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC Morehead City Harbor, NC.

### 44 Table III-6. Definition of Port Areas Obtained from Waterborne Commerce (USACE, 2000)

PORT OF WILMINGTON, NC (see also Wilmington Harbor NC for waterway data) Both banks of the Cape Fear River extending from a po int about 18 miles below the foot of Castle St. in Wilmington to a point about 2 miles above the Railr oad Bridge at Navassa, and both banks of Northeast (Cape Fear) River from its mouth to a point about 1.67 miles above the Hilton Railroad Bridge.

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (Including Ashley River, Cooper River, Shem Creek And Shipyard River, SC) Ocean to Goose Creek via Cooper River and Town Cr eek; to the Standard Wharf on Ashley River; to the Mount Pleasant Memorial Highway Bridge on Shem Creek ; to the Airco Alloys Wharf on Shipyard River; Wando River to Cainhoy.

GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC (Winyah Bay) Atlantic Ocean Entrance to Winyah Bay, SC, to and incl uding turning basin in Sampit River at the City of Georgetown, SC.

MEMPHIS, TN Section Inlcuded: From mile 715.5 to mile 741. 0 on Lower Mississippi River and includes Memphis Harbor (McKellar Lake) and Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee. Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Projec t Depth: 9 feet at low water stages.

PORT OF NASHVILLE, TN (included in traffic of Cumberland River, TN and KY) Both banks of Cumberland River, mile 182 to mile 194 Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Project D epth: 9 feet at low water stages.

CHATTANOOGA, TN Section Included: Both banks of the Te nnessee River at mile 454 to 471. Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Project D epth: 9 feet at low water stages.

PORT OF RICHMOND, VA (Included in James River, VA Consolidated Report)

PORT OF NEWPORT NEWS, VA (Including Newport News Creek, VA) Lower east shore of James River from mouth to 1.8 miles, and portion of north shore of Hampton Roads covering approximately 15,000 linear feet of waterf ront at Newport News; and Newport News Creek.

PORT OF HOPEWELL, VA (Included In James River VA Consolidated Report) South side of James River, from City Point, at mout h of Appomattox River, 2 miles downstream to the mouth of Baileys Creek. Controlling Depth: 25 feet at mean low water. Project Depth: 35 feet, maintained to 25 feet.

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA From 55-foot contour in Hampton Roads to Norfolk & Western (formerly Virginia) Railway Bridge Crossing Southern Branch of Elizabeth River, 14.78 miles; t hence upstream in Southern Branch, 4.61 miles. In Eastern Branch, 2.54 miles upstream from the mouth of that branch; in Western Branch, 1.78 miles upstream from the mouth of that bran ch; and 0.73 miles in Scotts Creek.

HUNTINGTON, WV Both banks of the Ohio River from mile 303 to mile 317 Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Project D epth: 9 feet at low water stages.

### 45 Table III-6. Definition of Port Areas Obtained from Waterborne Commerce (USACE, 2000)

NON-VISTAS PORTS

HELENA, AR Mile 659 through mile 663 on the Lower Mississippi River. The project provides for maintenance of an off-rive r harbor with dimensions of 9 feet deep and 450 feet wide for a length of 3,200 feet.

MOUNT VERNON, IN Section Included: Right Bank of Ohio River from mile 151 to mile 154. Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Project D epth: 9 feet at low water stages.

CINCINNATI, OH Both banks of the Ohio River from mile 465 to mile 491. Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Project D epth: 9 feet at low water stages.

PORT OF PITTSBURGH, PA Ohio River from Pittsburgh, PA to mile 40 (Penns ylvania/Ohio State Line); Allegheny River from Pittsburgh, PA to mile 72(to head of project); Monongah ela River from Pittsburgh, PA to mile 91(to head of project). Includes Aliquippa-Rochester, Pittsburgh, Clairton-Elizabeth. Controlling Depth: 9 feet. Project Depth: 9 feet.

PORT OF PLAQUEMINES, LA Both banks of Mississippi River from m ile 0 A.H.P. through mile 81.2 A.H.P Controlling and Project Depths: 45 feet.

PORT OF BATON ROUGE, LA Both banks of Mississippi River from mile 168.5 A.H.P. through mile 253 A.H.P; including the Baton Rouge Barge Canal from a point on the east bank of the Mississippi River at mile 234.5 A.H.P., for a distance of 5 miles.

PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, LA Both banks of the Mississippi River from mile 81 .2 A.H.P. through mile 114.9 A.H.P.; Innerharbor Navigation Canal, 5.5 miles; Mississippi River-Gulf Outl et from its junction with the Innerharbor Navigation Canal to Bayou Bienvenue, 7 mile s; and Harvey Canal, 5.5 miles.

