## A p p e n d i x H . 5

M D N R A i r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l P r o g r a m , M i s s o u ri S t a t e w i d e E s t im a te s f o r t h e 2 0 02 N

a t i o n a l Em i

s s i o n s I n v e n t o r y ( N E I ) : A r e a S o u r

c e sDivision of Environmental Quality

Air Pollution Control Program



# DRAFT **Revised January 8, 2007**

Prepared by **: Adel Alsharafi**  **Jill Wade Mollie Freebairn**  **Carlton Flowers ii**  Table of Contents **1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................**

**................................................... ......................... 5**  **1.1 P URPOSE OF**  **S TUDY** 
**................................................... ...................................................**  **..................................5 1.2 S**  **OURCES OF E**  **MISSIONS**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **............................5 1.3 A**  **REA S**  **OURCE E**  **STIMATION M**  **ETHODOLOGIES**
**................................................... ............................................6**  **1.4 A LLOCATING**  **M ISSOURI**  **E MPLOYEES TO THE**  **C OMMERCIAL AND**  **I NDUSTRIAL**  **S ECTORS**  **................................6 1.5 R** 

**ULE E**  **FFECTIVENESS**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **...............................7 1.6 D**  **OUBLE C**  **OUNTING OF E**  **MISSIONS**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **...........7 1.7 Q**  **UALITY A**  **SSURANCE**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **..............................7 1.8 F**  **EDERAL , S**  **TATE AND L**  **OCAL R**  **EGULATIONS**
**................................................... ..............................................8**  **2.0 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES .............................**

**................................................... .................. 8**  **2.1 A SPHALT**  **P AVING** 
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....................................8 2.1.1 Source Description and Emission Controls......** 

**................................................... ...................................8**  **2.1.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................10**  **2.1.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....11 2.1.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..11 2.2 D**  **RY C**  **LEANING**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **......................................12 2.2.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......** 

**................................................... .................................12**  **2.2.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................12**  **2.2.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....13 2.2.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..13 2.3 A**  **RCHITECTURAL S**  **URFACE C**  **OATING**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....13 2.3.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......** 

**................................................... .................................13**  **2.3.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................13**  **2.3.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....14 2.3.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..15 2.4 A**  **UTO B**  **ODY R**  **EFINISHING**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **......................15 2.4.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......** 

**................................................... .................................15**  **2.4.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................15**  **2.4.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....16 2.4.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..16 2.5 C**  **OMMERCIAL /C**  **ONSUMER S**  **OLVENT U**  **SE**
**................................................... ..................................................1**  **6 2.5.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......** 

**................................................... .................................16**  **2.5.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................17**  **2.5.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....18 2.5.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..18 2.6 B**  **AKERIES**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **...............................................18 2.6.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......** 

**................................................... .................................18**  **2.6.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................18**  **2.6.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....19 2.6.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..19 2.7 G**  **RAPHIC A**  **RTS**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.......................................19 2.7.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......** 

**................................................... .................................19**  **2.7.2 Emissions Estimation Methodology ..............**

**................................................... ...................................20**  **2.7.3 References....................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..21 2.8 S**  **OLVENT C**  **LEANING**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **...............................22 2.8.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......** 

**................................................... .................................22**  **2.8.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................22**  **2.8.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....23 2.8.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..23 2.9 L**  **EAKING U** **NDERGROUND S**  **TORAGE T**  **ANK R**  **EMOVAL**
**................................................... ...............................23**  **2.9.1 Source Description and Emission Control .......**

**................................................... .................................23** **iii**

**2.9.2 Emission Estimation Methodology...............**

**................................................... ....................................23**  **2.9.3 Results.......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....24 2.9.4 References....................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **..24 2.10 I**  **NDUSTRIAL S**  **URFACE C**  **OATING**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.............24 2.10.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................24**  **2.10.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................25**  **2.10.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......26 2.10.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...26 2.11 V**  **EHICLE F**  **IRES**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.......................................26 2.11.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................26**  **2.11.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................26**  **2.11.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......27 2.11.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...27 2.12 O**  **PEN B**  **URNING - S**  **TRUCTURE F**  **IRES**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.......28 2.12.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................28**  **2.12.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................28**  **2.12.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......29 2.12.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...29 2.13 P**  **ESTICIDE A**  **PPLICATION**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.........................29 2.13.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................29**  **2.13.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................30**  **2.13.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......32 2.13.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...32 2.14 O**  **PEN B**  **URNING - R**  **ESIDENTIAL S**  **OLID W**  **ASTE**
**................................................... ...........................................33**  **2.14.1 Source Description And Emission Control......**

**................................................... .................................33**  **2.14.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................33**  **2.14.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......34 2.14.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...35 2.15 O**  **PEN B**  **URNING -F**  **OREST /W**  **ILD F**  **IRES**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....35 2.15.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................35**  **2.15.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................35**  **2.15.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......36 2.15.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...36 2.16 G**  **AS D**  **ISTRIBUTION**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.................................37 2.16.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................37**  **2.16.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................38**  **2.16.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......41 2.16.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...41 2.17 L**  **ANDFILLS**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.............................................41 2.17.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................41**  **2.17.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................42**  **2.17.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......44 2.17.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...44 2.18 L**  **IQUEFIED P**  **ETROLEUM G**  **AS (LPG) C**  **OMBUSTION**
**................................................... ....................................44**  **2.18.1 Fuel Description.............................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **44 2.18.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............** 

**................................................... .....................................45**  **2.18.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......50 2.18.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...50 2.19 N**  **ATURAL G**  **AS C**  **OMBUSTION**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.................50 2.19.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................50**  **2.19.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................51**  **2.19.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......55 2.19.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...56 2.20 D**  **ISTILLATE F**  **UEL O**  **IL AND K**  **EROSENE C**  **OMBUSTION**
**................................................... ................................56**  **2.20.1 Source Description and Emission Controls.....**

**................................................... ..................................56**  **2.20.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................57** **iv**

**2.20.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......61 2.20.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...61 2.21 COAL COMBUSTION ...............................** 

**................................................... .........................................61**  **2.21.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......**

**................................................... ..................................61**  **2.21.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................62**  **2.21.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......66 2.21.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...66 2.22 W**  **OOD C**  **OMBUSTION – R**  **ESIDENTIAL**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **.....67 2.22.1 Source Description and Emission Controls.....** 

**................................................... ..................................67**  **2.22.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................68**  **2.22.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......70 2.22.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...71 2.23 T**  **RAFFIC M**  **ARKINGS**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **...............................72 2.23.1 Source Description and Emissions Control .....** 

**................................................... .................................72**  **2.23.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................72**  **2.23.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......73 2.23.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...73 2.24 C**  **OMMERCIAL M**  **ARINE V**  **ESSELS**
**................................................... ...................................................**  **............74 2.24.1 Source Description and Emission Control ......** 

**................................................... ..................................74**  **2.24.2 Emission Estimation Methodology..............**

**................................................... .....................................74**  **2.24.3 Results......................................**

**................................................... ...................................................**  **......76 2.24.4 References...................................** 

**................................................... ...................................................**  **...76 5** 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study **The objective of this report is to document the 200 2 Area Source Inventory for the National**  **Emissions Inventory due to EPA every three years. Included are emissions from numerous**  **source categories in each county in the state of Mi ssouri.**  1.2 Sources of Emissions **For this inventory, emissions from area sources are estimated collectively for those sources and**  **activities that are too small or too numerous to be handled individually in the point source**  **inventory. Area sources of all criteria pollutant emissions and PM2.5 to be included in this**  **inventory are shown in the following table:**
**Source Categories SCCs PM10 PM2.5 CO VOC NOX SOX Asphalt Paving 2461021000**  **2461022000 X**  **Dry Cleaning 2420010999 X Architectural Surface**  **Coating 2401001000 X**  **Autobody Refinishing 2401005000 X Consumer/Commercial**  **Solvent Use 2460000000 X**  **Bakeries 2302050000 X Graphic Arts 2425000000 X**  **Solvent Cleaning 2415000000 X Leaking USTs 2660000000 X**  **Industrial Surface Coating 2401020000 X Vehicle Fires 2810050000 X X X X**  **Structure Fires 2810030000 X X X X Pesticides 2461850000**  **2461870999 X**  **Open Burning 2610030000 2610020000**  **X X X X Wildfires 2810001000 X X X X**  **Gasoline Marketing 2501060050 2501060100**  **2501060201 X** 

**Landfills 2620030000 X Commercial/Marine Vessels 2505020000 X X X**  **Coal Combustion 2104002000 X X X X X X 6** 

**Source Categories SCCs PM10 PM2.5 CO VOC NOX SOX 2103002000**  **2102002000 Natural Gas Combustion 2104006000**  **2103006000 2102006000**  **X X X X X X**

**LPG Combustion 2104007000 2103007000**  **2102007000 X X X X X X** 

**Fuel Oil Combustion 2104004000 2103004000**  **2102004000 X X X X X X** 
**Residential Wood Burning 2104008000 X X X X X X**
1.3 Area Source Estimation Methodologies **Several methodologies were available for estimating the area source activity and emissions: (1)**  **apportioning national or state activity totals to l ocal inventory area; (2) using per capita emission**  **factors; (3) using emissions-per-employee factors; (4) surveying local activity levels; and (5)**  **treating area sources as point sources. Following the methodologies outlined in the Emission**  **Inventory Improvement Program’s (EIIP) guidance, ap propriate data were collected for each**  **source.** 1.4 Allocating Missouri Employees to the Commercial and Industrial Sectors **The North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) is in the process of replacing the**  **Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). Commerci al/Institutional sources which were**  **previously designated to be SIC categories 50 throu gh 99, are now designated as NAICS**  **categories 11, and 42-92, as shown in the table bel ow. Industrial sector employment is**  **aggregated for those Missouri employees found worki ng in the NAICS categories 21-33 by the**  **U.S. Census Bureau at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29000.html** 

**. Missouri Department of Economic Development / Econo**  **mic Research and Information Center employment data for 2002 is at**  **http://www.ded.mo.gov/cgi-bin/meric/es202.pl**

**.** SIC / NAICS Commercial/Institutional & Industrial Categories: SIC to NAICS Correspondence: NAICS 11, 42-92 NAICS 21-33 SIC NAICS Category Commercial/Instituti onal Industria

l 01-09 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting X 10-14 21 Mining X 49 22 Utilities X 15-17 23 Construction X**7**

20-39 31-33 Manufacturing X 50-51 42 Wholesale Trade X 52-59 44-45 Retail Trade X 41-47 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing X 48 51 Information X 60-64 52 Finance and Insurance X 65-67 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing X 73,87 54 Professional, Scientific and Technical

Services X 67 55 Management of Companies and

Enterprises X 87,78 56 Administrative and Support and Waste

Management and Remediation Services X 82 61 Educational Services X 80 62 Health Care and Social Assistance X 79 71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation X 70 72 Accommodation and Food Services X 75 81 Other Services (except Public

Administration) X 91-97 92 Public Administration X 1.5 Rule Effectiveness **A rule effectiveness (RE) factor was applied to bas e year emissions for counties where**  **regulations were in place. RE is a measure of the ability of a regulatory program to achieve all**  **emissions reductions that could be achieved by full compliance with the applicable regulations at**  **all sources at all times. It reflects the assumpti on that regulations are not 100% effective.**  1.6 Double Counting of Emissions **A major concern in the development of an area sourc e inventory is the possibility of double**  **counting emissions. Because some area source metho dologies estimate emissions from all**  **sources within a category, emissions already listed in the point source inventory may also be**  **included in the area source inventory. In developi ng the Missouri area source inventory, possible**  **double counting of emissions was avoided by subtrac ting emissions appearing in the Missouri**  **state point source inventory from the area source t otals for that category (**  e.g., **large dry cleaning facilities, large graphic arts facilities,**  etc. **).** 1.7 Quality Assurance **To ensure that this emissions inventory if of high quality, certain quality assurance (QA)**  **procedures were implemented at various points in th e inventory process. The following quality**  **assurance techniques were used:**

• **Each algorithm used to calculate emissions was revi ewed to ensure its appropriateness and**  **adherence to EIIP guidance. 8** 

• **Each spreadsheet was reviewed to ensure the proper data, emission factors and algorithms**  **were used.**
• **Peer review was an essential part of the QA**
• **All emissions estimates were checked for reasonable ness.**  • **All emissions estimation methods, data collected an d emissions calculations were reviewed**  **again during the reporting stage.**
• **The final data was run through the EPA quality assu rance software to identify any errors that**  **occurred as the data was put into NIF format before submission.**  **The emissions estimates were compared to emissions calculated in 1999 for any large increases**  **or decreases. If there were significant difference s in the three-year period the data was subjected**  **to further investigation to ensure accuracy.** 1.8 Federal, State and Local Regulations **Federal, State of Missouri and St. Louis area air p ollution regulations were reviewed for**  **application to specific area source categories. As shown in the following sections, these**  **regulations have contributed a lot to emission redu ctions. Categories addressed by these**  **regulations include:**

• **Commercial and Consumer Products Solvent**
• **Auto Body Refinishing**
• **Underground Storage Tanks**
• **Vehicle Fueling**
• **Tank Truck Unloading**
• **Solvent Metal Cleaning**
• **Dry Cleaning**
• **Cutback Asphalt Paving**
• **Open Burning**
• **Bakery Ovens**
• **Traffic Coatings** 2.0 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES 2.1 Asphalt Paving 2.1.1 Source Description and Emission Controls **Asphalt paving is used to pave, seal, and repair su rfaces such as roads, parking lots, drives,**  **walkways, and airport runways. Asphalt concrete us ed in paving is a mixture of asphalt cement,**  **which is a binder, and an aggregate. Asphalt cemen t is the semi-solid residual material left from**  **petroleum refining after the lighter and more volat ile fractions have been distilled out. Hot-mix**  **asphalt is a mixture of heated asphalt cement and a ggregate. Asphalt cutbacks are asphalt**  **cements thinned with petroleum distillates (diluent s). Asphalt emulsions are mixtures of asphalt**  **cement with water and emulsifiers. Aggregates used in asphalt cements are typically rock gravel**  **or recycled asphalt pavement, but can also be bypro ducts from metal ore refining processes.** **9**

**Aggregate may constitute up to 95 percent by weight of the total mixture. Mixture**  **characteristics for asphalt concrete are determined by the amount and grade of asphalt cement**  **used, the addition of solvent- or soap-based liquef ying agents, and the relative amount and types**  **of aggregate used. Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) is being used more**  **frequently, partly as a move to reduce solid waste. One source estimates that 90 percent**  **of asphalt processed is RAP. To reuse the asphalt, the RAP is typically pulverized; sorted; m**  **ixed with recycling agents such as lime or calcium chloride, or additional aggregate; then app**  **lied. The five methods of recycling are: cold planing, hot recycling, hot in-place recycling, col**  **d in-place recycling, and full depth reclamation. All except hot recycling occur at the location wher**  **e paving is to be done, although material removed during cold planing may be processed at an**  **asphalt plant. Asphalt concrete is grouped into three general cate**  **gories: hot-mix, cutback, and emulsified. Each is discussed below.**  **Hot-Mix Asphalt: Hot-mix asphalt is the most commonly used paving as**  **phalt for surfaces of 2 to 6 inches thick. Hot-mix asphalt is prepared at a hot-mix asphalt pl**  **ant by heating asphalt cement before adding the aggregate. To maintain a liquid mixture, these**  **plants must be near to the paving site. In some cases, mobile facilities are used.**  **Cutback Asphalt: Cutback asphalt is used in tack and seal operations**  **, in priming roadbeds for hot-mix application, and for paving operations for pavements up to sever**  **al inches thick. In preparing cutback asphalt, asphalt cement is blended or “cut back” with a dilu**  **ent, typically from 25 to 45 percent by volume of petroleum distillates, depending on the d**  **esired viscosity. Cutback asphalt is prepared at an asphalt plant. There are three types of cutb**  **ack asphalt cement:**
• **Rapid Cure (RC) which uses gasoline or naphthas as diluents;** 
• **Medium Cure (MC) which uses kerosene as a diluent; and** 
• **Slow Cure (SC) which uses low volatility fuel solve nts as diluents.**  **Emulsified Asphalt: Emulsified asphalt is used in most of the same appl**  **ications as cutback asphalt but is a lower emitting, energy saving, and safer alternative to t** **he cutback asphalt. Instead of blending asphalt cement with petroleum distillates, emulsified aspha**  **lt uses a blend of asphalt cement, water and an emulsifying agent, such as soap. Such blends ty**  **pically contain one-third water, two-thirds asphalt cement and minor amounts of an emulsifier.**  **Some emulsified asphalt may contain up to 12 percent organic solvents by volume. Emulsificat**  **ion is done at an asphalt plant. Emulsified asphalt cures by two methods: water evaporation and**  **, in the case of cationic and anionic emulsions, ionic bonding.** **10**

