EPA 905/2-77-002-A
Emissions Update and Projections For
Indiana Air Quality Maintenance Areas
Volume I!
Marion County
March 1977
Final Report
jjggWgggigg::::::®:;
-
•••••
X*X;
••MB
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
Exhibit B
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read [nzuuctions on ihe reverse.before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 905/2-77-002A
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIO»NO.
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emissions Update and Projections for Indiana
Air Quality Maintenance Areas
Volume II Marion County
5. REPORT DATE
March 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
C. P. Bartosh, B. P. Cerepaka, W. J. Moltz
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
DCN 77-100-044-13-08
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78766
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1383, Task 13
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Chicago, Illinois 60604
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This document is one of several volumes.
16 ABSTRACT
The implementation of the strategy for reduction of pollutant emissions
has resulted in reduced ambient concentrations of TSP and S02. Current
levels of air quality in Marion County, however, indicate that progress
has not been sufficient to attain the NAAQS for TSP. At present, it is
not known whether the problem lies in lack of strict enforcement of the
SIP or whether the SIP is in itself insufficient. In order to make
this determination, the State af Indiana initiated a review of the
current SIP. Radian Corporation was retained to perform an update of
the area and point source portions of the review. The update was
designed to determine the area and point source emissions at a level of
accuracy consistent with the higher level of detail described in the
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis. To
determine if problems will be encountered in maintaining air quality
standards in the future, the area and point source emissions were
projected for the years 1980 and 1985.
17
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
*••*'
3 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
Unlimited
20. SECURITY CLASS
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
EPA 905/2-77-002A
EMISSIONS UPDATE AND PROJECTIONS FOR
INDIANA AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS
VOLUME II
MARION COUNTY
By
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78766
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-1383 TASK ORDER 13
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Chicago, Illinois 60604
March 1977
-------
This air pollution report is issued by Region V,
Environmental Protection Agency, to assist state and local air
pollution c'ontrol agencies in carrying out their program
activities. Copies of this report may be obtained, for a
nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental
Protection Agency by Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas, in
fulfillment of EPA Contract 68-02-1383 TO 13. This report has
been reviewed by Region V, EPA and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Region V Publication No. EPA 905/2-77-002A
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The implementation of the strategy for reduction of
pollutant emissions has resulted in reduced ambient concentra-
tions of TSP and S02. Current levels of air quality in Marion
County, however, indicate that progress has not been sufficient
to attain the NAAQS for TSP. At present, it is not known
whether the SIP is in itself insufficient. In order to make
this determination, the State of Indiana initiated a review of
the current SIP. Radian Corporation was retained to perform
an update of the area and point source portions of the review.
The update was designed to determine the area and point source
emissions at a level of accuracy consistent with the higher
level of detail described in the Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis. To determine if problems
will be encountered in maintaining air quality standards in
the future, the area and point source emissions were projected
for the years 1980 and 1985.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 POINT SOURCE PROJECTIONS 1
1.1 Projected Point Source Emissions 1
1.1.1 Existing Sources 1
1.1.2 New Sources 2
1.1.3 Compliance Analysis 14
1.2 Data Acquisition 14
1.2.1 Baseline Data 14