PORT OF SOUTH LOUISIANA (LA) Both banks of Mississippi River from mile 114.9 A.H.P. through mile 168.5 A.H.P. Controlling and Project Depths: 45 feet.

### 46 3. Projection Methods

Pechan then projected the revi sed 1999 inventory to 2002 using surr ogate growth indicators. For the aircraft category, 1999 and 2002 approach oper ations by airport and aircraft type were compiled from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS). The airport-level landing and takeoffs (LTOs) were assigned to counties and summed for the county. For counties with aircraft em issions without a county match in ATADS, Stateaverage growth factors were calculated and ap plied. The county-level growth factors are not presented in this report, but could be pr ovided to VISTAS S/L/Ts if requested.

For locomotives, projected emissions were devel oped in two steps as described below. For 1999 to 2001, State-level vessel bunkering and rail fuel consumption was obtained from the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales. For 2001 to 2002, Pechan applied national growth factors developed fr om fuel consumption projections in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook. Table III-7a lists the gr owth factors for locomotives that were applied to the 1999 emissions to first develop 2001 emissions. Ta ble III-7b lists the gr owth factors used to generate 2002 emissions. Locomotive emissions were not revised from the August 2003 draft VISTAS 2002 inventory.

Table III-7a. Growth Factors fo r Railroad Distillate Fuel Oil Use

Rail Distillate Fuel Oil Sales (Thousand Gallons) FIPSST State

1999 2001 Growth Factor (GF)

01 Alabama 42,137 55,777 1.3 12 Florida 127,269 107,084 0.8 13 Georgia 73,494 70,538 1.0 21 Kentucky 98,941 99,812 1.0 28 Mississippi 14,267 24,812 1.7 37 North Carolina 53,900 77,762 1.4 45 South Carolina 13,051 15,936 1.2 47 Tennessee 44,083 91,363 2.1 51 Virginia 32,202 61,154 1.9 54 West Virginia 9,160 8,787 1.0 Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Admini stration Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 1999 & Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2001 Table 23. Adjusted Sales for Transportati on Use: Distillate Fuel Oil and Residual Fuel Oil ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/pertroleum/053599.pdf ), ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/pertroleum/053501.pdf )

### 47 Table III-7b. 2002 National Rail Trans portation Energy Use by Fuel Type (Trillion BTU)

2001 2002 Growth Factor (GF) Intercity Rail (Electric) 10.17 10.4 0 1.0226 Intercity Rail (Diesel) 16.6 0 16.88 1.0169 Transit Rail (Electric) 46.3 6 47.4 0 1.0224 INTERCITY/TRANSIT RAIL AVERAGE (SCC 2285002008) 1.0206 Commuter Rail (Electric) 16.13 16.49 1.0223 Commuter Rail (Diesel) 26.31 26.76 1.0171 COMMUTER RAIL AVERAGE (SCC 2285002009) 1.0197 Freight Rail (Distillate) (SCCs 2285002000, 2285002005, 2285002006, 2285002007, 2285002010) 512.81 492.32 0.9600

Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administrati on, Annual Energy Outlook 2003: Table 34. Transportation Sector Energy Use by Fuel Type Within a Mode ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/sup_tran.pdf )



### Since the CMV emissions were revised for the 1999 base year, these emissions were projected using 2002 Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales data, which became available in November 2003. Table III-8 lists the growth factors for CMVs that were applied to 1999 emissions to generate 2002 emissions. The same regional growth factor th at accounts for an aver age regional growth rate was applied to CMV emissions for all VISTAS Stat es. Because the State-level data represents sales and not use, and CMV activity spans State borders, a regional growth factor was deemed more appropriate. Pechan could make a similar adjustment for the locomotive growth factors, which are also based on fuel sales for 1999 to 2001, if requested by VISTAS.

### 48 Table III-8. Growth Factor s for Commercial Marine Vessel Distillate and Residual Fuel Oil Use

Fuel Oil Sales (Thousand Gallons) Growth Factor (GF) FIPSS T State

1999 2002 DISTILLATE 01 Alabama 67,455 73,400 1.1 12 Florida 139,809 143,577 1.0 13 Georgia 17,697 22,327 1.3 21 Kentucky 81,811 56,169 0.7 28 Mississippi 12,749 68,668 5.4 37 North Carolina 11,279 10,057 0.9 45 South Carolina 12,732 19,782 1.6 47 Tennessee 43,867 112,364 2.6 51 Virginia 29,444 28,235 1.0 54 West Virginia 54,560 46,981 0.9

Regional Distillate GF 471,403 581,560 1.2 RESIDUAL 01 Alabama 46,093 93,487 2.0 12 Florida 404,228 460,600 1.1 13 Georgia 40,117 79,191 2.0 21 Kentucky 1 69 1.2 28 Mississippi 48,644 54,031 1.1 37 North Carolina 6,989 35,210 5.0 45 South Carolina 20,056 22,758 1.1 47 Tennessee 1 124 1.2 51 Virginia 60,090 36,445 0.6 54 West Virginia 1.2

Regional Residual GF 626,217 781,915 1.2

1 For Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia, Pechan summed th e 1999 and 2002 CMV residual fuel oil use to develop a total VISTAS State growth factor, which was then applied to the three States. Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administ ration, Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 1999 & Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2002, Table 23. Adjusted Sales for Transportat ion Use: Distillate Fuel Oil and Residual Fuel Oil.