2.1.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **The Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) k eeps records of amount cutback and**  **emulsified asphalt used in 10 Districts. Since MOD OT does not keep records for each county,**  **population figures were used to estimate how much a sphalt was used for each county.**  Emission Factors **Missouri Department provided all Safety Material Da ta Sheets (MSDSs) for all types of asphalt**  **used in 2002. Alternative Method 1 of EIIP volume III, Asphalt Paving, was used to come up**  **with emission factors for cutback asphalt. Due to lack of data available for emulsified asphalt an**  **emission factor of 9.2 lb VOC/barrel asphalt used ( 9.2 lb VOC/350 lb asphalt) was used to**  **calculate VOC emissions from the use of emulsified asphalt in paving activities which was**  **obtained from EIIP volume III.** Assumptions **It was assumed that 5% of asphalt paving was conduc ted by agencies other than the state’s**  **Department of Transportation. After some search on asphalt application practices, it was**  **determined that cutback asphalt is typically applie d during November through March.**  **Moreover, emulsified asphalt is typically applied o nly in warm weather. This corresponds to the**  **months of May through September. Since there is a rule that bans applying cutback asphalt**  **during ozone season in St. Louis Area, it was assum ed that there is 80% compliance with this**  **rule.** Sample Calculation (Cole County) **Cutback Asphalt: VOC Emissions (tons/year) = amount of cutback aspha**  **lt (gallons) X population of county / population of district X volume % of diluent X dens**  **ity of diluent X weight % of diluent evaporated / (2000 lb/ton)**  **Population of Cole County: 71894 Population of Central District: 461578**  **Types of Asphalt Used in Central District : MC-250 & MC-30**  **Amount of MC-250 & MC-30 Used in Central District: 64659 gallons**  **Volume Percent of Diluent: 19% MC Diluent Density: 6.6755 lb/gallon** **11**

**Weight Percent Diluent Evaporated: 70% Activity Days Per Week: 5**  **Weeks Per Year Used (November to March): 39 VOC Emissions (tons/year) = 64659 gallons X 71894 /** **461578 X 0.19 X 6.6755 lb/gallon *.7 /** **2000lb/ton = 4.47 tons/year Emulsified Asphalt:**  **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = amount of emulsified as phalt (gallons) X density of asphalt**  **(lb/gallon) X Emission Factor (lb/lb) / 2000 Population of Cole County: 71894**  **Population of Central District: 461578 Amount of Emulsified Asphalt Used in Central Distri**  **ct: 7,001,817 lb VOC Emission Factor = 9.2 lb VOC/350 lb emulsified**  **asphalt Activity Days Per Week: 7**  **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = 7001817 X 71894/461578 X 9.2 lb/350 lb / 2000 lb/ton = 14.33**  **tons/year** 2.1.3 Results **The total VOC emissions from asphalt paving for the State of Missouri is 1270.4 tons/year.**  2.1.4 References

• Asphalt Paving **, Volume III: Chapter 17, Final Report, Area Source s Committee EIIP,**  **October 1998.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995.**
• **Customer Service Center, Department of Transportati on, Jefferson City, MO.** 
• **East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis C ity, MO.** **12**

2.2 Dry Cleaning 2.2.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Dry cleaning is considered a solvent evaporation em ission source of VOC. It involves the**  **cleaning of fabrics with non-aqueous organic solven t. The industry is divided into three sectors:**  **coin-operated facilities; commercial operations; an d industrial cleaners. Volatile organic**  **solvents that are used as cleaning solvents are emi tted during the dry cleaning process. The**  **petroleum solvents most commonly used in dry cleani ng are Stoddard solvent (mineral spirit)**  **and 140-F. The synthetic solvents that are used in dry cleaning, PERC, TCA, and CFC-113, are**  **not considered photochemically reactive and should not be included as a source of VOC**  **emissions; PERC and TCA, however, are hazardous air pollutants that should be included in an**  **air toxic inventory. TCA and CFC-113 are ozone-dep leting substances, and CFC-113 may be**  **listed in some state regulation as a toxic air poll utant. It is estimated that 82% of all dry cleanin**  **g facilities use PERC, 15% use petroleum solvents, 3%**  **use CFC-113, and less than 1% use TCA. However, based on study of national solvent use, 57**  **% of al dry cleaning solvents are petroleum solvents, 39% of the solvents are PERC, and 3 and 1**  **% are TCA and CFC-113, respectively, with a minor amount of unspecified solvents. Small dry**  **cleaning facilities, such as coin-operated sites use PERC exclusively, and larger facilities, such a**  **s commercial facilities use petroleum solvents, resulting in this disparity.**  2.2.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **The number of employees in dry cleaning facilities with SIC 7216 was used to estimate VOC**  **emissions. The number of employees was obtained fro m the U.S. Bureau of Census.**  **1**
Emission Factors **The Emission factor (1800 lb/employee/year) was obt ained from EIIP, Dry Cleaning. This**  **emission factor excludes emissions of PERC, TCA, an d CFC 113.**  Assumptions **It was assumed that coin-operated dry cleaners use PERC exclusively and 15 percent of the**  **remaining dry cleaners use petroleum solvents. Acc ording to EIIP volume III**  **2 , there is no**  **seasonal adjustment factor for dry cleaning. In ad dition, the activity days per week are 5 days.**  Sample Calculation (Cole County) **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = [(# of employees) X (pe rcent of facilities using petroleum**  **solvents) X (emission factor) / (2000 lb/ton) Emission Factor: 1800 lb VOC/employee/yr** **13**

**Number of Employees with SIC 7216 in Cole County: 5 9**  **Percent of Facilities with SIC 7216 that use Petrol eum Solvents: 15%**  **Activity Days Per Week: 5 VOC Emissions (tons/year) = 59 employees X 0.15 X (**  **1800 lb/employee/yr) / (2000 lb/ton) = 7.97 tons/year**  2.2.3 Results **Total VOC emissions from dry cleaners for the State of Missouri is 582.26 tons/year.**  2.2.4 References

• U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washing ton, D.C.
• Dry Cleaning, Volume III: Chapter 5, Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP, May 1996 2.3 Architectural Surface Coating 2.3.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Architectural surface coating is considered a solve nt evaporation emission of volatile organic**  **compounds (VOC) and is categorized as non-industria l surface coating. Architectural surface**  **coatings, trade paints, are used primarily by homeo wners and painting contractors to coat the**  **interior and exterior of houses and buildings and t he surfaces of other structures such as**  **pavements, curbs and signs. Volatile organic compo unds that are used as solvents in the**  **coatings are emitted during the application of the coating and as the coating dries. The amount**  **of coating used and the VOC content of the coating are the factors that primarily determine**  **emissions from architectural surface coating operat ions. Secondary sources of VOC emissions**  **are from the solvents used to clean the architectur al coating application equipment and VOC**  **released as reaction byproducts while the coating d ries and hardens. The resins used in a**  **particular coating determine VOC emitted from this chemical reaction. Since the use of organic**  **solvents in architectural surface coatings is the p rimary source of emissions, control techniques**  **for this source category involve either product sub stitution or product reformulation.**  2.3.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **The Activity level is based on population and estim ated gallons of paint (solvent and water**  **based) used nation wide. 1** **14**

Emission Factors **Emission factors for solvent based and water based paints are 3.87 lb/gallon and 0.74 lb/gallon**  **respectively. All emission factors were obtained f rom EIIP volume III.**  **2** Assumptions **A per capita emission factor was used to calculate emissions from this source category. This per**  **capita usage factor is calculated by dividing the t otal usage of surface coating materials by the**  **United States population. Activity was also assume d to be uniform 365 days per year.**  Sample Calculation (Cole County) **Using the alternative method from the EIIP Volume I II, Chapter3**  **3 , the estimated ozone season**  **daily VOC emissions from Cole County can be illustr ated as follows:**  **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = population of county X [(per capita water based factor X water**  **based emission factor) + (population of county X pe r capita solvent based factor X solvent based**  **emission factor)] / (2000 lbs/ton)**
**US Population: 288,368,698 Total Paint-water based (gallons): 589,527,000**  **Total Paint-solvent based (gallons): 119,914,000 Per Capita-water based factor = 589527000 / 2883686**  **98 = 2.044 gallons/person Per Capita-water based factor = 119914000 / 2883686**  **98 = 0.416 gallons/person Paint-water based Emission Factor: 0.74 lb/gallon**  **Paint-solvent based Emission factor: 3.87 lb/gallon Population of Cole County, 2002: 71,894**  **Activity Days per Week: 7 VOC Emissions (ton/year) = 71894 persons X (2.044**  **gal/person/yr X 0.74 lb/gal + 0.416 gal/person/yr X 3.87 lb/gal) / (2000 lbs/ton) = 112**  **.23 tons/year** 2.3.3 Results
**Total VOC emissions from architectural surface coat ing for the State of Missouri is 8855.2**  **tons/year. 15** 

2.3.4 References

• U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washing ton D.C.
• Architectural Surface Coating, Volume III: Chapter 5, Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996. 2.4 Auto Body Refinishing 2.4.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Auto body refinishing operations consist of four st eps: (1) vehicle preparation, (2) primer**  **application, (3) topcoat application, and (4) spray equipment cleaning. VOC emissions from**  **automobile refinishing are influenced by several fa ctors. Emissions from surface preparation**  **and coating applications are a function of VOC cont ent of the product used. Emissions are also a**  **function of the transfer efficiency of the spray eq uipment. Transfer efficiency is the percent of**  **paint solids that actually adheres to the surface b eing painted. Equipment with lower transfer**  **efficiency would require more material to be spraye d, thus, increasing VOC emissions.**  **Emissions from cleaning operations are dependent on the type of cleanup and housekeeping**  **practices used. There are six main approaches for reducing VOC emissions from auto-body**  **refinishing shops: use of lower-VOC coatings, use o f enclosed cleaning devices, increased**  **transfer efficiency, use of lower-VOC primers, use of solvent recovery system, and use of add-on**  **controls for their spray booths such as thermal inc ineration, catalytic incineration, and carbon**  **absorption. Other housekeeping activities can also be used to reduce emissions from auto body**  **refinishing operations. These activities include t ight fitting containers, reducing spills, mixing**  **paint to need, providing training, maintaining rigi d control of inventory, etc.**  2.4.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity level **The estimated national VOC emissions from auto body refinishing was apportioned to inventory**  **area using employment data with 7532 SIC obtained f rom Department of Commerce. Data for**  **2002 was not available therefore data from 1999 was used for purposes of calculation an**  **emission factor only.** Emission Factors **The emission factor is the number of employees in t he inventory area divided by the number of**  **employees nationwide with 7532 SIC.** Assumptions **It was assumed that the National VOC emissions from auto body refinishing are directly**  **proportional to employment. It was assumed that th e national EPA regulation promulgated on** **16**

**September 11, 1998 to control VOC emissions from th e use of Automobile refinishing coatings**  **would reduce emission by 37%.** Sample Calculation **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = [(# employees in invent ory area) / (# employees nation wide) X**  **(national VOC emissions from auto body refinishing) X percent reduction from regulation] /**  **(2000 lb/ton) Estimated National VOC emissions: 79429.39 tons**  **Number of Employees Nationwide: 205172 Number of Employees in Cole County: 60**  **Activity Days Per Week: 5 Percent Emissions Reduction from Regulation: 37%**  **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = National VOC Emissions / Number of Employees Nationwide X**  **Number of Employees in Cole County = 79429.39 / 205 172 X 60 = 23.23 tons/year.**  2.4.3 Results **The total VOC emissions from auto-body refinishing in the State of Missouri for 2002 is 1827.0**  **tons.** 2.4.4 References

• Auto Body Refinishing **, Volume III: Chapter 13, External Draft, Area Sour ces Committee**  **EIIP, January 1997.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• **U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washing ton, D.C.**  2.5 Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use 2.5.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Solvents contained in consumer and commercial produ cts are primarily released during product**  **use. Commercial and consumer products included in this category are:** 

• **Household products**
• **Toiletries**
• **Aerosol products**
• **Rubbing compounds 17** 

• **Windshield washing fluids**
• **Polishes and waxes**
• **Non-industrial adhesive**
• **Space deodorants**
• **Moth control**
• **Laundry detergents and treatment Organic compounds in these products may act either**  **as the carrier for the active product ingredients or as the active ingredients themselves**  **. The organic compounds may be released to the atmosphere through immediate evaporation of an**  **aerosol spray, evaporation after application or direct release in the gaseous phase.**  **Potential control strategies for VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products include**  **a change in the application method, product substit ution, product reformulation, and directions**  **for use, storage, and disposal.** 2.5.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Emissions from consumer and commercial products wer e estimated using a single per capita**  **emission factor from EIIP volume III, Chapter 5 and population data obtained from the United**  **States Bureau of Census.** Emission Factor **The per capita emission factor for commercial and c onsumer solvent use is 6.06 lbs./capita/yr.**  **The emission factor was adjusted from 7.84 to 6.06 to avoid double counting with pesticide**  **applications.** Assumption **VOC emissions are proportional to population. It w as assumed that the EPA consumer and**  **commercial products regulation finalized on March, 1996 would reduce emissions by 20%.**  Sample Calculation (Cole County) **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = population X emission f actor X Percent Reduction from**  **Regulation VOC Emission Factor: 6.06 lb/person/yr**  **Population of Cole County: 71,894 Percent Reduction of Emission from EPA Regulation:**  **20% 18** 

**Activity Days Per Week: 7 Percent Emissions Reduction from Regulation: 20%**  **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = 71894 persons X 6.06 l b/person/y) X (1 – 0.20) / (2000 lb/ton) =**  **174.271 tons/year.** 2.5.3 Results **The total VOC Emissions from Consumer/Commercial So lvent Use for the State of Missouri is**  **13750.3 tons/year.** 2.5.4 References

• Consumer and Commercial Solvent Use **, Volume III: Chapter 5, Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995.**
• **U.S. Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, Wash ington, D.C.** 
• **East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis City, MO.**  2.6 Bakeries 2.6.1 Source Description and Emission Control **The major pollutants emitted from bread baking are VOC emissions, chiefly the ethanol**  **produced as a byproduct of the leavening process. Commercial bread bakeries use four basic**  **dough processes: sponge and dough, straight dough, liquid ferment methods, and no-time dough.**  **Bread in its simplest form requires four ingredient s: flour, water, yeast, and salt. The primary**  **emission source at a bakery is the oven. Because th e ethanol produced by yeast metabolism is**  **generally liquid at temperature below 77 o**  **C or 170 o**  **F, it is not emitted in appreciable amounts until the dough is exposed to high temperature in t** **he oven. Bakery products that are not leavened with yeast do not produce ethanol and shou**  **ld not be considered for the VOC inventory.** 2.6.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **VOC emissions from bakeries in Missouri counties we re estimated using an employment based**  **emission factor. This emission factor encompasses emissions from liquid ferment, sponge and**  **dough methods. The total amount of VOC emitted by e ach county was calculated by multiplying**  **the emission factor with the number of employees. The employees for each county were based**  **on the NAICS numbers 3188 obtained from the U.S. C ensus Bureau.** **19**

Emission Factor **The emission factor of 220 tons VOC per employee-ye ar was derived by Radian Corporation in**  **the 1980’s.** Assumption **It was assumed that bakery production does not vary from season to season and that the activity**  **days per week are 6 days.** Sample Calculation (Boone County) **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = (# employees - # point source employees) X (emission factor) /**  **2000 lbs/ton. Bakeries Employment in Boone County: 59 employees**  **Bakeries Point Source Employment in Boone County: 0**  **Emission Factor: 220 lb/employee/yr Activity Days Per Week: 6**  **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = (59 – 0) employees X (2 20 lb/employee/yr) / (2000 lb/ton) = 6.49**  **tons/year.** 2.6.3 Results
**The total VOC emissions from bakeries for the State of Missouri is 499.18 tons/year.**  2.6.4 References

• Baked Goods at Commercial/Retail Bakeries **, Volume III: Area Source Method Abstracts, Area Sources Committee EIIP, July1999.** 
• **U.S. Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, Wash ington, D.C.** 
• **Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. Volu me I: Stationary Point and Area**  **Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality**  **Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995.**  2.7 Graphic Arts 2.7.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Graphic arts is considered a solvent evaporation so urce of VOC emissions and includes the**  **printing of news letters, books, magazines, fabric, wall covering and other materials. Graphic arts** **20**

**operations are performed on printing presses that a re made up of one or more “units”. Each unit**  **can print only one color. The substrate in graphic arts operations is either continuous and called**  **a “web,” or individual pieces of substrate called “ sheets.” The pattern that is printed on the**  **substrate is called the “image.” Five basic proce sses are used in the printing industry, including**  **flexography, letterpress, lithography, rotogravure, and screen process printing. Considerable**  **emissions originate from minor graphic arts applica tions, including in-house services in**  **nonprinting industries. The predominant emissions from graphic arts printing are VOC**  **contained in the printing inks, fountain solutions and cleaning solutions. Emissions from**  **proofing presses, cleaning operations, ink storage tanks, and ink mixing operations are relatively**  **minor compared to the emissions during the printing process, but they do contribute to overall**  **emissions. Afterburners, both thermal and catalytic, can be us**  **ed to control VOC emissions from the heatset web offset lithography, rotogravure printing, and f**  **lexography. Refrigeration of the dampening solution is a process change that can achieve appro**  **ximately 40 percent reduction of the VOC emissions. The use of lower- VOC-containing cleani**  **ng solutions can reduce VOC and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from clean**  **ing operations in all types of printing. Storing cleaning rags in closed containers can cont** **rol some of the fugitive emissions from cleaning.**  2.7.2 Emissions Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Ink sales nationwide were used to estimate emission from this source category. Ink sales in**  **pounds were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Census web site. The procedure to estimate**  **emissions from this source category is outlined in EIIP, volume III, Graphic Arts. Given the**  **time limitation and available resources, the first alternative method was used.**  Emission Factors **The following emission factors were obtained from E IIP, volume III, Graphic Arts.** 
Component Emission Factors Pound VOC Emitted per Pound of Ink Used Printing Type % Printing