1.2.2 Projections Data 19
1.2.2.1 Growth Survey 19
1.2.2.2 Generalized Factors 27
1.3 Projection Methodology 30
1.3.1 Determination of Whether Source
Is New, Existing, or Deleted 33
1.3.2 Determination of Whether New
Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Apply 33
1.3.3 Determination of Whether NEDS
Point Has More Than One SCC
Process 35
1.3.4 Emissions Calculation by Use of
Emission Factors 35
1.3.5 Emission Calculation by Use of
NEDS Data 36
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
1.3.6 Accounting for Projected Control
Efficiencies 37
1.3.7 Calculation of Emissions
Allowed by State SIP 37
1.3.8 Calculation of Emissions
Allowed by NSPS 41
1.3.9 Determination of Projected
Emissions Where NSPS Do Not
Apply 42
1.3.10 Determination of Projected
Emissions Where an NSPS Applies 43
1.4 Inputs to Projection Methodology 44
2.0 BASEYEAR AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS 50
2.1 Residential Fuels 50
2.1.1 County Emissions 50
2.1.2 Subcounty Apportionment 51
2.2 Commercial/Institutional Fuels 53
2.2.1 County Emissions 53
2.2.2 Subcounty Apportionment 54
2.3 Industrial Fuels 58
2.3.1 County Emissions 58
2.3.2 Subcounty Apportionment 60
2.4 Mobile Sources - Highway Vehicles 60
2.4.1 County Emissions 60
2.4.2 Subcounty Apportionment 63
2.5 Mobile Sources - Railroad Engines 63
2.5.1 County Emissions 63
2.5.2 Subcounty Apportionment 65
vx
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
2.6 Mobile Sources - Vessels 66
2.7 Mobile Sources - Aircraft 67
2.7.1 County Emissions 67
2.7.2 Subcounty Apportionment 68
2.8 Mobile Sources - Other Off-Highway
Fuels 68
2.8.1 County Emissions 68
2.9 Solid Waste Disposal - Open Burning 71
2.9.1 County Emissions 71
2.9.2 Subcounty Apportionment 72
2.10 Solid Waste Disposal - Incineration 72
2.10.1 County Emissions 72
2.10.2 Subcounty Allocation 73
2.11 Agricultural Tilling 73
2.12 Heavy Construction Activities 74
2.13 Fugitive Dust Vehicles 78
2.14 Wind-Blown Dust
2.14.1 County Emissions 80
2.14.2 Subcounty Apportionment 81
2.15 Process Losses 82
2.16 Structural Fires 82
2.17 Negligible and Uninventoried Categories 82
3.0 PROJECTED AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS 85
3.1 Residential Fuels 85
3.2 Commercial/Institutional Fuels 86
3.3 Industrial Fuels 86
3.4 Mobile Sources - Highway Vehicles 87
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
3.5 Mobile Sources - Railroad Engines 88
3.6 Mobile Sources - Vessels 88
3.7 Mobile Sources - Aircraft 89
3.8 Mobile Sources - Other Off-Highway
Sources 89
3.9 Solid Waste Disposal - Open Burning 90
3.10 Solid Waste Disposal - Incineration 90
3.11 Agricultural Tilling 90
3.12 Heavy Construction Activities 91
3.13 Fugitive Dust-Vehicles 92
3.14 Wind-Blown Dust 92
3.15 Process Losses 93
3.16 Structural Fires 93
4.0 CDM CONVERSION 94
4.1 Point Sources 94
4.2 Area Sources 94
APPENDIX A - Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis, Vol. 7, Projecting
County Emissions
APPENDIX B - Supplemental Area Source Data
B-l Area Source Fuel Dealers Survey Cover Letter
and Fuel Oil Questionnaires
B-2 Residential Open Burning Communication From
Indianapolis APCD
B-3 Fugitive Dust From Garbage Trucks Data Provided
by Indianapolis DMD
vi 11.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
APPENDIX C - Regulations (Incorporated Herein by
Reference)
APPENDIX D - Input Listing of Growth Survey and Other
Data for Point Source Projections
APPENDIX E - Emissions Summaries
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
1-1 Projected Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions at Existing Point Sources in Marion
Marion County, Indiana 3
1-2 Marion County Compliance Analysis 15
1-3 1974 Data and NEDS Location 20
1-4 Growth Factors Developed from OBERS Series E 29
1-5 Input Data Description and Format 45
2-1 Residential Fuel Survey Results and Emissions 52
2-2 Commercial/Institutional Fuels, 1974 Fuel
Survey and Permits 56
2-3 Commercial Institutional Area Source
Emissions 57
2-4 Industrial Fuels, 1974 Fuel Survey and Permits 59
2-5 Industrial Area Source Emissions 61
2-6 1974 Aircraft Operations and Emissions 69
2-7 Update of Permitted Non-Point Sources 83
4-1 CDM Input Format 95
4-2 IRTADS to CDM Grid Apportioning Factors 97
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
1-1 Survey Cover Letter 21
1-2 Example Survey Form - Part I 22
1-3 Example Survey - Part II 25
1-4 Emission Projection Methodology 32
2-1 General Soil Map and Silt Contents 75