# IV. ONROAD REFUELING METHODS

Emissions were separately calculated from onroa d refueling, also known as Stage II emissions. Since refueling is a category of evaporative rather than exhaust emissions, VOC is the only criteria pollutant of concern for this category. This chapter di scusses the controls modeled for this emission category and the methods used to calculate these emissions. Refueling emissions for onroad sources were updated in February 2004 to account for the VMT updates provided by several States.



## A. CONTROLS

Based on default information from the NEI as well as some information provided by VISTAS agencies, portions of five of the VISTAS States have onroad Stage II refu eling controls in place. These States, along with the sp ecific counties with onroad St age II controls, are listed in Table IV-1. This table also shows information about the Stage II control program in each State including the year a Stage II program began, th e number of years that the program was phased-in over, and the control efficiency of the prog ram in reducing VOC emissions from Stage II

### 49 refueling for the LDGV, LDGT, and HDGV vehicle cat egories. These are the inputs required for modeling a Stage II control prog ram using MOBILE6. States with Stage II programs should review this information and pr ovide any corrections for the ne xt round of emissions modeling.

Table IV-1. Onroad Stage II Control Programs

State Star t Year Phase-In Years Control Efficiency Counties Florida 199 3 2 95% Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach

Georgia 199 2 3 81% Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale Kentucky 199 9 2 86% Boone, Campbell, Kenton

Kentucky 199 2 2 95% Jefferson

Tennesse

e 199 3 3 95% Davidson, Rutherford, Su mner, Williamson, Wilson

Virginia 199 3 2 95% Counties: Arlington, Chesterfield, Fairfax, Hanover, Henrico, Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford

Independent Cities: Alexandria, Colonial Heights, Fairfax, Falls Church , Hopewell, Manassas, Manassas Park, Richmond



## B. METHODS

A simplified set of MOBILE6.2 input files was creat ed to simulate the onroad refueling emission factors. These input files were simplified because several of th e inputs used for calculating the onroad exhaust and evaporative emission factors do not affect the refu eling emission factors. For example, the refueling emission factors ar e unaffected by vehicle speed or I/M program. Thus, for each group of counties in a State w ith the same fuel parameters, temperature parameters, fleet characteristics (registration di stribution, diesel sales fractions), and Stage II control program parameters, a MOBILE6.2 input fi le was created to model the onroad refueling emission factors. As mentioned above, speed does not affect the refueling emission factors, so each input file contained only 12 scenarios—one for each month of the year. Within each scenario, the temperature and fuel parameters we re varied, using the same temperature and fuel data modeled in the onroad exhaust and eva porative MOBILE6.2 input files. Other fleet characteristics, such as registra tion distributions and diesel sale s fractions, were included in the input files where applicable. Th e inputs shown in Table IV-1 were included for the input files representing counties with Stag e II control programs. The h eader section of the MOBILE6.2

### 50 input files was set up so that only refueling emission factors w ould be included in the tabular output file.

After the MOBILE6.2 input files were generate d, they were run through the MOBILE6.2 model to obtain refueling VOC emission factors in the database table format. These emission factors are produced for the 28 MOBILE6 vehicle types. The emission factors were then weighted using the VMT fraction information included in the MOBILE6 output tables to obtain VOC refueling emission factors for the 8 vehicle types incl uded in the VISTAS VMT database. The VMT fraction information contained in the MOBILE6 input files is base d on the default MOBILE6 registration distributions, diesel sales fractions, and VMT fractions, or, when this information is provided in the input files, ba sed on area-specific fleet parame ters. A database of emission factors by month, county, and 8 vehicle types was th en prepared. In calculating monthly onroad refueling emissions, the VISTAS annual VMT data were temporally allocated by month in the same manner as described in Chapter II for the onroad exhaust a nd evaporative emission calculations. These VMT were then multiplied by the corresponding monthly emission factor (in terms of grams per mile) to ob tain refueling emissions from onroad vehicles. The monthly emissions for each county were then summed to obtain annual refueling em issions. Also, since refueling emissions are included in the area source inventory and are not distinguished by vehicle type, all refueling emissions from onroad vehicl es were summed for each county in the VISTAS region. Summaries of the refueling emissions from onroad vehicles are presented in Chapter VI.