Type Ink Fountain Solution Cleaning Solution **Rotogravure Flexography**  **Offset Lithography Letter Press**  **Screen 22** 

**16 35**  **8 19**  **0.70**

**0.60 0.38**  **0.24 0.12**  **NA**

**NA 2.75**  **NA NA**  **0.03**

**0.04 1.23**  **0.07**
Assumptions **Number of employees was assumed to be proportional to ink sales.** **21**

Sample Calculation **OSD VOC (lb) = (# employees in county – county poin t source # employees) / total area source**  **# employees X (Total area source ink usage) X ((% r otogravure ink solvent X rotogravure**  **emission factor) + ((% flexography ink solvent X fl exography emission factor) + ...) / (activity**  **days per week) X (1 yr / 52 week) X (seasonal activ ity factor) / 0.25**  **Total Ink Sales in US: 1642500000 lb Printing Employment in US: 1501714**  **Printing Employment in State: 43952 Total Ink Sales in State: 48072509.15**  **lb Point Source Ink Usage: 45122344.60**  **lb Total**  **Area Source Ink Usage: 2950164.54lb Total Area Source Printing Employment: 21585**  **Franklin County Printing Employment: 999 Franklin County Point Source Printing Employment: 2**  **31 Activity Days Per Week: 5**  **Seasonal Activity Factor: 0.25 OSD VOC = (999 – 231) / 21585 X 2950164.54 lb X ((0**  **.22 X 0.73) + (0.16 X 0.64) + (0.35 X 4.36) + (0.08 X 0.31) + (0.19 X 0.12)) / (5 days /**  **week) X (1 yr / 52 week) X 0.25 / 0.25 = 741.48 lb/day** 

2.7.3 References

• Graphic Arts **, Volume III: Chapter 7, Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP,**  **November 1996.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995.**
• **U.S. Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, Wash ington, D.C.** **22**

2.8 Solvent Cleaning 2.8.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Degreasing operations are considered solvent evapor ation emission sources of VOC and employ**  **non-aqueous solvents to remove grease, fats, oil, w ax or soil from the surface of metal, glass or**  **plastic articles which are to be electroplated, pai nted, repaired, inspected, assembled or**  **machined. Degreasing is not associated with any pa rticular industry, but is used in a variety of**  **industries. There are three types of degreasers: s mall cold cleaners; open top vapor degreasers;**  **and conveyorized degreasers. Open top vapor degrea sers and conveyorized degreasers are**  **usually large enough to be considered as point sour ces of emissions; therefore, only cold cleaners**  **were evaluated for this area source report. Design features that control solvent emissions from**  **batch cold cleaning machines include increased freeboard ration, covers, internal draina**  **ge rack, and visible fill line.** 2.8.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **EIIP Volume III, Chapter 6 discusses several method s that can be used to estimate emissions.**  **Given the available data and time limits, the emiss ion factor alternative method was used.**  Emission Factor **A per employee emission factor, 87 lb/employee, for total solvent cleaning was used to estimate**  **VOC emissions from solvent cleaning operations.** Sample Calculation **VOC Emissions ton/year = (population of county / po pulation of State X # of Employees in**  **State) X (emission factor) Population of Cole County: 71894**  **Population of State of Missouri: 5,672,579 # of Employees in State for Solvent Cleaning: 268,2**  **28 Emission Factor: 87 lb/employee/yr** 
**VOC Emissions ton/year = (71894 / 5672579 X 268228) employees X (87 lb/employees/yr) /**  **(2000 lb/ton) = 147.88 tons/year. 23** 

2.8.3 Results **The total VOC emissions from solvent cleaning in th e State of Missouri is 11667.92 tons/year.**  2.8.4 References

• Solvent Cleaning Use **, Volume III: Chapter 6, Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP,**  **September 1997.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995.**
• **United States Bureau of Census, Department of Comme rce, Washington, D.C.**  2.9 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Removal 2.9.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Leaking underground storage tanks are typically not considered a quantifiable source of**  **emissions until excavation and remediation efforts begin. The majority of air emissions from**  **leaking UST site remediations occur during initial site action, which is typically tank removal.**  **During tank removal, the leaking tank and the surro unding soil are removed and the soil is either**  **treated on-site or transported off site for treatme nt or disposal in a landfill. Emissions from the**  **soil occur as the tank is being removed and when so il is deposited on the ground before**  **treatment/disposal occurs. The magnitude of VOC em issions during remediation events depends**  **on several factors, most of all which are specific to each site. For this reason, determining**  **emissions for this activity is difficult. Factors influencing VOC emissions from soils include**  **type, concentration, and distribution of contaminan ts in the soil, the porosity and moisture**  **content of the soil, temperature, wind, shape, and surface area of the soil piles, the type of soil**  **handling equipment used and the duration of the ope ration.**  2.9.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **The number of leaking storage tanks removed in each county in 2002 was obtained from the**  **Missouri Hazardous Waste Program Tanks Section.** Emission Factors **Alternative Method 1 of EIIP, Leaking Underground S torage Tanks was used to determine VOC**  **emissions. An emission factor of 28 lb/day of reme diation event was used in calculations.** **24**

Sample Calculation **VOC Emissions in tons/year = # of leaking USTs remo ved X 28 lb/day X # of days per removal /**  **(2000 lb/ton) Emission Factor: 28 lb/day**  **# of leaking USTs removed in Cole County: 3 Average # of days to remove tanks: 1** 
**VOC Emissions tons/year = (3 tanks removed) X (28 l b/day/tank removed) X (1 day to remove)**  **= .042 tons/year** 2.9.3 Results **The total VOC emissions from the removal leaking un derground storage tanks in the State of**  **Missouri is 9.53 tons/year.** 2.9.4 References

• **U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washing ton, D.C.** 
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, **Volume III: Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP, December 2000** 
• **State of Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Progra m- Tanks Section records for 2002.**  2.10 Industrial Surface Coating 2.10.1 Source Description and Emission Control **“Surface coating operations involve applying a thin layer of coating (e.g., paint, lacquer, enamel,**  **varnish, etc.) to an object for decorative or prote ctive purposes. The surface coating products**  **include either a water-based or solvent-based liqui d carrier that generally evaporates in the**  **drying or curing process. The use of surface coatings by manufacturing indust** **ries and other sectors of the economy is pervasive. Applications include: (1) coatings that**  **are applied during the manufacture of a wide variety of products by Original Equipment Manufactu** **rers (OEMs) including furniture, cans, automobiles, other transportation equipment, machin**  **ery, appliances, metal coils, flat wood, wire, and other miscellaneous products, (2) architectural**  **coatings, and (3) special purpose coatings used for applications such as maintenance operation**  **s at industrial and other facilities, auto refinishing, traffic paints, marine finishes, and a**  **erosol sprays. For area source purposes, the small industrial surface coating category includes**  **OEM applications, some marine coatings, and maintenance coatings. This category does not inclu**  **de architectural surface coatings, traffic markings, automobile refinishing, or aerosols.** **25**

**The main approaches for reducing VOC emissions from small industrial surface coating**  **operations are (1) use of lower-VOC coatings, (2) u se of enclosed cleaning devices, and (3)**  **increased transfer efficiency. Other housekeeping activities can also be used to reduce emissions**  **from small industrial surface coating operations. These activities include using tight-fitting**  **containers, reducing spills, mixing paint to need, providing operator training, maintaining rigid**  **control of inventory, using proper cleanup methods, etc.**  2.10.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Alternative Method 1 of EIIP volume III, Industrial Surface Coating, was used to estimate VOC**  **emissions. This method is based on the national de fault per employee emission factors presented**  **in Table 8.5-1 of EIIP volume III, Industrial Surfa ce Coating.**  Emission Factors **The following table represents emission factors bas ed on SIC:** 
Category SIC Code Per Employee VOC Emission Factor (lb/yr) **Furniture and Fixtures 25 944**  **Metal Containers 341 6,029 Automobiles (new) 3711 794**  **Machinery and Equipment**  **35 77 Appliances 363 463**  **Other Transportation Equipment**  **37, except 3711 and 373**  **35 Sheet, Strip, and Coil 3479 2,877**  **Factory Finished Wood 2426-9, 243-245, 2493,**  **2499 131**  **Electrical Insulation 3357, 3612 290 Other Product Coatings NA**  **a NA**  **High-Performance Maintenance Coatings**  **NA NA Marine Coatings 373 308**  **Other Special Purpose Coatings**  **NA NA**

**a NA = not available, use per capita emission factors**  **from Table 8.5-2** Assumptions **All industrial surface coatings are accounted for i n the point source inventory.** **26**

2.10.3 Results
**Since all emissions of VOC from industrial surface coating are accounted for in the point source**  **inventory the amount of emissions for industrial su rface coating in the area source inventory for**  **the State of Missouri is zero.** 2.10.4 References

• Industrial Surface Coating **, Volume III: Chapter 15, Final Report, Area Source s Committee**  **EIIP, September 1997.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. **Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995.** 2.11 Vehicle Fires 2.11.1 Source Description and Emission Control **This emissions source category covers emissions fro m accidental vehicle fires. Vehicles**  **included are any commercial or private mode of tran sportation that are authorized for use on**  **public roads. Non-roadway fires such as rail, wate r, and air transportation are not included. The**  **pollutants emitted that are emitted from vehicle fi res that are included in this inventory are PM,**  **CO, and Nox.** 2.11.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Emissions from vehicle fires were calculated using the method suggested in the EIIP guidance**  **document for vehicle fires. First the number of ve hicle fires for each county was determined by**  **apportioning national data locally using vehicle mi les traveled. An emission factor was then used**  **to determine the amount of pollutants emitted.** Emission Factors Structural Fire Pollutants Emission Factor (lbs./ton Material)

**PM 100 CO 125**  **NOx 4** Assumptions **It was assumed that each vehicle has 500 pounds of components that can burn in a fire and that**  **fires occur 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. 27** 

Sample Calculation – Cole County **PM emissions (tons/year) = # of vehicle fires in US X (MO VMT/US VMT) X % of state VMT**  **in Cole County/100 X 500 lb/fire / 2000 lb/ton X em ission factor**  **Number of Vehicle Fires in US: 421440 National VMT: 2,799,258 million**  **Missouri VMT : 67,632 million % State VMT in Cole County: 0.907%**  **PM Emission Factor: 100 lb/ton Activity Days Per Week: 7**  **PM Emissions (tons/year) = 421440 Vehicle Fires in US X (67,632 million/2,799,258 million)**  **X 0.907/100 X 500 lb/fire / 2000 lb/ton X 100 lb/to n / 2000 lb/ton = 1.15 tons PM**  2.11.3 Results
**The emissions from structural fires for the State o f Missouri are as follows:** 

Table 1: Emissions from Structural Fires tons/year **PM 127.28**  **CO 159.2**  **NOX 5.09** 

2.11.4 References

• Vehicle Fires **, Area Source Method Abstracts, Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP,**  **May 2000.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment, Volume III: Chapter 1 **, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996** 
• United States Federal Highway Administration web-si te.**28**

2.12 Open Burning - Structure Fires 2.12.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Structural fires or building fires are considered a combustion source of VOC, NOx, CO, and PM**  **emissions. Like forest wildfires, they can produce large amounts of emissions over a short**  **period of time.** 2.12.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Emissions from structural fires were calculated usi ng the second alternative method in**  Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventor ies for Precursors of Ozone: Volume I **where an emission factor is applied to an estimate of the number of fires per county and a fuel**  **loading factor (1.15 tons/fire). The number of fir es per county was estimated by assuming that**  **an average of 2.3 fires occur per 1,000 people.** Emission Factors Structural Fire Pollutants Emission Factor (lbs./ton Material)

**VOC 11 CO 60**  **NOx 1.4 PM10 10.8**  Assumptions **The number of fires per county was estimated by ass uming that 2.3 fires occur per 1,000 people.**  Sample Calculation – Cole County **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = population X # fires pe r 1000 people X emission factor X fuel**  **loading factor / 2000 lb/ton Population of Franklin County: 71894**  **Number of Fires: 0.0023 fire/person/yr VOC Emission Factor: 11 lb/ton**  **Fuel Loading Factor: 1.15 tons/fire Activity Days Per Week: 7** **29**

**VOC Emissions (tons/year) = 71849 persons X 0.0023 fire/person/yr X 11 lb/ton X 1.15 tons/fire**  **/ 2000lb/ton= 1.046 ton/year** 2.12.3 Results
**The emissions from structural fires for the State o f Missouri are as follows:** 

Table1: Emissions from Structural Fires tons/year **VOC 82.5**  **CO 450.1**  **NOX 10.5**  **PM10 81.0** 

2.12.4 References

• Structure Fires **, Volume III: Chapter 18, Final Report, Area Source s Committee EIIP, July**  **1999.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment, Volume III: Chapter 1 **, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996** 
• U.S. Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, Wash ington, D.C. 2.13 Pesticide Application 2.13.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Pesticides are considered an evaporated source of V OC emission and are defined as any**  **substance used to kill or retard the growth of inse cts, rodents, fungi, weeds or microorganism.**  **Pesticides can be broken down into three chemical c ategories: synthetics, non-synthetics**  **(petroleum products), and inorganic. Formulations of pesticides are made through the**  **combination of the pest-killing material referred t o as the active ingredient, and various solvents,**  **which act as carriers for the pest-killing material , referred to as the inert ingredient. Both types o**  **f ingredients contain volatile organic compounds (VOC**  **) that can potentially be emitted to the air either during application or as result of evaporati**  **on. The VOC emission rate is influenced by the formulation (solid or solution) and method of appli**  **cation. Pesticide application can be broken down into two users categories: Agricultural and no**  **n-agricultural, which includes municipal, commercial, and consumer.** **30**

2.13.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Non-agricultural Pesticides: Due to difficulties in obtaining accurate informati**  **on related to non-agricultural pesticides, this category was not separated into municipal, commerci**  **al, and consumer subcategories. Emissions were estimated using alternative method 1 given in**  **EIIP, volume III, chapter 9. The method is based on population.**  **Agricultural Pesticides: The preferred method was used to estimate emissions**  **form agricultural pesticide. The method is based on pesticide applied, the formulation of the**  **pesticide, and the total acres to which the pesticide was applied. The acreage devoted to crop**  **s (alfalfa, corn, cotton, pasture, rice, sorghum, soybeans, tobacco, and wheat) for all coun**  **ties in 2002 was determined from the state Department of Agricultural (State Crop Statistics,**  **2002). Pesticide usage data was obtained from the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy**  **(NCFAP) via the Internet. The data included the pesticide used for each crop, the numb**  **er of acres treated, and the amount of active ingredient in each pesticide for 1992. Percent acti**  **ve ingredients and VOC contents ware obtained from Chemical & Pharmaceutical Press, Inc. via the**  **Internet.** Emission Factors **Non-agricultural Pesticides: The emission factor for non-agricultural pesticides**  **is 1.78 pound per person. This emission factor encompasses emissions from municipal, commer**  **cial, and consumer pesticide use and was taken from Table 5.4-1 of Chapter 5 (Consumer Solve**  **nt Use) of EIIP volume III. Agricultural Pesticides:**  **Emission factors are functions of application metho d and vapor pressure of pesticide active**  **ingredients. Emission factors and typical vapor pr essures for some of the active ingredients are**  **given in tables 9.4-4 and 9.4-2 of EIIP, volume III , Pesticide – Agricultural and Non-agricultural,**  **respectively.** Assumptions **It was assumed that the same kinds of pesticides us ed in 1992 were also used in 2002. It was**  **also assumed that the difference in the amount of p esticide used in 2002 from 1992 is**  **proportional to the difference in acres of crops ha rvested between 1992 and 2002. Missing**  **active ingredients and VOC contents for some the pe sticides were assumed to be 50% each.** **31**

Sample Calculation (Cole County) **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = non-agricultural VOC Em issions + agricultural VOC Emissions**  **Non-agricultural Pesticides: Population of Cole County: 71894 persons**  **Emission Factor: 1.78 lb/person/yr Activity Days Per Week: 6 days**  **VOC Emissions (ton/year) = population X emission fa ctor = 71894 X 1.78 / 2000 = 63.99**  **tons/year Agricultural Pesticides:** 
**Total Pesticides Applied for Sorghum in Missouri** Pesticide Acres treated Pounds of active ingredient **2,4-D 43200**  **27648 ALACHLOR 122400**  **210528 ATRAZINE 619200**  **780192 BROMOXYNIL 7200**  **2376 GLYPHOSATE 14400**  **10224 METHOLACHLOR 237600**  **358776 PROPACHLOR 79200**  **250272 CARBARYL 36000**  **36000 CARBOFURAN 28800**  **24192 CHLORPYRIFOS 14400**  **10224 DIAZINON 14400**  **720 0**  **MALATHION 21600 21600**  **METHOMYL 7200 3600**  **PHORATE 7200 8**  **064 TERBUFOS 7200**  **57 60**  **Total 1 260 000 Acres 1 756 656 lbs. AI.**  **Vapor Pressure of 2,4-D: 8.0 X 10 -6**  **Application Method: Soil Incorporation Emission Factor: 5.4 lb/ton**  **Percent Active Ingredient (%A.I.): 47.9 32** 