2-2 Soils of Agricultural Area on IRTADS
District Map 76
4-1 Marion County CDM Grid 96
XIL
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
AQMA - Air Quality Maintenance Area
CDM - Climatological Dispersion Model
DMD - Department of Metropolitan Development
EF - Emission Factor
EGF - Emission Growth Factor
IAA - Indianapolis Airport Authority
IAPCD - Indiana Air Pollution Control Division
IHCC - Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission
IRTADS - Indianapolis Regional Transportation And Development
Study
NSPS - New Source Performance Standard(s)
SIC - Standard Industrial Classification
SIP - State Implementation Plan
S02 - Sulfur Dioxide
TSP - Total Suspended Particulates - for fugitive dust
particles emissions are reported for particles < 30 ym
XI1
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report documents a study to update and project
air pollutant emissions inventories for Indianapolis, Marion
County, Indiana. The pollutants studied were total suspended
particulates (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S02) . The study was
divided into an area sources segment and a point sources seg-
ment. The area source segment consisted of two parts: the
baseyear 1974 inventory and projections for 1975, 1980, and
1985. The area source baseyear inventory is reported in Section
2.0. The projected inventories are described in Section 3.0.
The goal of the point sources segment was to project 1975, 1980,
and 1985 emissions from a 1974 NEDS-format inventory. Section
1.0 describes the methods and results for the point source
projections. Finally both the point and area sources inventories
were converted into input format for the Climatological Disper-
sion Model (COM). This conversion is described in Section 4.0.
The following section summarizes the inventory results for both
point and area sources. •
Xlll
-------
SUMMARY
The results of the reported project can be summarized
as follows. For point sources the basic goal was to obtain
stack-by-stack emission projections for each point source in
the existing 1974 NEDS inventory. The methods used and results
are included in Chapter 1.0. Summaries were also made of plant-
by-plant emissions, county point source emissions, and plant
emissions for each SIC. These summaries are included in
Appendix E.
For area sources, both a baseyear 1974 inventory and
projections were accomplished. The baseyear inventory encom-
passed some 18 area source categories. Countywide emissions
were apportioned into 67 IRTADS grids. County baseyear emis-
sions are reported in Section 2.0. Emission.projections were
performed using countywide growth factors. The countywide
projections were then applied to the baseyear apportioned
emissions. The methods used to project each area source cate-
gory are described in Section 3.0. The gridded emissions are
displayed in Appendix E.
Stack-by-stack point source emissions and area source
gridded emissions were converted to CDM format. These methods
are described in Section 4.0. Computer card decks and related
project documentation have limited distribution and were sub-
mitted under a separate cover.
xiv
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The point source projections reported herein were
developed from an existing data base. This data base was found
to have a variety of errors and omissions. It is recommended
that a program of validation be undertaken to support the work
documented in this report.
The area source portion of this study involved both
establishment of a detailed, gridded inventory plus projections.
Although attempts were made to inventory all area source cate-
gories rigorously, several items should be noted. First, the
fugitive dust categories are difficult to inventory because of
the poor precision of emission factors, e.g., reentrainment.
This difficulty is even more apparent when attempting to appor-
tion county emissions down into grid squares as small as 1 km.
Second, care should be exercised when using the results for
modeling purposes. Ideally each area source emissions category
in the 1974 inventory is "representative" of 1974. At the
county level this is more nearly the case than at the grid
level. For example, it was not possible to acquire all year-by-
year building construction data. Last, the annual inventory
cannot be directly used for other averaging times. For example,
several categories are intermittent sources on a daily basis.