# V. NONROAD REFUELING METHODS

The NONROAD model accounts for refueling em issions from nonroad equipment under two separate components, vapor displacement and sp illage. Vapor displacement emissions result when new liquid fuel being added to a fuel tank displaces fuel vapors alr eady present in the tank. Spillage emissions result when fuel is spilled during the refueling process.

Nonroad equipment may be fueled from a gaso line pump or a portable container. Refueling nonroad equipment from a portable container result s in different emissions for both spillage and vapor displacement compared to refueling from a gasoline pump. In addition, the use of portable containers also results in extra refueling even ts. Both spillage and displacement emissions will also occur when the container is filled from a gasoline pump. However, due to lack of data, the NONROAD2002 model does not attempt to quantify this set of refueling emissions. As such, the NONROAD model refueling emissions associ ated with nonroad equipment being filled directly at the gasoline pumps will be used to represent the nonroad Stage II emission component. Stage II control factors listed in Ta ble IV-1 were input inthe county-specific NONROAD model option files. Once the model r uns were performed, Pechan extracted the refueling and spillage emissions corresponding only to those engine s (typically the larger horsepower engines) within each SCC assumed to be refueled at the pump. The list of SCC and horsepower ranges associated with pump versus c ontainer refueling is specified in the model since different emission rates are assumed for these two types of refueling.

Table V-1 presents draft annual Stage II VOC emission estimates by State. These emissions were combined with the onroad vehicle Stage II es timates described in Sect ion IV of this report.

### 51

### 52 Table V-1. 2002 Draft Stage II Refueling Emissions by State

FIPSST NAME VOC Emissions, tpy 01 Alabama 167.25 12 Florida 842.60 13 Georgia 209.01 21 Kentucky 112.65 28 Mississippi 147.18 37 North Carolina 298.49 45 Tennessee 197.81 47 South Carolina 155.33 51 Virginia 174.70 54 West Virginia 39.33



# VI. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

This chapter presents the emission results fr om the February 2004 draft version of the 2002 mobile source emissions inventory for the VISTAS region. These emissions result from the data and procedures described in the pr eceding chapters of this report.



## A. ONROAD RESULTS

Table VI-1 summarizes the latest 2002 VISTAS onr oad emissions inventory by State. This table also summarizes the total VMT for each State. Ta bles VI-2 and VI-3 are provided here for the purpose of comparing this inventory with an other existing onroad i nventory. The emissions shown in Table VI-2 are taken from Version 2 of EPA’s 1999 NEI. Table VI-3 then shows the percentage change from the 1999 NEI to the 2002 draft VISTAS inventory. If the two inventories had been developed using comparab le data, one would generally expect to see reductions in the onroad emissions from 1999 to 2002 due to fleet turnover resulting in the replacement of older, dirtier ve hicles with vehicles meeting mo re stringent emission standards. However, this reduction in per-vehicle emissions also needs to overcome increases in VMT for the overall emissions to decrease. All of the VISTAS States show in creases in VMT from 1999 to 2002, except North Carolina. Th is decrease in VMT needs to be further investigated by the State agency. States that were modeled with si gnificant State or locall y supplied inputs in the VISTAS modeling, such as Virginia and Georgia, would be expected to have more significant differences from the NEI data than States with no State-supplied information other than VMT. Some of the State inputs that cause significant deviations from the NEI estimates are registration distributions, VMT mixes by vehi cle type, and speeds by road t ype. In addition, some of the pollutants are more affected by thes e inputs, while others (such as NH 3 

### ) are minimally affected by these inputs. The 2002 VISTAS onroad emissi ons will continue to undergo review. Any comments or questions on these emissions by the St ate or local agencies will be investigated as part of this review.

### 53 Table VI-1. 2002 VISTAS Onroad Emissions and VMT by State (February 2004 Version)

2002 Annual Emissions (tons per year) 2002 Annual VMT State VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NH3 (million miles) Alabama 99,650 154,908 1,275,969 6,515 4,344 3,231 5,619 55,723 Florida 457,309 463,419 4,678,471 19,739 12,666 9,232 18,240 178,681 Georgia 215,035 311,125 2,601,785 11,487 8,038 5,942 10,612 106,785 Kentucky 79,110 164,231 1,196,211 5,718 4,083 3,048 5,103 51,020 Mississippi 68,508 107,047 845,990 4,354 3,152 2,399 3,603 36,278 North Carolina 147,977 278,265 2,116,829 9,953 6,374 4,741 7,868 80,166 South Carolina 92,491 136,569 1,192,894 5,647 3,825 2,867 4,719 47,074 Tennessee 126,959 255,090 1,785,136 8,115 5,445 4,059 6,855 68,316 Virginia 115,044 182,513 1,858,629 6,110 4,413 3,032 7,937 76,566 West Virginia 34,197 57,941 512,592 2,361 1,550 1,155 1,947 19,544 VISTAS Total 1,436,279 2,111,108 18,064,506 79,999 53,890 39,705 72,504 720,153