**Percent Inert Ingredient: 52.1 Pesticide Applied: 27648 lb /0.479 X 1.13 = 16450 l**  **b Inert Ingredient VOC Content: 21%**  **Activity Days Per Week: 6 days VOC Emissions ton/year = Sum[pesticide applied (lb)**  **X [fraction active ingredient X emission factor/2000 + fraction inert ingredient X fraction**  **VOC in formulation]/2000 VOC Emissions from 2,4-D (tons/year) = 16540 lb/yea**  **r X [0.479 X 5.4 lb/ton / 2000 + 0.521 X 0.21] / = .9 tons/year**  **VOC Emissions (lb/ozone season day) from 2,4-D = .9** **tons/year X (.233/.25) / (6*52) = 7.732** **lb/osd Total VOC Emissions (tons/year) from all pesticide**  **applied to Sorghum = 102.7 tons/year Total VOC Emissions (tons/year) from all pesticide**  **applied to Sorghum in Cole County = Total VOC Emissions X Total Harvested Sorghum Acres in Fr**  **anklin County / Total Harvested Sorghum Acres in Missouri**  **Total Harvested Sorghum Acres in Cole County: 180 Total Harvested Sorghum Acres in Missouri: 153985**  **VOC Emissions for Cole County for all pesticide app lied to Sorghum ton/year = 102.7 ton/year**  **X 180/153985 = .12 tons/year Total VOC Emissions from all pesticide applied to a**  **ll crops in Cole County = 10.11 ton/day. Total VOC Emissions from Agricultural and Non-agric**  **ultural pesticide applied in Cole County = 10.11 tons/year + 63.99 ton/year = 74.1 lb/day.**  2.13.3 Results **The total VOC emissions from pesticide application for the State of Missouri is 10997.4**  **ton/year.** 2.13.4 References

• Pesticides- Agricultural & Nonagricultural **, Volume III: Chapter 9, Final Report, Area Sources Committee EIIP, December 1997.** 
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** **33**

• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995.**
• **United States Bureau of Census, Department of Comme rce, Washington, D.C.** 
• **East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis C ity, MO.** 
2.14 Open Burning- Residential Solid Waste 2.14.1 Source Description And Emission Control **Open burning is considered a combustion source of V OC, NOx and CO emissions. Open**  **burning may be done in open drums or baskets, yards or dumps. The most effective control**  **technique of open burning emissions is to ban open burning and require management of these**  **wastes by other methods.** 2.14.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Residential Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Burning Emission estimates for residential MSW burning were**  **developed by first estimating the amount of waste generated for each county in the United St**  **ates. The amount of waste generated was estimated using a national average per capita waste**  **generation factor, which is 3.31 lbs/person/day (.6 tons/person/year). To better re**  **flect the actual amount of household residential waste subject to being burned, non-combustibles (gl**  **ass and metals) and yard waste generation were subtracted out. This factor was then applied**  **to the portion of the county’s total population that is considered rural based on 1990 Census data**  **on rural and urban population, since open burning is generally not practiced in urban areas.**  **For rural populations, it is estimated that 25 to 3 2 percent of the municipal waste generated is**  **burned. A median value of 28 percent was assumed f or the nation, and this correction factor was**  **applied to the total amount of waste generated. Controls (or burning bans) were accounted for by as**  **suming that no burning takes place in counties where the urban population exceeds 80 perc**  **ent of the total population (i.e., urban plus rural). Zero open burning emissions were attributed**  **to these counties. Residential Yard Waste Burning**  **A national per capita waste generation average dail y value of 0.117 tons yard waste/person/year**  **was used as the basis for yard waste open burning e missions. It was assumed that 28 percent of**  **the total yard waste generated is burned and that b urning occurs primarily in rural areas.** **34**

**Controls (or burning bans) were accounted for by as suming that no burning takes place in**  **counties where the urban population exceeds 80 perc ent of the total population (i.e., urban plus**  **rural). Zero open burning emissions were attribute d to these counties.**  Emission Factors **Emissions factors for VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10 were o btained from AP- 42 (Table 2.5-1).** 

**VOC NOx CO PM10 MSW 30 6 85 38**  **Yard Waste 28 4 140 38** Sample Calculation (Cole County) **Waste Generation Factor (MSW) = .604 tons/person/ye ar**  **Waste Generation Factor (Yard Waste) = .117 tons/pe rson/year**  **Population = 71,894 % Rural = 31%**  **% Waste Generated that is Burned (MSW and Yard Wast e) = 28%** 
**MSW Burning PM10 Emissions (tons/year) = Population X % Rural X Waste Generation Factor**  **X % Waste that is Burned X PM10 Emission Factor / 2 000**  **MSW Burning PM10 Emissions (tons/year) = (71894) X (.31) X (.604) X (.28) X (38) / 2000 =**  **71.26 tons/year Yard Waste Burning PM10 Emissions (tons/year) = Pop**  **ulation X Yard Waste Generation Factor X % Rural X % of Waste that is Burned X PM10 EF /20**  **00 Yard Waste Burning PM10 Emissions (tons/year) = (71**  **894) X (.31) X (.117) X (.28) X (38) / 2000= 13.87 tons/year**  2.14.3 Results **Total emissions from open burning of municipal soli d waste and yard waste for the State of**  **Missouri are as follows:**

**VOC (ton/yr) Nox (ton/yr) CO (ton/yr) PM10 (ton/yr) MSW 4120.34 6824.07 11674.29 5219.09**  **Yard Waste 748.65 106.95 3743.27 1016.03 35** 

2.14.4 References

• Open Burning **, Volume III: Chapter 16, Revised Final, Area Sourc es Committee EIIP,**  **January 2001.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995.**
• Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventor ies for Precursors of Ozone: **Volume I, Draft Report, EPA-450/4-91-016, EPA, Research Trian**  **gle Park, NC, May 1991.**
• Documentation for the Draft 1999 National Emissions Inventory For Criteria Air Pollutants, **Area Sources, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., NC, S eptember 2001.**  2.15 Open Burning-Forest/Wild Fires 2.15.1 Source Description and Emission Control **A wildfire is a large-scale natural combustion proc ess that consumes various ages, sizes, and**  **types of flora growing outdoors in a geographical a rea. Consequently, wildfires are potential**  **sources of large amounts of air pollutants that sho uld be considered when trying to relate**  **emissions to air quality. The size and intensity, even the occurrence, of a w**  **ildfire depend directly on such variables as meteorological conditions, the species of vegetatio**  **n involved and their moisture content, and the weight of consumable fuel per acre (available fuel**  **loading). Once a fire begins, the dry combustible material is consumed first. If the ener**  **gy release is large and of sufficient duration, the drying of green, live material occurs, with sub**  **sequent burning of this material as well. Under proper environmental and fuel conditions, this proc**  **ess may initiate a chain reaction that results in a widespread conflagration.**  **The complete combustion of wildland fuels (forests, grasslands, wetlands) require a heat flux**  **(temperature gradient), adequate oxygen supply, and sufficient burning time. The size and**  **quantity of wildland fuels, meteorological conditio ns, and topographic features interact to**  **modify the burning behavior as the fire spreads, an d the wildfire will attain different degrees of**  **combustion efficiency during its lifetime. This area source inventory will describe the proced**  **ures and applied approach for estimating emissions from this area source of forest fires.**  2.15.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **An alternative method was used rather than the two methods provided in the Wildfires and**  **prescribed Burning, EIIP volume III. County emissi ons from wildfires were calculated based on** **36**

**an annual report, submitted to the Missouri Departm ent of Conservation, from each county**  **reporting the number of acreage burned.** Emission Factors **The following table lists emission factors from the EPA AP-42**  Pollutant Emission

Factor (Lbs./ton) Fuel Loading Factor (tons/acre) VOC **16 11** NOx **4 11** CO **140 11**
Sample Calculation (Cole County) **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = # acres burned X fuel l oading factor X Emission Factor / 2000.**  **Acres Burned in Cole County: 35 acres VOC Emission Factor: 16 lb/ton**  **Fuel Loading Factor: 11 tons/acre**
**VOC Emissions (tons/year) = 35 acres X 11 ton/acre X 16 lb/ton / 2000 lb/ton = 3.1 ton/year.**  2.15.3 Results **The emissions from forest fires for the State of Mi ssouri are as follows:** 

**VOC 4389.4 tons/year CO 38407.6 tons/year**  **NOX 1097.4 tons/year**

2.15.4 References

• **“Assessment of Biomass Burning in the United States ”, Bill Leenhouts, U.S. Fish and**  **Wildlife Service, 1998.**
• **Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volu me I: Stationary Point and Area**  **Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air**  **Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle P ark, NC, January 1995.** **37**

2.16 Gas Distribution 2.16.1 Source Description and Emission Control **This area source category estimates the volatile or ganic compound (VOC) emissions resulting**  **from the storage and transfer operations at gasolin e dispensing facilities. Emissions from storage**  **and transfer operations include the working losses and breathing losses from underground tanks,**  **vapors displaced through vehicle refueling and spil lage.**  **The area sources of evaporative VOC emissions from the distribution of gasoline that are**  **covered in this category include the following:**

• **Truck in transit:**

**Evaporation of gasoline vapor from loaded tank truc ks during transportation of**  **gasoline from the bulk plant/terminal to the servic e station or other dispensing outlet,**  **and from empty tank trucks returning from service s tations to bulk plant/terminals.** 

• **Stage I: Displacement of gasoline vapors from the storage ta** **nks during the transfer of gasoline from tank trucks to storage tanks at the s**  **ervice station.**

• **Stage II:**

**Displacement of gasoline vapors from vehicle gasoli ne tanks during vehicle refueling.**  **Spillage of gasoline during either delivery activit y above may also include. This loss**  **includes prefill and postfill nozzle drip and spitb ack and overflow from the filler pipe**  **of the vehicle’s fuel tank during filling.**

• **Storage tank working losses: Evaporation of gasoline vapors from the storage tan**  **k and from the lines going to the pumps during transfer of gasoline.**  **VOC emissions from this area source category are in fluenced by several factors. Fuel volatility**  **measured as Reid vapor pressure (RVP) affects the e vaporation rate of gasoline. The technology**  **for loading tank trucks and tanks (splash loading, submerged loading, vapor balance, etc.) affects**  **the release of displacement emissions. Tank charac teristics (color and design) affect working**  **losses from aboveground storage tanks. Emissions from underground tank filling operations**  **at service stations (stage I emissions) can be reduced by the use of a vapor balance system, which** **consists of a hose that returns gasoline vapors displaced from the underground tanks during**  **filling back to the tank truck, as well as measures to ensure tightness of the truck. The con**  **trol efficiency of the balance system can range from 93 to 100 percent.** **38**

**Emissions from vehicle refueling (stage II emission s) also can be reduced by a vapor balance**  **system. During refueling, the vapors displaced fro m the vehicle fuel tanks are returned to the**  **underground tanks through the use of a special nozz le. Stage 1 controls have been implemented**  **in attainment (Only in Kansas City) and five nonatt ainment areas. Stage II controls are required**  **in five St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas.** 2.16.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **Since volume of gasoline distribution at the county level and information such as sales tax data,**  **gasoline sales data from fuel distributors and reta ilers are not available, vehicles miles travel**  **(VMT) provided by the Missouri Department of Transp ortation is the only available information**  **can be used to determine gasoline consumption. It should be noted that the disadvantage of**  **using VMT is that it is a measure of vehicle activi ty in the area, not a measure of the fuel**  **dispensed in the inventory area. VMT produced by v ehicles simply passing through the area that**  **did not refuel in the inventory region would tend t o overstate the vehicle refueling activity level.**  **The VMT used for this inventory was taken from The Missouri Department of Transportation.**  **This 2002 VMT count only takes into account state r outes. In order to account for the off-system**  **routes, an additional 30% was added to the state ro ute VMT in order to produce an estimated**  **total VMT for both state routes and off-system rout es.**  **For the St. Louis Non-Attainment area, a much more reliable VMT was used. The East-West**  **Gateway Coordinating Council sponsored a VMT study for the model year 2004. This study was**  **completed by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments travel demand model, which is curren**  **tly maintained within CUBE VOYAGER modeling software. The method used is much more ac**  **curate and in-depth than the method used by MoDOT in estimating VMT. Therefore, it was used**  **in-place of the MoDOT-generated VMT for the following counties:** 

• **St. Louis City**
• **St. Louis County**
• **St. Charles County**
• **Jefferson County**
• **Franklin County**

**. 39** 

Emission Factors

• **Gasoline truck in transit, fuel delivery to outlets and storage tank Breathing Emission Factors** 

**Emission Source lb/1000 gal. Throughput**  **Empty Tank Trucks b**  **Full Tank Trucks c**  **0.005 0.005**  **Filling Underground Tank (Stage I) Submerged Filling**  **Splash Filling Balanced Submerged Filling**  **Underground Tank Breathing 7.3**  **11.5 0.3**  **1.0 Source : AP-42 Tables 5.2-5, 5.2-7**  **b & c , Midpoint to typical range provided in AP-42**

• **Vehicle refueling emission factors The MOBILE 6 model was used to generate refueling e**  **mission factors for gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles, and emission factors for tailpipe**  **emissions and refueling activities. The emissions estimation methodologies for this are**  **a source category have the following relationship:**  **Emission = Emission Factor x Activity Level Where Activity level is total gasoline consumption.**  **The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) annually publishes Highway Statistics, which**  **contains gasoline consumption data for each state.**  **Another approach can be used is to use information on annual emissions and fuel consumption**  **for an “Average Passenger Car and Light Truck” publ ished by the U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissio ns Laboratory. Since MOBILE 6 is**  **available, this approach was not considered in this study.**  Assumptions **The report “1996 Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Clas sified by District, County and System”**  **provided by the Missouri Department of Highway Tran sportation and the “1995 Relationships –**  **Population, Drivers, Vehicles, Fuel, and Travel “ w as used to derive the gasoline consumption**  **distributed at each county of study in Missouri. The effective emission reduction for Stage I and II**  **vapor recovery systems is 95% control efficiency.** **40**

**The average miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency of the gasoline-powered motor fleet. This value,**  **16.73 miles per gallon, taken from the 1995 Relatio nships table 5.1. Published by the Missouri**  **Department of Highway and Transportation. Using EIIP Volume III- Chapter 11 “Gasoline Marketi**  **ng (Stage I and Stage II)” as a guide to estimate evaporative VOC emissions from the distrib**  **ution of gasoline that are covered in this chapter.**  **Gasoline consumption is proportional to gasoline st ation sales.**  **There are approximately 1050 gasoline station outle ts in five nonattainment areas that**  **implement either Stage I and Stage II; and about 25 0 gasoline station outlets in Platte, Clay, and**  **Jackson counties that implement Stage I.** Sample Calculation (St. Louis County) **To estimate ozone emissions from gasoline marketing in St. Louis County, the total gasoline**  **distributed (TGD) in this inventory region is TGD = Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) X Average Miles**  **per gallon (EF) = 47,955,115 miles X 16.73 gallons per mi**  **le = 802,958,274.53 gallons.**  **a. Emissions from Gasoline Trucks in transit assumin g that gasoline consumption is**  **proportional to gasoline station sales. TTE = TGD X LEF X GTA)/ (TGD X UEF X GTA)**  **Where: TTE = Total gasoline emissions from tank trucks in**  **transit (tons per year) LEF = Loaded tank truck in-transit emission factor**  **from Table 11.3.1 (0.055 lb/1000 gal) UEF = Unloaded tank truck in-transit emission facto**  **r from Table 11.3.1 (0.005 lb/1000 gal)**  **GTA = 1.25, a national default rate as gasoline tra nsportation adjustment factor.**  **TTE = ((802,958,274.53 X 0.055 X 1.25) + (802,958,2 74.53 X 0.005 X 1.25))/ (2000 X**  **1000) = 30.11 tpy**  **b. Emissions from Fuel Delivery to Outlets FDO = (TGD X FDOE)/ (2000 X 1000)**  **Where: 41** 

**FDO = Emissions from Fuel Delivery to Outlets in to ns per year (tpy)**  **FDOE = Uncontrolled gasoline emission factor (27 lb s/1000 gals) X Stage 1 control (90**  **%) which is 27 lbs/1000 gals X 0.1 = 0.3 lbs/1000 g als**  **FDO = (802,958,274.53 X 0.3) / (2000 X 1000) = 120. 44 tpy**  **c. Emissions from Storage Tank Breathing STB = (TGD X STBE)/ (2000 X 1000)**  **Where: STB = Emissions from Storage Tank Breathing in ton**  **per year (tpy) STBE = 1.0lb/1000 gallons taken from Table 11.3-1,**  **EIIP Volume III STB = (802,958,274.53 X 1.0)/ (2000 X 1000)**  **= 401.48 tpy** 2.16.3 Results **The emissions from Gasoline Distribution for the st ate of Missouri are as follows:**  2.16.4 References

• **AP-42 Tables 5.2-5, 5.2-7 b & c , Midpoint to typic al range provided in AP-42** 
• **EIIP Volume III- Chapter 11 “Gasoline Marketing (St age I and Stage II)”** 
• **“2002 Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Classified by D istrict, County and System”** 
• **Missouri Department of Highway Transportation**
• **“1995 Relationships – Population, Drivers, Vehicles , Fuel, and Travel”**  2.17 Landfills 2.17.1 Source Description and Emission Control **This section covers the estimation of non-point sou rce landfill emission sources. These are**  **generally old, unpermitted landfills and closed lan dfills not reporting yearly emissions as point**  **sources. A municipal solid waste landfill (MSW) un it is a discrete area of land or an excavation**  **that receives household waste and other types of wa stes such as commercial solid waste,**  **nonhazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste. T his emission estimation method presented**  **below is not suitable for treatment, storage and di sposal facilities (TSDFs) or open dumps.**  **Landfills are significant sources of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). In addition to**  **CH4 and CO2 a small amount of nonmethane organic co mpounds (NMOCs) are produced.**  **NMOCs include reactive volatile organic compound (V OCs) and hazardous air pollutants**  **(HAPs). Unlike other area sources that may be smal l sources individually but numerous within**  **the inventory area, only a few landfills may be fou nd within a county area. However, each**  **landfill may emit significant amounts of pollutants . Landfills differ from sources typically** **42**