### Table VI-2. 1999 NEI Version 2 Onro ad Emissions and VMT by State

1999 Annual Emissions (tons per year) 1999 Annual VMT State VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NH3 (million miles) Alabama 121,201 163,024 1,412,343 6,280 4,712 3,599 5,249 52,914 Florida 328,412 424,969 3,379,563 16,581 12,259 9,318 14,162 141,903 Georgia 207,562 313,568 2,526,592 12,028 9,263 7,139 9,787 98,859 Kentucky 97,286 162,160 1,225,414 6,006 4,772 3,715 4,703 47,816 Mississippi 74,579 126,344 830,477 4,478 3,908 3,106 3,406 34,955 North Carolina 187,346 285,380 2,252,671 10,829 8,462 6,552 8,663 87,759 South Carolina 98,010 153,346 1,207,336 5,616 4,515 3,527 4,330 44,146 Tennessee 138,629 211,133 1,697,778 7,876 6,108 4,716 6,392 64,570 Virginia 150,528 238,515 1,861,417 8,972 6,892 5,307 7,320 73,904 West Virginia 40,060 68,580 539,578 2,471 2,023 1,589 1,859 19,033 VISTAS Total 1,443,613 2,147,019 16,933,170 81,137 62,913 48,567 65,871 665,859

### 54 Table VI-3. Change in Onroad Emissi ons and VMT from 1999 NEI Version 2 to VISTAS 2002 Inventory (February 2004 Version)

Change from 1999 NEI V2 to 2002 VISTAS Draft Inventory State VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NH3 VMT Alabama -18% -5% -10% 4% -8% -10% 7% 5% Florida 39% 9% 38% 19% 3% -1% 29% 26% Georgia 4% -1% 3% -4% -13% -17% 8% 8% Kentucky -19% 1% -2% -5% -14% -18% 9% 7% Mississippi -8% -15% 2% -3% -19% -23% 6% 4% North Carolina -21% -2% -6% -8% -25% -28% -9% -9% South Carolina -6% -11% -1% 1% -15% -19% 9% 7% Tennessee -8% 21% 5% 3% -11% -14% 7% 6% Virginia -24% -23% 0% -32% -36% -43% 8% 4% West Virginia -15% -16% -5% -4% -23% -27% 5% 3% VISTAS Total -1% -2% 7% -1% -14% -18% 10% 8%



### Table VI-4 presents the latest 2002 VISTAS onroad refueling emission estimates by State. These refueling emissions are NOT included in th e emissions shown in Tables VI-1 through VI3.

Table VI-4. 2002 VISTAS Annual Onroad Refueling Emissions

State 2002 Annual Onroad VOC Refueling Emissions (tons per year) Alabama 8,408 Florida 28,367 Georgia 12,329 Kentucky 6,885 Mississippi 6,057 North Carolina 15,320 South Carolina 8,926 Tennessee 9,901 Virginia 8,657 West Virginia 3,383 VISTAS Total 108,233



## B. NONROAD RESULTS

Table VI-5 provides a summary of draft 2002 nonroad sector annual emissions by State, including Stage II refueling emission estimates. Table VI-6 provides a summary of the draft 2002 NONROAD model emission estimates by Stat e, and compares the values to 2001 NONROAD model NEI Version 2 estimates by show ing the percent difference. A similar comparison is shown in Table VI-7 for other nonroad emission estimates compared to the 1999 NEI Version 2.

### 55 For the NONROAD model categories, SO 2 

### , PM 10, 

### PM 2.5 

### , and NH 3 

### decrease consistently across all States. SO 2 

### emissions decrease due in part to a lowe r diesel fuel sulfur content input for the NONROAD model runs, which also contributes to decreases in particulate emissions. The decrease in NH 3 

### is due primarily to corrections made to compresses natural gas (CNG) engine NH 3 

### emissions, which involved zeroing out the estimates. The 1999 NEI erroneously applied emission factors on a grams per gallon basis to CNG fuel consumption. Although reported as uncompressed gallons in the NONROAD model, th e CNG fuel consumption estimates represent a gaseous, not liquid, volume. Based on OTAQ’s recommendations, CNG NH 3 

### emissions are now reported as zero. CO and NO x 

### show little change for all States, and changes in VOC vary by State and are dependent on th e contribution of specific eq uipment categories (detail not shown).