**categorized as point or major sources in that pollu tants are emitted over the area of the landfill,**  **not at a specific point. For those reasons, landfi lls have been treated as area sources in the past.**  **Recently, air-operating permits have been required for landfills, so that inventory prepares have**  **begun to address them as point sources. Landfill emissions are collected through either act**  **ive or passive collection systems. The combustion or purification of the landfill gas can**  **accomplish disposal or treatment of the collected gases.**  **As mentioned above, this area source category cover s emissions from non-point source landfills.**  **Since the method of estimating emissions utilized b y this method is based on the average**  **amount of refuse generated per capita, the known ga seous emissions generated by waste**  **disposed of in permitted sanitary landfills must be removed from the totals. This was done by**  **subtracting the reported point source VOC totals fo r each county from the total estimated by the**  **population method. In certain counties, large regi onal waste facilities generate VOC emissions**  **which are greater than the area source total. This results in a net negative VOC emissions value**  **for those particular counties. However, negative v alues cannot be reported on the NIF tables.**  **Only a “zero” value can be reported. To solve this , the negative emissions value was applied to**  **bordering counties in order to balance out the know n point-source VOC emissions without**  **creating a negative number for the county in which the point source landfill resides.**  2.17.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **The emissions from municipal landfills were calcula ted by using the population-based waste**  **generation factor. Although landfills can generate emissions for many years, the greatest**  **emissions were assumed to be emitted from waste 25 years old.**  Emission Factors **The per capita waste generation factor is from the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and**  **Emergency Response annual publication, Characteriza tion of Municipal Solid Waste in the**  **United States: 1995 Update. The projection data wa s obtained from the United States Census**  **Bureau.** Assumptions

• **Population figures for the inventory year and 24 pr evious years for a total of 25 years of**  **population data were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census.** 
• **The waste generation factor of 0.69 tons/person/yea r was multiplied by the population of**  **each year.**
• **0.9072 to get megagrams multiplied tons.**
• **The average annual wastes were calculated and the v alues were used in the following**  **equation: 43**  **Q CH4**  **= L o**  **R (e -kc**  **– e -kt**  **) Where:**  **Q CH4**  **= Methane generation rate at time t, m 3**  **/yr; L**  **o = Methane generation potential, m**  **3 CH4/Mg refuse;**  **R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during ac tive life, Mg/yr;**  **E = Base log, unitless; k = Methane generation rate constant, yr**  **-1 ;**  **c = time since landfill closure, years (c=0 for act ive landfills); and**  **t = Time since the initial refuse placement, years. According to EIIP volume III there is a 0.25 season**  **al activity factor.**
Sample Calculations (Franklin County) **Using the per capita waste generation factor from t he U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and**  **Emergency Response annual publication,** Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update and the **population data obtained from the United States Ce nsus**  **Bureau. The estimated emissions from the Franklin County in**  **ventory area can be illustrated, as follows: Waste Generation Factor: 0.69 tons/person/yr**  **Franklin’s Average Annual Refuse Acceptance Rate du ring Active Life: 46730 Mg/yr.**  **Assuming that c = 0, and t = 6 Methane generation rate at time t, m**  **3 /yr:**  **Q CH4**  **= 125*46730*(1 – e** **-0.04*6** **) = 1246373 Non-methanogenic organic compound emission rate (Q**  **NMOC ), m**  **3 /yr**  **Q NMOC**  **= 2*Q** **CH4** ***C NMOC**  **/(1*10** **6 )**  **Where; C**  **NMOC = Total NMOC concentration in landfill gas, ppmv a**  **s hexane = 1170 Q**  **NMOC** **= 2*1246373*1170/(1*10** **6 ) = 2917 m**  **3 /yr** **44**

**The mass emission per year of total NMOCs, kg/yr M**  **NMOC = Q**  **NMOC** ***1050.2/(273+T) Where;**  **T = Temperature of landfill gas ( o**  **C) M**  **NMOC** **= 2917*1050.2/(273+25) = 22648 kg/yr** **Franklin’s Uncontrolled NMOC emission Reported as H APs – H**  **NMOC : 1150 lbs./day**  **VOC Emission Factor = [M NMOC**  **- H NMOC**  **]/R = [22648 – 1150]/ 46730 = 0.46** **VOC Emissions = R * 0.46/365 = 46730 * 0.46/ 365 =** **59 lbs./day VOC Actual Emissions = VOC Emissions Area Source –**  **VOC Emission Point Source VOC Actual Emissions = 59 – 20 = 39 lbs./day** 

2.17.3 Results
**The total VOC emissions from area source landfills in the state of Missouri is 455.38 tons/year.**  2.17.4 References

• **Missouri Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling**
• **Status Report For Calendar Year – 2001**
• **The U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re sponse annual publication,**  **Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the Un ited States: 1995 Update. EPA 530-R**  **95-001 PB96-152 160. March**
• **Landfills, Volume III: Chapter 15, Final Report, Ar ea Sources Committee EIIP, September**  **1997**
• **Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area**  **Sources Committee EIIP, 2002**
• **Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. Volu me I: Stationary Point and Area**  **Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality**  **Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995** 
• **United States Bureau of Census** 2.18 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Combustion 2.18.1 Fuel Description **This source category covers air emissions from liqu efied petroleum gas (LPG) combustion in the**  **residential, commercial/institutional, and small in dustrial sectors for space heating, water** **45**

**heating, or cooking. This category includes small b oilers, furnaces, heaters and other heating**  **units that are not inventoried as point sources. Re sidential and commercial sectors comprise**  **housing units; wholesale and retail businesses; hea lth institutions; social and educational**  **institutions; and federal, state and local governme nt institutions (e.g., military installations,**  **prisons, office buildings). LPG consists of propane, propylene, butane, and but**  **ylenes; the products used for domestic heating are composed primarily of propane. The lar**  **gest market for LPG is the domestic/commercial market. There are three grades**  **of LPG available as heating fuels: commercial-grade propane, engine fuel-grade propane**  **, and commercial-grade butane. The second largest use of LPG is by the chemical indust**  **ry, where it is used as a petrochemical feedstock, and the agriculture industry. Propane i**  **s also used as an engine fuel as an alternative to gasoline and as a standby fuel for facilities th**  **at have interruptible LPG service contracts.** 2.18.2 Emission Estimation Methodology **The combustion processes that use LPG are very simi lar to those that use natural gas. LPG is**  **considered a “clean” fuel because it does not produ ce visible emissions. The criteria pollutants**  **emitted, VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, and PM, are produced in small amounts.**  Activity **Residential Sources: The 2000 Census Bureau data contains information on** **the primary fuel combusted by houses by county.**  Census 2000 – American Fact Finder - Summary File 3 , Table H40. House Heating Fuel **provides data on the number of occupied housing un its in each county using the following**  **categories of fuels: Utility gas (assumed to be na tural gas), bottled, tank, or LP gas, electricity,**  **fuel oil, kerosene, etc., coal or coke, wood, solar energy, other fuel, or no fuel used.**  **The LPG burned at the state level is apportioned to the county level using U.S. Census data on**  **households that use LPG as a primary fuel. The Dep artment of Energy (DOE) Energy**  **Information Administration (EIA) provides state-lev el fuel consumption for residential,**  **commercial, and industrial sectors. The equation i s:**  **County LPG use = Statewide LPG use X County LPG bur ning households**  **State LPG bur ning households**  **Commercial/Institutional Sources: 2002 employment data was obtained from the Missouri**  **Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC). Commercial/Institutional and Indus**  **trial sector employment was aggregated for Missouri employees working in the NAICS categor**  **ies as outlined in Section 1.3.1. The LPG burned at the state level is apportioned to**  **the county level using 2002 MERIC employment data in NAICS categories 11, and 42-92.**  **The equation is: 46** 

**County LPG Use = Statewide LPG use X NAICS 11, 42-9 2 employees by county** 

**NAICS 11, 42-92 emplo yees by state**  **Industrial sources: The LPG burned at the state level is apportioned to**  **the county level using 2002 MERIC employment data in NAICS categories 21-33. The equ**  **ation is: County LPG use = Statewide LPG use X NAICS 21-33 em**  **ployees by county**

**NAICS 21-33 employees by state**  LPG Emission Factors **Emission factors for combustion of LPG in commercia l boilers are presented in Table 1.5-1 of**  **Section 1.5 of** AP-42 **(EPA, 1998a). Because no emission factors were loca ted for the**  **combustion of LPG for residential consumption, emis sion factors for commercial boilers are**  **used for residential emissions.**

Table 2.18-1. LPG Combustion Emission Factors Point SCC: n/a 10301002 10201002 Area SCC: 2104007000 2103007000 2102007000 Pollutant Residential Commercial Industrial

EF (lb/1000 Gallons) EF (lb/1000

Gallons) EF (lb/1000

Gallons) VOC 0.5 0.5 0.5 NOX 14 14 19 CO 1.9 1.9 3.2 SO2 0.016 0.016 0.016 PM10 & 2.5 PRI 7.6 7.6 7.6 PM10 & 2.5 (Filterable) 1.9 1.9 1.9 PM10 & 2.5 (Condensable) 5.7 5.7 5.7
**The emission factor for SO2 requires knowledge of t he sulfur content of the LPG. The sulfur**  **content of LPG is very low. EPA’s SO2 emissions est imate is derived from the sulfur content of**  **the propane fuel. With 90% of LPG comprised of prop ane, the EPA’s propane emissions factor**  **is a reasonable value for LPG emissions rates. The obtained estimates range from approximately**  **0.0185% sulfur by weight to 0.060125% sulfur by wei ght. The statistical average or arithmetic**  **mean of these four estimates is 0.0333% sulfur by w eight. The wide range of emissions factors**  **for SO2 makes it difficult to determine a represent ative estimate for the emissions factor and the**  **very small net effect of any energy-efficiency stan dard argue against making a significant** **47**

**research effort. Therefore, the AP-42 emission fac tor used in the example of 0.016 lb of**  **SO2/1000 gallon will be used.** Temporal Adjustments for Ozone **For the 8-hour ozone NAAQS emission inventory, EPA guidance calls for CO, NOx, and VOC**  **emissions to be reported as actual annual and actua l summer weekday. Summer weekday**  **emissions are defined as an average day’s emissions for a typical summer day during the ozone**  **season, typically defined as the months of June, Ju ly, and August. Fossil fuel consumption drops**  **substantially during the summer months when the nee d for space heating is virtually zero. A**  **seasonal activity factor is therefore needed to ref lect the proportion of fuel consumption that**  **takes place in June-August relative to annual consu mption and emissions.**  **The best way to determine the seasonal activity fac tor is to obtain activity data that are specific**  **for the location and season of interest. The most specific activity data available is Missouri**  **monthly natural gas consumption data for 2002 for t he residential, commercial, and industrial**  **sectors obtained from the EIA. This same activity data was used to derive a residential,**  **commercial/institutional, and industrial seasonal a ctivity factor (SAF) for all the area source**  **fossil fuel combustion calculations, which should h ave very close to the same proportion of fuel**  **consumed in June-August. Monthly natural gas consu mption data for 2002 for the residential,**  **commercial, and industrial sectors were obtained fr om the EIA table,**  Natural Gas Production & Use by Missouri

**. Residential:**  **Average ozone summer day (OSD) emission estimates w ere calculated using the equation:**  **Ave. emissions Annual LPG use in June-Aug ust**  **per = __emissions__X __ LPG use in 2002_ _**  **summer day (Operating days/season = 92) (LPG used in June-August)/(LPG used in 2002) is the**  **Seasonal Activity Factor SAF=0.0655. The number of activity days per week for residentia**  **l activities are 7. Commercial/Institutional:**  **Average ozone summer day (OSD) emission estimates w ere calculated using the equation:**  **Ave. emissions Annual LPG use in June-Aug ust**  **per = __emissions__X __ LPG use in 2002_ _**  **summer day (Operating days/season = 79) (LPG used in June-August)/(LPG used in 2002) is the**  **Seasonal Activity Factor SAF=0.0950. 48** 

**The number activity days per week for commercial/in dustrial activities are considered to be 6,**  **although this would not hold true for hospitals, nu rsing homes, and most stores would be 7,**  **while most schools would be 5. Industrial:**  **Average ozone summer day (OSD) emission estimates w ere calculated using the equation:**  **Ave. emissions Annual LPG use in June-Aug ust**  **per = __emissions__X __ LPG use in 2002_ _**  **summer day (Operating days/season = 79) (LPG used in June-August)/(LPG used in 2002) is the**  **Seasonal Activity Factor SAF=0.2010. The number of activity days per week for industrial**  **activities are considered to be an average of about 6.**  Sample Calculations (Cole County) **Residential LPG: Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of LPG used in Mis**  **souri per yr) X ((# houses using LPG in county) / (# houses using LPG in Missouri)) X (VOC**  **emission factor(lb/1000 Gallons)) / (2000 lb/ton)**  **OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb /ton X SAF / (Operating days/season)**  **Amount of LPG Used in Missouri: 251,412 1000 Gallon s**  **Number of Houses Using LPG in Missouri: 293,603 Number of Houses Using LPG in Cole County: 2,977**  **VOC Emission Factor: 0.5 lb/1000 Gallons Residential Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF): = 0.065**  **5 Operating days/season: 92**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = 251,412 1000 Gallons/year X 2,977 houses / 293,603 houses X 0.5**  **lb/1000 Gallons / 2000 lb/ton = 0.64 tons /year OSD VOC (lb/day) = 0.64 tons /year X 2000 lb/ton X**  **0.0655 / 92 = 0.91 lb/day 49** 

**Commercial/Institutional LPG: Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of LPG used in Mis**  **souri per yr) X (# employees using LPG in county) / (# employees using LPG in Missouri) X**  **(VOC emission factor(lb/1000 Gallons)) / (2000 lb/ton)**  **OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb /ton X SAF / Operating days/season**  **Amount of LPG Used in Missouri: 44,318 1000 Gallons Number of Comm./Inst. Employees in Missouri: 2,063,**  **988 Number of Comm./Inst. Employees in Cole County: 46,**  **695 VOC Emission Factor: 0.5 lb/1000 Gallons**  **Activity Days Per Week: 6 Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79**  **Commercial/Industrial Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF ): 0.0950**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = 44,318 1000 Gallons X (46, 695 / 2,063,988) X (0.5 lb/1000 Gallons)**  **/ (2000 lb/ton) = 0.25 tons/year OSD VOC (lb/day) = 0.25 tons/year X 2000 lb/ton X 0**  **.0950 / 79 = 0.60 lb/day Industrial LPG:**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of LPG used in Mis souri per yr) X (# employees using LPG**  **in county) / (# employees using LPG in Missouri) X (VOC emission factor (lb/1000 Gallons)) /**  **(2000 lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb**  **/ton X SAF / Operating days/season Amount of LPG Used in Missouri: 151,152 1000 Gallon**  **s Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Missour**  **i: 462,567 Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Cole Co**  **unty: 5,621 VOC Emission Factor: 0.5 lb/1000 Gallons**  **Industrial Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF) = 0.2010 Activity Days Per Week: 6** **50**

**Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79 Annual VOC (tons/year) = 151,152 1000 Gallons X (5,**  **621 / 462,567) X (0.5 lb/1000 Gallons) / (2000 lb/ton) = 0.46 tons/year**  **OSD VOC (lb/day) = 0.46 tons/year X 2000 lb/ton X 0.2010 / 79 = 2.34 lb/day**  2.18.3 Results
**The emissions from LPG Combustion for the State of Missouri are as follows:** 

2002 Emissions from LPG Combustion in Missouri (Ton s/Year) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 **Residential 62.8530 1,759.884 238.8414 2.0113 955.3656 95 5.3656**  **Commercial 11.08 310.23 42.10 0.35 168.41 168.41 Industrial 37.7879 1,435.94 241.84 1.21 574.38 574.38** 

2.18.4 References **Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Depar tment of Energy, Washington, D.C.**  **http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/pd f/use_mo.pdf**  **http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_use_multistate. html#use_technotes**  **LPG Sulfur content discussed in http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_stan**  **dards/residential/pdfs/K-2.pdf The U.S Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, W**  **ashington, D.C.** Residential Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas an d Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Combustion **, Volume III: Area Source Method Abstracts, Area So urces Committee EIIP, July**  **1999.** Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.**  Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protectio**  **n Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January**  **1995. East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis C**  **ity, MO.**