For other nonroad categories, the increase in PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### is due to the addition of commercial aircraft PM emissi ons. Commercial aircraft PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions were zero in the 1999 NEI; hence, the large percent increase. To gap fill this portion of the inventory, Pechan calculated and applied an average air taxi PM/NO x 

### emission ratio to commercial aircraft NO x 

### emissions. States with a higher proportion of co mmercial aircraft show significant PM increases (e.g., FL, TN, VA). In addition, NO x 

### emissions decrease due to ne w State data for other nonroad from AL and VA.

Table VI-5. Summary of Draft 2002 Nonr oad Sector Annual Emissions by State, tons per year

FIPSS T STATE VOC NOX CO PM10- PRI PM25- PRI SO2 NH3

01 Alabama 46,788 64,367 373,634 5,504 4,895 7,529 32

12 Florida 211,006 153,396 1,765,53 9 61,426 45,849 17,453 109 13 Georgia 66,712 87,053 712,159 10,411 8,666 7,914 55 21 Kentucky 35,537 100,989 294,929 8,538 7,249 13,771 28 28 Mississippi 33,443 90,190 217,407 5,795 5,194 11,537 23 37 North Carolina 75,020 81,264 742,822 12,814 10,379 7,281 62 45 South Carolina 43,231 46,518 375,469 4,115 3,678 4,465 29 47 Tennessee 52,333 118,690 461,976 14,727 11,692 12,478 41 51 Virginia 61,655 69,668 614,958 21,580 16,497 11,068 44 54 West Virginia 15,497 36,613 120,029 2,293 2,034 2,388 10

### 56 Table VI-6. Summary of Draft 2002 NONROAD Model Emission Estimates by State

2002 DRAFT VISTAS NONROAD Model Inventory, tpy

FIPSS T STATE VOC_AN N NOX_AN N CO_ANN PM10_AN N PM25_AN N SO2_ANN NH3_AN N

01 Alabama 44,501.18 28,635.48 365,161.1 2 3,306.84 3,044.48 2,729.32 31.92

12 Florida 205,489.6 6 86,654.40 1,730,125. 77 12,890.06 11,862.13 9,113.26 109.02

13 Georgia 65,054.02 51,452.93 705,292.7 5 5,493.33 5,057.34 5,025.11 54.97

21 Kentucky 32,836.91 28,253.72 283,488.5 3 3,152.29 2,901.82 2,777.69 28.00

28 Mississippi 31,097.14 23,549.89 207,824.2 3 2,761.65 2,542.05 2,375.53 23.37

37 North Carolina 73,610.93 58,667.62 734,496.8 5 6,095.96 5,613.11 5,442.35 62.06

45 South Carolina 41,652.41 26,212.76 366,737.1 6 3,028.92 2,788.66 2,461.79 29.29

47 Tennessee 48,626.66 39,833.95 446,461.4 3 4,240.53 3,904.21 3,810.11 41.22

51 Virginia 56,973.85 40,914.48 594,020.1 3 4,739.47 4,362.61 4,103.01 44.22

54 West Virginia 14,498.68 9,502.33 115,652.4 9 1,038.29 955.70 980.17 10.31 2001 NONROAD Model NEI Version 2, tpy

FIPSS T STATE VOC_AN N NOX_AN N CO_ANN PM10_AN N PM25_AN N SOX_AN N NH3_AN N

01 Alabama 43,602.83 28,786.95 360,439.3 6 3,422.60 3,150.91 3,110.79 581.69

12 Florida 188,868.9 6 86,835.32 1,713,539. 62 13,243.04 12,186.78 10,456.05 1,305.25

13 Georgia 63,927.85 51,521.66 698,868.7 7 5,678.55 5,227.63 5,749.47 989.31

21 Kentucky 31,662.34 28,350.32 279,283.7 9 3,274.35 3,014.06 3,127.88 463.74

28 Mississippi 29,037.96 23,671.70 205,664.6 4 2,877.28 2,648.40 2,668.55 359.21

37 North Carolina 69,671.36 58,742.13 724,908.4 6 6,300.02 5,800.72 6,196.92 1,223.82 45 South 39,310.79 26,304.57 3,130.17 2,881.75 2,817.02 507.81