2.19 Natural Gas Combustion 2.19.1 Source Description and Emission Control**51**

**Natural gas is one of the major combustion fuels us ed throughout the country. It is used to**  **generate industrial and utility electrical power, p roduce industrial process steam, for residential**  **and commercial space heating, water heating, and co oking. Natural gas consists of a high**  **percentage of methane (generally above 85 percent) and varying amounts of ethane, propane,**  **butane, and inerts (typically nitrogen, carbon diox ide, and helium). Air pollutants emitted from**  **natural gas-fired combustion (e.g., boilers, furnac es, etc.) include carbon monoxide (CO2),**  **nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatil e organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate**  **matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Residential and commercial sectors comprise housing units;**  **wholesale and retail businesses; health institution s; social and educational institutions; and**  **federal, state and local government institutions (e .g., military installations, prisons, office**  **buildings). In addition, the commercial/institution al sector includes agriculture, forestry, and**  **fishing.** 2.19.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity **The Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information A dministration (EIA) provides state-level**  **fuel consumption for residential, commercial, and i ndustrial sectors. The**  Natural Gas Production & Use by Missouri **table summarizes both monthly and annual natural ga s**  **consumption. EIA does not collect the information n ecessary to separate natural gas**  **combustion into residential and commercial/institut ional consumption, but disaggregates the data**  **based on assumptions and statistical methods applic able to the national level that may not be**  **correct for the inventory area. Residential Sources:**  **The 2000 Census Bureau data contains information on the primary fuel combusted by houses by**  **county.** Census 2000 – American Fact Finder - Summary File 3 , Table H40. House Heating Fuel **provides data on the number of occupied housing un its in each county using the following**  **categories of fuels: Utility gas (assumed to be na tural gas), bottled, tank, or LP gas, electricity,**  **fuel oil, kerosene, etc., coal or coke, wood, solar energy, other fuel, or no fuel used.**  **The natural gas burned at the state level is apport ioned to the county level using U.S. Census**  **data on households that use natural gas as a primar y fuel. The equation is:** 
**County Natural Gas use = Statewide N. Gas use X Cou nty N. Gas burning households**  **State N. Gas burning households Commercial/Institutional Sources:**  **2002 employment data was obtained from the Missouri Economic Research and Information**  **Center (MERIC). Commercial/Institutional and Indus trial sector employment was aggregated**  **for Missouri employees working in the NAICS categor ies as outlined in Section 1.3.1.** **52**

**The natural gas burned at the state level is apport ioned to the county level using 2002 MERIC**  **employment data in NAICS categories 11, and 42-92. The equation is:**  **County Natural Gas Use = Statewide Nat. Gas use X N AICS 11, 42-92 employees by county**  **NAICS 11, 42-92 employees by state**  **Industrial sources: The natural gas burned at the state level is apport**  **ioned to the county level using 2002 MERIC employment data in NAICS categories 21-33. The equ**  **ation is: County Natural Gas use = Statewide N. Gas use X NAI**  **CS 21-33 employees by county NAICS 21-33 employees**  **by state** Emission Factors **Natural gas combustion emission factors for VOC, NO x, CO, SO2, and PM are shown in Table**  **2.15-1. These were obtained from AP-42/FIRE where provided. Those emission factors not in**  **AP-42 were determined in discussions with Pechan As sociates, who is verifying and**  **consolidating all the CenRAP states 2002 NEI submit tals.**  Table 2.19-1. Natural Gas Combustion Emission Fact ors Point SCC: n/a 10300603 10200602 Area SCC: 2104006000 2103006000 2102006000 Pollutant Residential Commercial Industrial EF (lb/MMCF) EF

(lb/MMCF) EF (lb/MMCF) CO 40 84 84 NOX 94 100 100 SO2 0.6 0.6 0.6 VOC 5.5 5.5 5.5 PM10 & 2.5 PRI (Total) 7.6 7.6 7.6 PM10 & 2.5 (Filterable) 1.9 1.9 1.9 PM10 & 2.5 (Condensable) 5.7 5.7 5.7 **The SO 2**  **emission factor assumes that the sulfur content of natural gas is 2,000 grains/10**  **6 ft**  **3**

**. The filterable PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors are**  **identical as all PM (from natural gas combustion) are assumed to be less than 1.0 microme**  **ters in diameter.** Temporal Adjustments for Ozone **For the 8-hour ozone NAAQS emission inventory, EPA guidance calls for CO, NOx, and VOC**  **emissions to be reported as actual annual and actua l summer weekday. Summer weekday**  **emissions are defined as an average day’s emissions for a typical summer day during the ozone**  **season, typically defined as the months of June, Ju ly, and August. Fossil fuel consumption drops** **53**

**substantially during the summer months when the nee d for space heating is virtually zero. A**  **seasonal activity factor is therefore needed to ref lect the proportion of fuel consumption that**  **takes place in June-August relative to annual consu mption and emissions.**  **The best way to determine the seasonal activity fac tor is to obtain activity data that are specific**  **for the location and season of interest. The most specific activity data available is Missouri**  **monthly natural gas consumption data for 2002 for t he residential, commercial, and industrial**  **sectors obtained from the EIA. This same activity data was used to derive a residential,**  **commercial/institutional, and industrial seasonal a ctivity factor (SAF) for all the area source**  **fossil fuel combustion calculations, which should h ave very close to the same proportion of fuel**  **consumed in June-August. Monthly natural gas consu mption data for 2002 for the residential,**  **commercial, and industrial sectors were obtained fr om the EIA table,**  Natural Gas Production & Use by Missouri

**. Residential:**  **Average ozone summer day (OSD) emission estimates w ere calculated using the equation:**  **Ave. emissions Annual Gas use in June-Aug ust**  **per = __emissions__X __ Gas use in 2002_ _**  **summer day (Operating days/season = 92) (Gas used in June-August)/(Gas used in 2002) is the**  **Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF)=0.0655. The number of activity days per week for residentia**  **l activities are 7. Commercial/Institutional:**  **Average ozone summer day (OSD) emission estimates w ere calculated using the equation:**  **Ave. emissions Annual Gas use in June-Aug ust**  **per = __emissions__X __ Gas use in 2002_ _**  **summer day (Operating days/season = 79) (Gas used in June-August)/(Gas used in 2002) is the**  **Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF)=0.0950. The number activity days per week for commercial/in**  **dustrial activities are considered to be 6, although this would not hold true for hospitals, nu**  **rsing homes, and most stores would be 7, while most schools would be 5.**  **Industrial: Average ozone summer day (OSD) emission estimates w**  **ere calculated using the equation: Ave. emissions Annual Gas use in June-Aug**  **ust per = __emissions__X** **__ Gas use in 2002_ _ 54** 

**summer day (Operating days/season = 79) (Gas used in June-August)/(Gas used in 2002) is the**  **Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF)=0.2010. The number of activity days per week for industrial**  **activities are considered to be an average of about 6.**  Sample Calculations (Cole County) **Residential Natural Gas: Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of N. Gas used in**  **Missouri per yr) X ((# houses using N. Gas in county) / (# houses using N. Gas in Missouri**  **)) X (VOC emission factor) / 2000 lb/ton OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb**  **/ton X SAF / (Operating days/season) Amount of N. Gas Used in Missouri: 115,721 MMCF**  **Amount of N. Gas Used in Missouri in June-Aug.: 7,5 76 MMCF**  **Residential Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF): 7,576 / 115,721 = 0.0655**  **Number of Houses Using N. Gas in Missouri: 1,261,39 7**  **Number of Houses Using N. Gas in Cole County: 11,82 2**  **VOC Emission Factor: 5.5 lb/MMCF Operating days/season: 92**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = 115,721 MMCF/year X 11,822 houses / 1,261,397 houses X 5.5**  **lb/MMCF / 2000 lb/ton = 2.98 tons /year OSD VOC (lb/day) = 2.98 tons /year X 2000 lb/ton X**  **0.0655 / 92 = 4.25 lb/day Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas:**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of N. Gas used in Missouri per yr) X (# employees using N.**  **Gas in county) / (# employees using N. Gas in Misso uri) X (VOC emission factor(lb/MMCF)) /**  **(2000 lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb**  **/ton X SAF / Operating days/season Amount of N. Gas Used in Missouri: 64,703 MMCF**  **Number of Comm./Inst. Employees Using N. Gas in Mis souri: 2,063,988** **55**

**Number of Comm./Inst. Employees Using N. Gas in Col e County: 46,695**  **VOC Emission Factor: 5.5 lb/MMCF Activity Days Per Week: 6**  **Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79 Commercial/Industrial Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF**  **): 0.0950 Annual VOC (tons/year) = 64,703 MMCF X (46,695 / 2,**  **063,988) X (5.5 lb/MMCF) / (2000 lb/ton) = 4.03 tons/year**  **OSD VOC = 64,703 MMCF X (46,695 / 2,063,988) X (5.5 lb/MMCF) X 0.0950 / 79**  **= 9.68 lb/day Industrial Natural Gas:**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of N. Gas used in Missouri per yr) X (# employees using N.**  **Gas in county) / (# employees using N. Gas in Misso uri) X (VOC emission factor (lb/MMCF)) /**  **(2000 lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb**  **/ton X SAF / Operating days/season Amount of N. Gas Used in Missouri: 65,903 MMCF**  **Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Missour i: 462,567**  **Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Cole Co unty: 5,621**  **VOC Emission Factor: 5.5 lb/MMCF Industrial Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF) = 0.2010**  **Activity Days Per Week: 6 Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = 65,903 MMCF X (5,621 / 462 ,567) X (5.5 lb/MMCF) / (2000 lb/ton)**  **= 2.20 tons/year OSD VOC (lb/day) = 2.20 tons/year X 2000 lb/ton X**  **0.2010 / 79 = 11.21 lb/day** 2.19.3 Results**56**

**The emissions from Natural Gas Combustion for the S tate of Missouri are as follows:** 

2002 Emissions from Natural Gas Combustion in Misso uri (Tons/Year) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 **Residential 318.23 5438.89 2314.42 34.72 439.74 439.74 Commercial 177.93 3235.15 2717.53 19.41 245.87 245.87**  **Industrial 181.23 3295.15 2,767.93 19.77 250.43 250.43**

2.19.4 References 1999 National Emission Inventory (NEI) version 3.0 Draft National Criteria Inventory for Residential Fossil Fuel Combustion **, Area Source Method Abstracts, Area Sources Commit tee**  **EIIP, April 2003. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume**  **03/index.html**

**.** Residential and Commercial/Institutional Natural Ga s and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion **, Volume III: Area Source Method Abstracts, Area So urces Committee EIIP, July**  **1999. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume**  **03/ng.pdf**

**. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Depar** **tment of Energy, Washington, D.C.** Natural Gas Production & Use by Missouri **table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/ngsales/ngsales_**  **mo.html The U.S Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, W**  **ashington, D.C. U.S Bureau of Census American Factfinder site for residential fuel stati**  **stics: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_l**  **ang=en . Go to Data Sets; select Census**  **2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data and within this selection click on List all tables;**  **scroll all the way to Table H40. House Heating Fuel . Follow the arrows, select Counties; All**  **Counties; MA; at the top of the table is a button t o Print/ Download into Excel.**  **EIIP Document Series – Volume III Area Sources -** Chapter 1. Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Development, **August 1996. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume**  **03/index.html** Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protectio**  **n Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January**  **1995.** 2.20 Distillate Fuel Oil and Kerosene Combustion 2.20.1 Source Description and Emission Controls
**This emission source covers air emissions from the combustion of distillate fuel oils and**  **kerosene by the residential, commercial/institution al and industrial sectors for space heating,**  **water heating or process heating. This source cate gory includes small boilers, furnaces, heaters,**  **and other heating units that are not inventoried as point sources. Residential and commercial** **57**

**fuel oil and kerosene combustion sectors include ho using units; wholesale and retail businesses;**  **health institutions; social and educational institu tions; and federal, state and local government**  **institutions (e.g., military installations, prisons , office buildings).**  **Two major categories of fuel oil are burned by comb ustion sources: distillate oils and residual**  **oils. These oils are further distinguished by grad e numbers, with Nos. 1 and 2 being distillate**  **oils; Nos. 5 and 6 being residual oils; and No. 4 b eing either distillate oil or a mixture of distilla** **te and residual oils. No. 6 fuel oil is sometimes refe**  **rred to as Bunker C. Distillate oils are more volatile and less viscous than residual oils. They**  **have negligible nitrogen and ash contents and usually contain less than 0.3 percent sulfur (by we**  **ight). Distillate oils are used mainly in domestic and small commercial applications, and inc**  **lude kerosene and diesel fuels. Being more viscous and less volatile than distillate oils, the**  **heavier residual oils (Nos. 5 and 6) may need to be heated for ease of handling and to facilitate pr**  **oper atomization. Because residual oils are produced from the residue remaining after the light**  **er fractions (gasoline, kerosene, and distillate oils) have been removed from the crude oil, they co**  **ntain significant quantities of ash, nitrogen, and sulfur. Residual oils are used mainly in utilit**  **y, industrial, and large commercial applications.** 2.20.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity **The area source method given in EIIP volume III was used to estimate emissions from**  **residential, commercial/institutional, and industri al distillate fuel oil and kerosene combustion.**  **This method relies on the number of households burn ing distillate fuel oil and kerosene per**  **county, and county employment figures in the commer cial/institutional and industrial sectors.**  **The quantity of distillate fuel oil and kerosene us ed by the residential, commercial, and industrial**  **sectors in Missouri was obtained from the Energy In formation Administration (EIA) at the U.S.**  **Department of Energy. Residential Sources:**  **The sum of distillate fuel oil and kerosene burned at the state level is apportioned to the county**  **level using U.S. Census data on households that use fuel oil or kerosene as a primary fuel. The**  **equation is: County Fuel Oil use = Statewide Fuel Oil use X Coun**  **ty Fuel Oil burning households Sta**  **te Fuel Oil burning households Commercial/Institutional Sources:**  **The fuel oil burned at the state level is apportion ed to the county level using 2002 MERIC**  **employment data in NAICS categories 11, and 42-92 a s outlined in Section 1.3.1. The equation**  **is: County Fuel Oil Use = Statewide Fuel Oil use X NAI**  **CS 11, 42-92 employees by county NAICS 11, 42-92 emplo**  **yees by state 58** 

**Industrial Sources: The fuel oil and kerosene burned at the state level**  **is apportioned to the county level using 2002 MERIC employment data in NAICS categories 21-33. T**  **he equation is: County Fuel Oil use = Statewide Fuel Oil use X NAI**  **CS 21-33 employees by county NAICS 21-33 employees**  **by state** Emission Factors **Fuel oil and kerosene combustion emission factors f or VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, and PM are shown**  **in Table 2.18-1. These were obtained from AP-42/FI RE where provided. Those emission**  **factors not in AP-42 were determined in discussions with Pechan Associates, who is verifying**  **and consolidating all the CenRAP states 2002 NEI su bmittals.**  Table 2.20-1. Fuel Oil / Kerosene Combustion Emiss ion Factors Point SCC: 10300501/02/03 10200501/02/03 Area SCC: 2104004000 2103004000 2102004000 Pollutant Residential EF

(lb/1000 Gallons) Commercial EF

(lb/1000Gallons) Industrial EF

(lb/1000 Gallons) VOC 0.713 0.34 0.2 NOX 18 20 20 CO 5 5 5 SO2 0.426 0.426 0.426 PM10 PRI (Total) 2.38 2.38 2.3 PM2.5 PRI (Total) 2.13 2.13 1.55 PM10 (Filterable) 1.08 1.08 1 PM2.5 (Filterable) 0.83 0.83 0.25 PM10 & 2.5 (Condensable) 1.3 1.3 1.3

**The emission factor for SO2 is 142S where S = sulfu r content, said to be less than 0.3% for**  **distillate oils, is assumed to be 0.3% to be conser vative.**  **It was assumed that kerosene emission factors are s imilar to distillate oil emission factors.**  Temporal Adjustments for Ozone **For the 8-hour ozone NAAQS emission inventory, EPA guidance calls for CO, NOx, and VOC**  **emissions to be reported as actual annual and actua l summer weekday. Summer weekday**  **emissions are defined as an average day’s emissions for a typical summer day during the ozone**  **season, typically defined as the months of June, Ju ly, and August. Fossil fuel consumption drops** **59**

**substantially during the summer months when the nee d for space heating is virtually zero. A**  **seasonal activity factor is therefore needed to ref lect the proportion of fuel consumption that**  **takes place in June-August relative to annual consu mption and emissions.**  **The best way to determine the seasonal activity fac tor is to obtain activity data that are specific**  **for the location and season of interest. The most specific activity data available is Missouri**  **monthly natural gas consumption data for 2002 for t he residential, commercial, and industrial**  **sectors obtained from the EIA and described in the** Natural Gas Combustion Section 2.17.3 Temporal Adjustments **. This same activity data was used to derive a res idential,**  **commercial/institutional, and industrial seasonal a ctivity factor (SAF) for all the area source**  **fossil fuel combustion calculations, which should h ave very close to the same proportion of fuel**  **consumed in June-August,** Sample Calculations (Cole County) **Residential Fuel Oil and Kerosene: Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of fuel oil used i**  **n Missouri per yr) X (# houses using fuel oil in county) / (# houses using fuel oil in Missouri)**  **X (VOC emission factor) / (2000 lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb**  **/ton X Seasonal Activity Factor / Active Days per Season**  **Amount of Fuel Oil Used in Missouri: 15,708 tons Number of Houses Using Fuel Oil in Missouri: 13,893**  **Number of Houses Using Fuel Oil in Cole County: 40 VOC Emission Factor: 0.713 lb/ton**  **Activity Days Per Week: 7 Residential Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF) = 0.0655**  **Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 92 Annual VOC (tons/year) = 15,708 1000 Gallons X (40**  **houses/ 13,893 houses) X (0.713 lb/1000 Gallons) / 2000 lb/ton = 0.016 tons/year**  **OSD VOC (lb/day) = 0.016 X 2000 lb/ton X 0.0655 / 9 2 days = 0.023 lb/day**  **Commercial / Institutional Fuel Oil and Kerosene: 60** 

**Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of Fuel Oil used i n Missouri per yr) X (# Comm./Inst.**  **employees in county) / (# Comm./Inst. employees us ing Fuel Oil in Missouri) X (VOC emission**  **factor(lb/1000 Gallons)) / (2000 lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb**  **/ton X SAF / Operating days/season Amount of Fuel Oil Used in Missouri: 44,368 1000 Ga**  **llons Number of Comm./Inst. Employees in Missouri: 2,063,**  **988 Number of Comm./Inst. Employees in Cole County: 46,**  **695 VOC Emission Factor: 0.34 lb/1000 Gallons**  **Activity Days Per Week: 6 Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79**  **Commercial/Industrial Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF ): 0.0950**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = 44,368 1000 Gallons X (46, 695 / 2,063,988) X (0.34 lb/1000**  **Gallons) / (2000 lb/ton) = 0.17 tons/year OSD VOC (lb/day) = 0.17 tons/year X 2000 lb/ton X 0**  **.0950 / 79 = 0.41 lb/day Industrial Fuel Oil and Kerosene:**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of Fuel Oil used i n Missouri per yr) X (# Industrial**  **employees Cole County) / (# Industrial employees in Missouri) X (VOC emission factor**  **(lb/1000 Gallons)) / (2000 lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb/day) = Annual VOC (tons/year) X 2000 lb**  **/ton X SAF / Operating days/season Amount of Fuel Oil Used in Missouri: 145,476 1000 G**  **allons Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Missour**  **i: 462,567 Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Cole Co**  **unty: 5,621 VOC Emission Factor: 0.2 lb/1000 Gallons**  **Industrial Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF) = 0.2010 Activity Days Per Week: 6**  **Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79 61** 

**Annual VOC (tons/year) = 145,476 1000 Gallons X (5, 621 / 462,567) X (0.2 lb/1000 Gallons) /**  **(2000 lb/ton) = 0.177 tons/year OSD VOC (lb/day) = 0.177 tons/year X 2000 lb/ton**  **X 0.2010 / 79 = 0.90 lb/day** 2.20.3 Results
**The emissions from Fuel Oil and Kerosene Combustion for the State of Missouri are as follows:**  2002 Emissions from Fuel Oil and Kerosene Combustio n in Missouri (Tons/Year) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 **Residential 5.5999 141.3720 39.2700 3.3458 18.6925 16.729 0**  **Commercial 7.5425 443.6777 110.9194 9.4503 52.7976 47.251 7**  **Industrial 14.5476 1,454.7625 363.6906 30.9864 167.2977 112.7441**  **Note how high the SO2 emissions are, based on the a verage sulfur content of 4% in Missouri**  **coal. However, much of the coal burned in Missouri is from other states such as Wyoming,**  **which is low sulfur coal. The average sulfur conte nt of coal burned in Missouri should therefore**  **be determined with greater accuracy and these emiss ions revised. Revised emissions should be**  **sent to the EPA in the next round of revisions.** 2.20.4 References **Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Depar tment of Energy, Washington, D.C. EIA**  **Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2002 http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_p**  **ublications/fuel_oil_and_kerosene_sales/c urrent/pdf/foksall.pdf**  Residential Commercial/Institutional Fuel Oil Combu stion **, Volume III: Area Source Method Abstracts, Area Sources Committee EIIP, April 1999.**  Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.**  Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protectio**  **n Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January**  **1995.** 2.21 COAL COMBUSTION 2.21.1 Source Description and Emission Control **Coal is a complex combination of organic matter and inorganic mineral matter formed over eons**  **from successive layers of fallen vegetation. Bitum inous coals are by far the largest group and**  **are characterized as having lower fixed carbon and higher volatile matter. This source category** **62**

**covers air emissions from coal combustion in the re sidential and commercial sectors for space**  **heating or water heating. This category includes sm all boilers, furnaces, heaters, and other**  **heating units that are not inventoried as point sou rces. Residential and commercial coal**  **combustion sectors comprise housing units; wholesal e and retail businesses; health institutions;**  **social and educational institutions; and federal, s tate, and local government institutions. Major**  **emissions from coal combustion are volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx),**  **carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and part iculate matter (PM**  **10 and PM**  **2.5 ).**  2.21.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity **The area source method given in EIIP volume III was used to estimate emissions from**  **residential, commercial/institutional, and industri al coal combustion. This method relies on the**  **number of households burning coal per county, and c ounty employment figures in the**  **commercial/institutional and industrial sectors. T he quantity of coal used by the residential,**  **commercial, and industrial sectors in Missouri was obtained from the Energy Information**  **Administration (EIA) at the U.S. Department of Ener gy.**  **Residential Sources: The coal burned at the state level is apportioned t**  **o the county level using U.S. Census data on households that use coal as a primary fuel. The eq**  **uation is: County coal use = Statewide coal use X County coal-**  **burning households State coal-burning households**  **Commercial/Institutional Sources: The coal burned at the state level is apportioned t**  **o the county level using 2002 MERIC employment data in NAICS categories 11, and 42-92 a**  **s outlined in Section 1.3.1. The equation is:**  **County coal Use = Statewide coal use X NAICS 11, 42 -92 employees by county**  **NAICS 11, 42-92 employees by state Industrial Sources:**  **The coal burned at the state level is apportioned t o the county level using 2002 MERIC**  **employment data in NAICS categories 21-33. The equ ation is:**  **County coal use = Statewide coal use X NAICS 21-33 employees by county**  **NAICS 21-33 employees by state** Emission Factors**63**

**Coal combustion emission factors for VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, and PM are shown in Table 2.15-1.**  **These were obtained from AP-42/FIRE where provided. Those emission factors not in AP-42**  **were determined in discussions with Pechan Associat es, who is verifying and consolidating all**  **the CenRAP states 2002 NEI submittals.**

Table 2.21-1. Coal Combustion Emission Factors Point SCC: 10300214 10300208 10200202 Area SCC: 2104002000 2103002000 2102002000 Pollutant Residential EF (lb/ton) Commercial

EF (lb/ton) Industrial EF

(lb/ton) VOC (TNMOC) 10 1.3 0.06 NOX 9.1 9.5 22 CO 275 11 0.5 SO2 124 124 152 PM10 PRI (Total) 7.24 7.24 20.22 PM2.5 PRI (Total) 4.84 4.84 6.62 PM10 (Filterable) 6.2 6.2 18.4 PM2.5 (Filterable) 3.8 3.8 4.8 PM10 & 2.5 (Condensible) 1.04 1.04 1.82

**AP-42’s emission factor for sulfur is 31 S (S= Sulf ur content) = 124 lb/ton (residential and**  **commercial/institutional); and 38 S (S= Sulfur cont ent) = 152 lb/ton (industrial). SO2 Sulfur**  **content in Missouri averages about 4%. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/st_coal_pdf/0576q**  **.pdf 8% Ash content is assumed based upon AP-42 and Janu**  **ary 2000** Mercury Speciation Stack Sampling Test Report: Meramec Unit 4 **that was conducted for the EPA's Information Collection Request (ICR) to characterize mercury em**  **issions from coal-fired power plants in the United States.**  Temporal Adjustments for Ozone **For the 8-hour ozone NAAQS emission inventory, EPA guidance calls for CO, NOx, and VOC**  **emissions to be reported as actual annual and actua l summer weekday. Summer weekday**  **emissions are defined as an average day’s emissions for a typical summer day during the ozone**  **season, typically defined as the months of June, Ju ly, and August. Fossil fuel consumption drops**  **substantially during the summer months when the nee d for space heating is virtually zero. A**  **seasonal activity factor is therefore needed to ref lect the proportion of fuel consumption that**  **takes place in June-August relative to annual consu mption and emissions.**  **The best way to determine the seasonal activity fac tor is to obtain activity data that are specific**  **for the location and season of interest. The most specific activity data available is Missouri**  **monthly natural gas consumption data for 2002 for t he residential, commercial, and industrial** **64**

**sectors obtained from the EIA and described in the** Natural Gas Combustion Section 2.17.3 Temporal Adjustments **. This same activity data was used to derive a res idential,**  **commercial/institutional, and industrial seasonal a ctivity factor (SAF) for all the area source**  **fossil fuel combustion calculations, which should h ave very close to the same proportion of fuel**  **consumed in June-August.** Sample Calculations – Cole County **Residential Coal: Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of coal used in Mi**  **ssouri per yr) X ((# houses using coal in county) / (# houses using coal in Missouri)) X (VOC**  **emission factor(lb/ton)) / (2000 lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb) = (amount of coal used in Missouri per**  **yr) X (# houses using coal in county) / (# houses using coal in Missouri) X (VOC emission fact**  **or) X Seasonal Activity Factor / Active Days per Season**  **Amount of Coal Used in Missouri: 19,000 tons Number of Houses Using Coal in Missouri: 170**  **Number of Houses Using Coal in Cole County: 0 VOC Emission Factor: 10 lb/ton**  **Activity Days Per Week: 7 Residential Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF) = 0.0655**  **Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 92 Annual VOC = 19,000 tons X (0 houses/ 170 houses)**  **X (10 lb/ton) / (2000 lb/ton) = 0 tons/year**  **OSD VOC = 19,000 tons X (0 houses/ 170 houses) X (1 0 lb/ton) X 0.0655 (proportion of fuel**  **consumed in June-August) / 92 days = 0 lb/day Commercial / Institutional Coal:**  **Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of coal used in Mi ssouri per yr) X (# employees using coal**  **in county) / (# employees using coal in Missouri) X (VOC emission factor(lb/ton)) / (2000**  **lb/ton) OSD VOC (lb) = (amount of coal used in Missouri per**  **yr) X (# employees using coal in county) / (# employees using coal in Missouri) X (VOC emiss**  **ion factor) X (seasonal activity factor) / (active days during June – August)** **65**

**Amount of Coal Used in Missouri: 147,794.07 Number of Employees in Commercial/Institutional Sec**  **tor in Missouri: 2,063,988 Number of Employees in Commercial/Institutional Sec**  **tor in Cole County: 46,695 VOC Emission Factor: 1.3 lb/ton**  **Commercial/Institutional Seasonal Activity Factor ( SAF) = 0.0950**  **Activity Days Per Week: 6 Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79**  **Annual VOC = 147,794.07 tons X (46,695 / 2,063,988 ) X (1.3 lb/ton) / (2000 lb/ton)**  **= 2.17 tons/year OSD VOC = Annual VOC X 2000 lb/ton X (0.0950 (pro**  **portion of fuel consumed in June- August)) / 79 days = 5.23 lb/day**  **Industrial Coal: Annual VOC (tons/year) = (amount of coal used in Mi**  **ssouri per yr) X (# employees using coal in county) / (# employees using coal in Missouri) X**  **(VOC emission factor(lb/ton)) / (2000 lb/ton)**  **OSD VOC (lb) = (amount of coal used in Missouri per yr) X (# employees using coal in county)**  **/ (# employees using coal in Missouri) X (VOC emiss ion factor) X (seasonal activity factor) /**  **(active days during June – August) Amount of Coal Used in Missouri: 429,959 tons**  **Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Missour i: 462,567**  **Number of Employees in Industrial Sector in Cole Co unty: 5,621**  **VOC Emission Factor: 0.06 lb/ton Industrial Seasonal Activity Factor (SAF) = 0.2010**  **Activity Days Per Week: 6 Active Days During Ozone Season (June-August): 79**  **Annual VOC = 429,959 tons X (5,621 / 462,567) X (0.06 lb/ton) / 2000 lb/ton** **66**

**= 0.16 tons/year OSD VOC = 429,959 tons X (5,621 / 462,567) X (0.0**  **6 lb/ton) / X (0.2010) / 79 = 0.80 lb/day**  2.21.3 Results **The emissions from Coal Combustion for the State of Missouri are as follows:**  2002 Emissions from Coal Combustion in Missouri (To ns/Year) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 **Residential 95.00 86.45 2,612.5 1,178.0 68.78 45.98 Commercial 96.07 702.02 812.87 9,163.2 535.01 357.66**  **Industrial 12.90 4,729.55 107.49 32,676.87 4,346.88 1,423 .16**  **Note how high the SO2 emissions are, based on the a verage sulfur content of 4% in Missouri**  **coal. However, much of the coal burned in Missouri is from other states such as Wyoming,**  **which is low sulfur coal. The average sulfur conte nt of coal burned in Missouri should therefore**  **be determined with greater accuracy and these emiss ions revised. Revised emissions should be**  **sent to the EPA in the next round of revisions.** 2.21.4 References **Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Depar tment of Energy, Washington, D.C.**  **EIA 2002 Coal Consumption: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf**  **The U.S Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, W ashington, D.C.**  **P:\APCP\Tech Support\Users\Mollie Freebairn\NEI\200 2 NEI Residential Energy Consumption**  **in Missouri.xls National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administrati**  **on (NOAA).** Residential Commercial/Institutional Coal Combustio n **, Volume III: Area Source Method Abstracts, Area Sources Committee EIIP, April 1999.**  Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.**  Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protectio**  **n Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January**  **1995. East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis C**  **ity, MO. 67** 

**The 2002 NEI Area Source Fuel Combustion spreadshee ts containing the final revised emission**  **factors and other parameters agreed to with Pechan are located on the APCP P:/Drive at**  **2002 NEI Area Source Fuel Combustion_RevPMData.xls**  **Emission factor revisions were discussed at length in e-mail correspondence between Mollie**  **Freebairn, APCP and Randy Strait, Pechan Associates , on 9/13, 9/14, 9/16, 9/17, and 9/18/2004**  **and are on file at the APCP. EIA State Coal Profile: Missouri**  **http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/st_coal_pdf/0576q .pdf**  2.22 Wood Combustion – Residential **In the 1999 NEI for Missouri, Residential Wood Burn ing was the second highest area source**  **category for criteria pollutant emissions overall, primarily CO, VOC, and PM10 and PM2.5,**  **second only to unpaved road fugitive dust emissions . Its ranking was similar in other states.**  **These findings have led to a number of studies and surveys around the United States to improve**  **and update activity data and emission factors for r esidential wood burning. While it was not**  **possible to conduct a statewide survey here in Miss ouri to determine residential wood burning**  **usage patterns, there is good information available from the Energy Information Administration,**  **2000 U.S. Census, and other studies referenced belo w, that was carefully reviewed and**  **incorporated into the somewhat complex method descr ibed below.**  2.22.1 Source Description and Emission Controls **This area source category of residential wood combu stion is defined as wood burning that takes**  **place primarily in woodstoves and fireplaces. Resi dential wood burning takes place either as a**  **necessary source of heat or for aesthetics. Firepl aces can be divided into 2 broad categories: (1)**  **masonry (generally brick and/or stone, assembled on site, and integral to a structure) and (2)**  **factory-built (usually metal, installed on site as a package with appropriate ductwork).**  **Woodstoves are commonly used in residences as space heaters. They are used both as the**  **primary source of residential heat and to supplemen t conventional heating systems. There are**  **seven different residential wood combustion source categories:** 
**y** FIREPLACES **x 2104008001 Without Inserts**  **x 2104008002 With Inserts; Non-EPA Certified**  **x 2104008003 With Inserts; Non-Catalytic, EPA Certifi**  **ed x**  **2104008004 With Inserts; Catalytic, EPA Certified y**  WOODSTOVES **x 2104008010 Non-EPA Certified**  **x 2104008030 Catalytic, EPA Certified**  **x 2104008050 Non-Catalytic, EPA Certified**  **Pollutants emitted from residential wood combustion include particulate mater (PM), volatile**  **organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), car bon monoxide (CO), and hazardous air**  **pollutants (HAP). Controls for this category may u se new technology woodstoves,** **68**

**improvements in wood burning performance, use of “n o burn” periods, public awareness and**  **educational programs, replacement or installation o f gas-burning equipment in fireplaces, and**  **total banning of burning.** 2.22.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity **The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports Residential Wood Consumption in**  **Missouri for 1960 to 2000. According to the EIA, i n 1987 a total of 907,000 cords was burned in**  **Missouri. The U.S. Forest Service study reports th at in 1987, a total of 924,154 cords of wood**  **were produced in Missouri. These figures agree wel l, since somewhat more wood should have**  **been produced than was consumed. The EIA estimate for 2000 residential wood consumpt**  **ion in Missouri is 484,000 cords, the latest year for which figures are available. To project a** **n estimate for 2002 residential wood consumption, the EIA data for natural gas consumpti**  **on in Missouri’s residential sector for 2000, 2001, and 2002 are employed. Residential wood cons**  **umption was projected by assuming that it was proportional to that of natural gas in Missouri**  **: Year Residential Natural Gas (Million Cu. Ft.)**  **Residential Fuelwood (Cords) 2000 115,353 484,000**  **2001 116,188 487,504 2002 115,721 485,544**  **Census 2000 provides a table of number of occupied housing units and house heating fuels for**  **each county in Missouri for 2000. Across Missouri overall about 4% of households used wood,**  **in some counties the average was as high as 34%. Separate wood consumption estimates for fireplaces**  **with inserts, fireplaces without inserts, non EPA certified woodstoves, catalytic & noncatalytic**  **EPA-certified woodstoves are made to account for different usage patterns (climate zones**  **; urban vs. rural), and different emission factors, which were obtained from US Census, EIA, a** **nd EPA. Primary Wood-Burning Heating Equipment**  **from** American Housing Survey for the United States in 2001 **is as follows:**