### 57 Carolina 363,112.0 1

47 Tennessee 47,193.97 39,916.38 440,915.7 6 4,395.90 4,047.06 4,337.42 749.51

51 Virginia 55,459.80 41,082.63 585,850.5 8 4,887.90 4,499.09 4,677.52 627.60

54 West Virginia 13,912.53 9,568.82 113,766.3 8 1,076.32 990.67 1,113.21 179.75 Percent Difference

FIPSS T STATE VOC_AN N NOX_AN N CO_ANN PM10_AN N PM25_AN N SOX_AN N NH3_AN N 01 Alabama 2.06% -0.53% 1.31% -3.38% -3.38% -12.26% -94.51% 12 Florida 8.80% -0.21% 0.97% -2.67% -2.66% -12.84% -91.65% 13 Georgia 1.76% -0.13% 0.92% -3.26% -3.26% -12.60% -94.44% 21 Kentucky 3.71% -0.34% 1.51% -3.73% -3.72% -11.20% -93.96% 28 Mississippi 7.09% -0.51% 1.05% -4.02% -4.02% -10.98% -93.50%

37 North Carolina 5.65% -0.13% 1.32% -3.24% -3.23% -12.18% -94.93%

45 South Carolina 5.96% -0.35% 1.00% -3.23% -3.23% -12.61% -94.23% 47 Tennessee 3.04% -0.21% 1.26% -3.53% -3.53% -12.16% -94.50% 51 Virginia 2.73% -0.41% 1.39% -3.04% -3.03% -12.28% -92.95%

54 West Virginia 4.21% -0.69% 1.66% -3.53% -3.53% -11.95% -94.26%

### 58 Table VI-7. Summary of Draft 2002 Other Nonroad* Emission Estimates by State

2002 DRAFT VISTAS Other Nonroad Inventory, tpy

FIPSST STATE VOC_ANN NOX_ANN CO_ANN PM10_ANN PM25_ANN SO2_ANN 01 Alabama 2,286.81 35,731.80 8,473.33 2,196.87 1,850.82 4,799.75 12 Florida 5,516.71 66,741.52 35,413.13 48,536.33 33,987.28 8,340.05 13 Georgia 1,657.99 35,599.76 6,865.94 4,917.40 3,609.14 2,889.06 21 Kentucky 2,699.92 72,735.57 11,440.23 5,385.61 4,346.83 10,992.91 28 Mississippi 2,345.96 66,640.48 9,582.89 3,033.69 2,652.14 9,161.66 37 North Carolina 1,409.01 22,596.53 8,325.56 6,718.49 4,766.12 1,838.68 45 South Carolina 1,578.34 20,304.80 8,732.26 1,086.01 889.24 2,002.78 47 Tennessee 3,706.17 78,855.60 15,514.17 10,486.01 7,787.92 8,667.84 51 Virginia 4,681.39 28,753.43 20,938.22 16,840.30 12,134.84 6,965.04 54 West Virginia 998.41 27,110.49 4,376.64 1,254.86 1,077.93 1,408.05 1999 Other Nonroad NEI Version 2, tpy FIPSST STATE VOC_ANN NOX_ANN CO_ANN PM10_ANN PM25_ANN SO2_ANN 01 Alabama 7,309.83 152,338.93 25,075.50 1,315.93 1,176.15 3,854.54 12 Florida 3,945.18 56,197.72 25,350.10 2,110.74 1,881.95 6,878.28 13 Georgia 2,594.07 39,245.14 12,198.09 1,072.08 953.43 3,070.41 21 Kentucky 2,676.93 62,930.31 12,388.06 2,370.31 2,153.93 8,965.67 28 Mississippi 1,755.99 48,927.22 8,072.51 1,917.16 1,747.89 7,051.91 37 North Carolina 1,447.95 17,999.44 8,739.21 540.09 470.85 1,508.40 45 South Carolina 2,470.03 18,034.10 13,291.47 561.99 503.60 1,858.19 47 Tennessee 2,426.97 51,133.47 11,127.02 1,786.06 1,616.72 6,266.91 51 Virginia 2,682.78 51,592.64 13,083.30 1,632.38 1,462.82 4,769.97 54 West Virginia 1,133.03 30,991.75 4,858.71 1,151.55 1,048.38 4,097.15 Percent Difference

FIPSST STATE VOC_ANN NOX_ANN CO_ANN PM10_ANN PM25_ANN SO2_ANN 01 Alabama -69% -77% -66% 67% 57% 25% 12 Florida 40% 19% 40% 2199% 1706% 21% 13 Georgia -36% -9% -44% 359% 279% -6% 21 Kentucky 1% 16% -8% 127% 102% 23% 28 Mississippi 34% 36% 19% 58% 52% 30% 37 North Carolina -3% 26% -5% 1144% 912% 22% 45 South Carolina -36% 13% -34% 93% 77% 8% 47 Tennessee 53% 54% 39% 487% 382% 38% 51 Virginia 74% -44% 60% 932% 730% 46% 54 West Virginia -12% -13% -10% 9% 3% -66%
*Includes emissions from aircraft, commercial marine and locomotive SCCs

### 59 

# VII. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

This chapter lists several areas where the onroad and nonroad emissi on inventories could be improved. Some of these improvements require a long lead-time for the States and would not likely be available for the final 2002 VISTAS modeling, but could improve future State and regional inventory efforts.