**Stoves...............................1,131,000 84.4% Fireplaces with inserts...............145,000 10.8**  **Fireplaces without inserts............64,000 4.8 Total.................................1,340,000 100.0**  **These proportions were applied to the total number of households burning wood as their main**  **house heating fuel to obtain the number of stoves a nd fireplaces in each Missouri county.**  **Similar proportions are given in the** EIA 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Ta ble HC3-1b. Space Heating by Climate Zone, Percent of U.S. Households **, where for Missouri’s climate zone, heating stoves comprise 78% of main w**  **ood-burning heating equipment and 22% is classified as “other”.** **69**

**92% of the woodstoves are non-EPA certified, 5.7% a re EPA certified non-catalytic, and 2.3**  **percent are EPA-certified catalytic according to** Documentation for Version 2 of the 1999 NEI for Criteria Pollutants- Area Sources **. These figures were used to allocate primary heati ng with**  **wood to fireplaces and stoves. The average number of cords burned per main wood-bu**  **rning unit per year is: 485,544 cords / 77,666 units = 6.25 cords/unit/ye**  **ar Consulting with people who have used wood as a prim**  **ary source of fuel, 4 to 6 cords is in fact about what it takes to heat a home for the winter,**  **more for a larger home. 10.1% of all households burn wood as a secondary so**  **urce of fuel (from Missouri’s climate zone in the**  EIA 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey**cited above.) These households range from those who burn a substantial quantity of wood**  **to those who use it for aesthetic purposes. 10% will be assumed to be the households that burn**  **purely for aesthetic purposes, until more guidance becomes available. The amount burned for**  **aesthetics is estimated over and above that obtained from the EIA, as described in**  Documentation for Version 2 of the 1999 NEI for Cri teria Pollutants- Area Sources **, cited above: “We have the total cords of wood co nsumed by the**  **residential section for 1997 from the EIA. This fi gure does not include consumption for**  **aesthetics....” The average number of cords burned i n fireplaces for aesthetic purposes is 0.069**  **cords/unit/year. The U.S. Forest Service’s 1987 study found that oak**  **and hickory were the principal fuelwood species in Missouri, accounting for 60% and 9% of t**  **he total harvested, respectively. Both oak and hickory hardwoods have a density conversion fac**  **tor of 39.9. One cord of wood is equal to about 79 cubic feet of solid wood.**  Emission Factors **Residential wood combustion emission factors are gi ven in**  DOCUMENTATION FOR THE FINAL 1999 NATIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY (VERSION 3. 0) FOR CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND AMMONIA AREA SOURCES **, Appendix B.**

Assumptions**70**

**It was assumed that there was not significant indus trial and commercial wood combustion. The**  **calculations were based strictly on residential con sumption data. Temporal adjustments for the**  **ozone season were not made although they perhaps sh ould be since VOC emissions are so high.**  **This would entail a revision to our 2002 NEI submit tal to the EPA.**  Sample Calculation (Cole County) **SCC - 2104008010 Woodstoves: General - Annual VOC ( tons/year) = (number of households in**  **Cole Country heating with wood) X (% of households using woodstoves) X (% of wood stoves**  **that are non-EPA certified) X (average number of co rds/household/year) X (volume of a cord of**  **wood) X (density of a cord of wood) / (2000 lb wood /ton) X (VOC emission factor) / (2000 lb**  **emissions/ton) Number of Houses Burning Wood in Cole County: 335**  **% of Households Burning Wood that have Woodstoves: 84%**  **% of Woodstoves that are non-EPA Certified: 92% Average number of cords/household/year: 6.25**  **Volume of a cord of wood: 79 cu. ft./cord Density of a cord of wood: 39.9 lb/cu.ft**  **VOC Emission Factor: 53 lb/ton Woodstoves: General - Annual VOC (tons/year) =**  **335 households X 0.844 X 0.92 X 6.25 cords/househol d/year X 79 cu. ft./cord X 39.9 lb/cu.ft /**  **2000 lb/ton X 53 lb VOC/ton / 2000 lb/ton = 6 8 tons VOC/year** 

2.22.3 Results
**The emissions from Residential Wood Combustion for the State of Missouri are as follows:**  2002 Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion in Missouri (Tons/Year) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 **2104008001 Fireplaces 6,938 79 3,884 12 715 715 2104008002 Fireplaces: Inserts;**  **non-EPA certified 2,190 116 9,537 17 1,264 1,264**  **2104008010 Woodstoves: General 15,746 832 68,570 119 9,0 91 9,091**  **2104008030 Catalytic Woodstoves: General**  **111 15 775 3 152 152 71** 

**2104008050 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: General**  **221 0 2,592 7 361 361**
2002 EMISSIONS - TOTAL ALL POLLUTANTS – 123,347 TONS 25,206 1,042 85,358 158 11,583 11,583 1999 EMISSIONS – TOTAL ALL POLLUTANTS – 206,454 TONS 93,211 1,058 102,817 137 9,231 9,231

2.22.4 References

• **EIIP Document Series – Volume III Area Sources - C hapter 1. Introduction to Area Source**  **Emission Inventory Development, August 1996. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume**  **03/index.html**
• **Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), Docu ment Series - Volume III, Area**  **Sources, Chapter 2 - Residential Wood Combustion, A pril 2001.**  **http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume 03/index.html.** 
• **Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Depar tment of Energy, Washington, D.C.**  **http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/res/use_ res_mo.html, also in our spreadsheets at**  **..\Excell\EIA Residential Energy Consumption in Mis souri.xls. Natural gas consumption:**  **http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/ngsales/ngsales_ mo.html.** 
• **EIA 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Tab le HC3-1b. Space Heating by**  **Climate Zone, Percent of U.S. Households, 2001 – Pr eliminary Data**  **http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detail_ta bles.html** 
• **USDA Forest Service Residential Fuelwood Production and Sources from Roundwood in**  **Missouri, 1987. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rb/ rb_nc132.pdf.)** 
• **The U.S Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, W ashington, D.C. U.S Bureau of**  **Census American Factfinder site for residential fue l statistics is at**  **http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServ let, also see**  **http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_l ang=en. Go to Data Sets; select Census**  **2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data and within this selection click on List all tables;**  **scroll all the way to Table H40. House Heating Fuel . Follow the arrows, select Counties; All**  **Counties; MA; Print/ Download into Excel.**
• **American Housing Survey for the United States in 2 001 Table 2-21 Housing Costs by**  **Selected Characteristics – Occupied Units - Consis tent with the 1990 Census.** 
• **Four Winters’ Worth of Residential Fuelwood Use 197 9-80 1981-82 1984-85 1987-88,**  **Missouri Department of Conservation, 1988.**
• **USDA Forest Service Residential Fuelwood Production and Sources from Roundwood in**  **Missouri, 1987. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rb/ rb_nc132.pdf** 
• **Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. Volu me I: Stationary Point and Area**  **Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality**  **Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995.** **72**

2.23 Traffic Markings 2.23.1 Source Description and Emissions Control **Traffic marking operation consists of marking of hi ghway center, edge stripes, and directional**  **markings and painting on other paved and unpaved su rfaces, such as markings in parking lots.**  **Materials used for traffic markings include solvent -based paints, water-bared paints,**  **thermoplastics, preformed tapes, field-reacted mate rials, and permanent markers. Solvent-based**  **formulations of alkyd resins or chlorinated rubber resins are the most commonly used traffic**  **paints. This inventory report focuses on applicati ons of traffic paints that emit a significant**  **quantity of volatile organic compounds (VOC). VOC emissions result from the evaporation of organi**  **c solvents during and shortly after the application of the marking paint. Three types emit** **VOC in appreciable amount are: (a) Non aerosol traffic paint, (b) Aerosol marking paint, a** **nd (c) Performed tapes applied to adhesive primer. VOC emissions can also result from cleanin**  **g the striping equipment. Because the use of organic solvents in traffic marking is the primary**  **source of emissions, control techniques for this source category involve either product substitution** **or product reformulation. Alternative formulations include low-solvent-content coatings,**  **water-based coatings, and plastic-based coatings.**  2.23.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **The Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) k eeps records of amount of paint used**  **for traffic coatings in 10 Districts. Since MODOT does not keep records of paint for each**  **county, population figures were used to estimate ho w much paint was used for each county.**  Emission Factor **Based on MODOT information the VOC emission factors for the paint used in 2002 are as**  **follows:** TYPE of Paint VOC Content (lb/gallon)

**White Waterborne .81 Yellow Waterborne .81**  **White Acrylic Copolymer 1.11 Yellow Acrylic Copolymer 1.05**  **White Epoxy 0 Yellow Epoxy 0** 
Assumptions**73**

**According to a national-level survey of traffic coa ting end users, it was assumed that 5% of**  **traffic coatings in Missouri was done by agencies o ther than the Department of Transportation.**  Sample Calculation (Cole County) **VOC Emissions (tons/year) = (Population Cole County /Population of District 5) X(VOC**  **emissions for District 5) / 2000 lb/ton VOC Emissions for District 5 (lb)= Amount of Paint**  **Used (gallons) X VOC Content of Paint (lb/gal) X 1.05 (to account for 5% paint used by ot**  **her agencies) Population of Cole County: 71894**  **Population of District 5: 461578 # Gallons of White Waterborne Paint Used in Distric**  **t 5: 37931 gal. # Gallons of Yellow Waterborne Paint Used in Distri**  **ct 5: 69653 gal. # Gallons of White Acrylic Copolymer Paint Used in**  **District 5: 102 gal. # Gallons of Yellow Acrylic Copolymer Paint Used in** **District 5: 106 gal. # Gallons of White Epoxy Paint Used in District 5:**  **0 gal. # Gallons of Yellow Epoxy Paint Used in District 5:**  **0 gal. Activity Days Per Week: 5** 
**VOC Emissions (ton/year) = (71894/461578) X [(37931 X .81) + (69653 X .81) + (102 X 1.11)**  **+ (106 X 1.05) + (0 X 0) + (0 X 0)] X 1.05 / 2000 ( lb/ton) = 7.144 ton/year**  2.23.3 Results **Total VOC emissions from traffic marking for the St ate of Missouri is 465.7 tons/year.**  2.23.4 References

• Traffic Markings **, Volume III: Chapter 14, Final Report, Area Source s Committee EIIP,**  **May1997.**
• Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Deve lopment **, Volume III: Chapter 1, Area Sources Committee EIIP, August 1996.** 
• Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors **. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42 (Fifth Edition), U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,**  **January 1995. 74** 

• **United States Bureau of Census** , **Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.**
• **Customer Service Center, Department of Transportati on, Jefferson City, MO.** 

2.24 Commercial Marine Vessels 2.24.1 Source Description and Emission Control
**Emissions from commercial marine vessels were calcu lated based on the tonnage of cargo**  **moved by ships along the Missouri and Mississippi R ivers through the port of Fort Benton**  **(Kansas City area) and the port of Metropolitan St. Louis in Missouri. This tonnage was taken**  **from the “Waterborne Commerce of the United States - Part 2, Waterways & Harbors, Gulf**  **Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles” pages 17 & 38 (1).**  2.24.2 Emission Estimation Methodology Activity Level **The most recent figures for tonnage totals are from the year 2001. For the purposes of this report**  **it was assumed that the tonnage for inventory year 2002 would be the same.**  **The equations used in the calculations were taken f rom Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory**  **for EPA Category 2 and 3 Compression Ignition Marin e Engines in the United States Continental**  **and Inland Waterways (2). The equations are summari zed below.**  **First, annual cargo movement in ton-miles was calcu lated by multiplying the number of tons**  **shipped in 2001 along the Mississippi River and Mis souri River through ports of Fort Benton**  **and St. Louis City, Missouri, by the length of the portion of the Mississippi River and Missouri**  **Rivers running through each individual county. C = L x T**  **Where: C = Annual cargo movement (ton-miles)**  **L = Length of Mississippi & Missouri rivers through each county (miles)**  **T = Total amount of cargo shipped through each coun ty (short tons)**  **Emissions per ton-mile were calculated by dividing the product of the deadweight tonnage, cargo**  **capacity factor, and average vehicle speed. Deadwei ght tonnage is a measurement of the total**  **contents of a ship, including cargo, fuel, crew, pa ssengers, food, and water aside from boiler**  **water. The cargo capacity factor is applied as a co rrection because ships do not typically operate**  **fully loaded with cargo.**
**E TM**  **= E** d ÷ **(DWT x CCF x V x 24) 75** 

**Where: E**  **TM = Emissions per ton-mile (lbs/ton-mile)**  **E d** **= Emissions per day per ship from Method A (lbs/da y/ship)**  **DWT = Average dead weight tonnage per ship (tons/sh ip)**  **CCF = Cargo capacity factor V = Average speed of vessel across duty cycle adjus**  **ted for max. BHP (miles/hour) 24 = Hours per day to convert ship speed to ship mi**  **les per day Emissions per year were calculated by multiplying t** **he results from the previous equations. E**  **Y = E**  **TM x C**  **Where: E**  **Y = Emissions per year (lb/year)**  **E TM**  **= Emissions per ton-mile (lbs/ton-mile) C = Annual cargo movement (ton-miles)**  **The total tonnage of cargo shipped along the Missis sippi River through the port of St. Louis City,**  **Missouri, in 2001 was** 34,432,000 **tons. The total tonnage of cargo shipped along th e Missouri**  **River through the port of Fort Benton was** 9,295,000 **tons. As previously mentioned, it was assumed that the tonnages for the year 2002 would b**  **e the same. This data was obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce St**  **atistics Center (1).** Emission Factors **From reference 1, the following values were obtaine d:**  **Emission Factors Avg NOx emissions per day per ship on inland rivers**  **: 641.92**  **lbs per day-cargo-ship Avg VOC ,**  **21.70 lbs per day-cargo-ship**  **Cargo capacity of ships on inland rivers: 0.6**  **Avg deadweight tonnage per ship: 15,454**  **short tons Avg speed of vessels on inland rivers:**  **8.18 mph**  Assumptions **Emissions were apportioned to the county level base d on the percent of the Mississippi River and**  **Missouri River flowing adjacent to/through each cou nty. It was assumed that 50% of emissions**  **from Mississippi River would be accounted for in Il linois’ inventory and the other 50% of**  **emissions would go to Missouri’s inventory (the sam e holds true for Platte County, whereas 50%**  **of emissions are assumed to be accounted for in Kan sas). Using the USGS National Map**  **Viewer, the length of the Missouri & Mississippi Ri vers running through the entire state was**  **measured and recorded along with the individual len gths within each county. Maps of each**  **county river length are attached to this report. 76** 

**There is no reference that asserts the seasonal or temporal variation for this activity. Therefore, it**  **was assumed that activity does not vary throughout the year and occurs seven days per week.**  Sample Calculation (Jefferson County) 2002 NOx Emissions from Commercial Marine Vessels i n Jefferson County **Cargo movement in 2002 = (Length of river through J efferson County) x (Total tons shipped**  **through Port of St. Louis in 2001) = (**  21.32 **miles) x (** 34,432,000 **tons) =**  734,090,240 **ton-miles Emissions per ton-mile = (Emissions/day-ship)/[(Av**  **g. deadweight tonnage) x (cargo capacity factor) x (Avg. speed)**  ] **= (** 641.92 **lbs/NOx/day-ship) / [(** 15,454 **tons/ship) x (** 0.6 **) x (** 8.18 **miles/hr) x (24 hrs/1 day)] =**  3.53 x 10 -4 **lbs NOx/ton-mile 2002 annual emissions for both sides of the Mississ**  **ippi River running through Jefferson County**

**= (Ton-miles per year) x (Emissions per ton-mile) = (**  734,090,240 **ton-miles) x (** 3.53 x 10 -4 **lbs/ton-mile) x (1 ton/2,000 lbs) =**  129.43 **tons NOx/yr 2002 Jefferson Co. emissions = (total Mississippi R**  **iver emissions) x (Percent of emissions occurring on Missouri side)**  **=** 129.43 **tons NOx/yr) x 0.50 =**  64.72 **tons NOx/yr** 2.24.3 Results
**The emissions for the State of Missouri from Commer cial Marine Vessels are 74.6 ton/year**  **VOC, 1979.2 tons/year NOx, and 184.48 tons/year PM1 0.**  2.24.4 References

• “Tonnage for Selected U.S. Ports in 1999” table fro m U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, “Waterborne Commerce of the United States - Part 2, Waterways & Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi Riv er System and Antilles”. (http://www.wrsc.usace.army.mil/ndc/portsname.htm)
• “Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory for EPA Cate gory 2 and 3 Compression Ignition Marine Engines in the United States Continental and Inland Waterways,” US EPA, EPA 420-R-98-020, August 1998. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/fr/ r98020.pdf)
• USGS National Map Viewer (http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs. gov/viewer.htm **) 77** 

**1. “Tonnage for Selected U.S. Ports in 1999” table fro**  **m U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center,**  “Waterborne Commerce of the United States - Part 2, Waterways & Harbors, Gulf Coast, M ississippi River System and Antilles” **. (http://www.wrsc.usace.army.mil/ndc/portsname.htm )**  **2.** “Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory for EPA Cate gory 2 and 3 Compression Ignition Marine Engines in the United States Contin ental and Inland Waterways **,” US EPA, EPA 420-R-98-020, August 1998.**  **(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/fr/ r98020.pdf)** 

**3. USGS National Map Viewer (http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.**  **gov/viewer.htm)**