## A. ONROAD SECTOR IMPROVEMENTS

In the onroad sector, significant improvements have been made to the inventory due to the State and local agencies providing 2002 VMT data by c ounty and roadway type. For this February 2004 version of the VISTAS onroad inventory, only the Virginia VMT were projected by Pechan. It is anticipated that this States will be able to pr ovide 2002 VMT data for use in the next revision of the inventory.

Local registration distribution data were provided by fewer than half of the VISTAS States. In many cases, registration data can be obtained from State Departments of Motor Vehicles. States that do not already do so should request a download of the data summarizing registrations by model year and vehicle class from their a ppropriate motor vehicl e agency. Although it is probably too late in many cases to obtain 2002 data, 2003 registration data could be used with some adjustments in developing the 2002 emission inventories. Registration data will become even more important as VISTAS prepares to project a 2018 onroad emission inventory, since the 2018 projections will be affected by the number of vehicles that are subject to the Tier 2 emission standards and the new heavy duty vehicl e standards. The registration distributions directly determine the proportion of vehicles subject to these new emission standards.

A relatively small amount of data was obtaine d regarding the distribution of VMT by season or month. Many State Departments of Transportation collect data that could be used to better distribute VMT by season or month. States shoul d check to see what is available. These distributions will affect the episodic modeli ng that will be conducted by VISTAS. Pechan is currently performing a VMT scoping study for VISTAS to determine what data are available for better allocating VMT and emissions by month, day, and hour. These temporal improvements are expected to be incorporated into the next update of the VISTAS onroad emission inventory.

Due to the direct relationship between the VM T mix by vehicle type and the overall emissions, States should investigate potential sources of info rmation for this data to replace the default data used here in most States.

EPA is currently in the proce ss of preparing guidance on estimating emissions from heavy duty vehicles during long-term idling (sometimes referre d to as hotelling). While these emissions are theoretically included in the MOBILE6 HDDV em ission factors, they are not currently accounted for in the appropriate locations. For example, these emissions would typically occur at rest stops, trucking centers, and warehouse and distribution centers. With the current modeling, these emissions are sp read over all counties, based on the VMT traveled by HDDVs in each county. If significant sources of truck idli ng emissions occur in or near Class I areas, the

### 60 current modeling may be underestimating the effect of these emissions. If States are able to obtain data on the locations and util ization of truck rest stops, some of this emissions effect could be more appropriately accounted for in future versions of VISTAS modeling.



## B. NONROAD SECTOR IMPROVEMENTS

NH 3 

### emissions for aircraft, commercial marine a nd locomotives are still reported as zero. As a result of recent communications with OTAQ, Pechan would suggest applying the updated nonroad diesel NH 3 

### emission factors used for the NONROA D model categories to activity data for commercial marine vessels and locomotives . To develop ammonia from commercial marine vessels and locomotives, Pechan would need to obtain or compile the county-level fuel consumption estimates used as the basis for 1999 emissions for these categories to use as the activity data for calculating updated NH 3 

### emissions. The presence of State or local data in the 1999 NEI does not allow for this to be determin ed easily by backing out the reported emission factors, and in some cases (e.g., diesel commercial marine), actual emissi ons (instead of activity) were obtained at a national leve l and allocated to counties (E PA, 2002). Alternatively, Pechan could use county level fuel consumption estim ates developed for these categories for 2000 or 2001. These activity data were used by Pechan to estimate dioxin/furan emission estimates for the 2000 and 2001 NEI. Pechan could norma lize the 2000 or 2001 county distribution to national level fuel consumption estimates for 1999. Due to the characteristics of aircraft jet and piston engines, Pechan does not recommend estimating aircraft NH 3 

### emissions using the available NH 3 

### emission factors.



# VIII. REFERENCES

EPA, 1989: “Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 450/ 4-81-026d (Revised). July 1989.

EPA, 2002. “Documentation for Aircraft, Commer cial Marine Vessel, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the National Emi ssions Inventory,” prepared by Eastern Research Group, Morrisville, NC for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. September 30, 2002.

Harvey, 1983. Craig Harvey, et al. “A Study of the Potential Impact of Some Unregulated Motor Vehicle Emissions.,” SAE Paper 830987. June 1983.
Harvey, 2003. C. Harvey, U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, e-mail entitled “NH3 Emission Upda tes,” sent to K. Thesing, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. June 30, 2003.

USACE, 2000: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1999 , IWR-WCUS99-2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000.

### 61 USACE, 2003: U.S. Waterways Data, Port and Wa terway Facilities, [Data file]. Accessed from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/data/datapwd.htm on December 12, 2003.