That is, on one particular day in 1974, the emissions cannot be
calculated by dividing the annual tonnage by 365. It is hoped
that consideration of these temporal and spatial uncertainies
will allow a more beneficial use of the data reported herein.
xv
-------
1.0 POINT SOURCE PROJECTIONS
The purpose of this section is to describe the
procedures used and results obtained for the point source
emission projections in Marion County, Indiana. The first step
in the analysis was to gather data for each point source which
could be identified. This activity is described in Section 1.2.
The second step in the analysis was to prepare a detailed
methodology which could be used to project particulate and
sulfur dioxide emissions for each point source. The resulting
methodology is discussed in Section 1.3. The third step was to
transform the data gathered in Section 1.2 analysis into a form
which could be used within the projection methodology. This
input data is shown in Section 1.4. The results of these pro-
cedures are estimated particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions
for each point source in Marion County for the years 1975,
1980 and 1985. These emission estimates are shown in Section
1.1.
1. 1 Projected Point Source Emissions
1.1.1 Existing Sources
This section describes the results of the emission
projections on a stack-by-stack basis. Data was gathered by
the methods described in Section 1.2 for each process which the
1974 NEDS data base reported as a point source. This data (see
Section 1.4) was analyzed by the procedures described in Sec-
tion 1.3. The result of this procedure was a projected particu-
late and S02 emission rate (in tons per year) for each source
existing in 1974 for the years 1975, 1980, and 1985. These
emission projections reflect a consideration of process growth,
emission control equipment, and state and federal regulations.
-------
Compliance with all regulations is assumed. A listing of these
projections for Marion County is shown in Table 1-1. These
emissions have been rounded off to the nearest ton per year with
any emissions less than 0.5 ton per year being reported as zero.
The listing includes the following 'sources:
1) Any source in the 1974 NEDS for which
growth data was received, whether or
not there were any particulate or S02
emissions projected.
2) Any source in the 1974 NEDS for which
no plant specific growth data was avail-
able but did have particulate and/or
S02 emissions reported in 1974.
The listing does not include any source for which no plant
specific growth data was available and was reported as not
having particulate and/or S02 emissions in 1974.
1.1.2 New Sources
In addition to the data reported by the facilities
with regard to existing source growth, several facilities in
Indiana indicated plans for the addition of new processes. The
purpose of this data was to estimate particulate and S02 emis-
sions generated by new point sources at existing facilities.
The results of this analysis in Marion County showed that there
were no substantial particulate or S02 emissions within this
category in 1975, 1980 or 1985.
-2-
-------
at Existing Point Sources in Marion County, Indiana
2640
1975 1975 19fl« 1<»80 1985
T PI. PARTICUI.ATE 302 PARTICIPATE 302 PARTICUI.ATE
ER NO, EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TRY) HPY) (TPY) (TPY)
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
5
B
7
8
8
8
8
«
«
q
1
Z
\
1
2
I
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
1
2
J
4
3
6
1
0 0
10 0
H 0
1 22
1 14
Id 0
0 0
0 71
53 438
IBS 774
13 0
2 ft
0 0
83 7 Ifi
0 0
4 0
4 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
000
II 0 12
0 0 Id
1 2? 1
1 15 1
000
000
000
53 450 55
1?8 1043 128
15 0 13
262
000
80 856 80
000
404
404
1 « 1
l a 1
000
S02
EMISSIONS
(TPY)
0
0
0
23
15
0
0
0
43<>
1043
0
6
0
866
0
0
Vi
0
0
PI
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
264PI
1975
NT PT. PARTICULATE
BER NO, EMISSIONS
(TPY)
9
9
9
9
Q
9
9
IPI
l»l
1M
IB
10
IB
11
1 1
1 t
11
It
12
12
2
3
4
5
fi
7
8
1
2
3
4
S
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
PI
PI
fl
0
PI
44
27
?7
45
17
a
0
a
14
t 4
1 4
PI
4
19
28
1975 19BB
302 PARTICtllATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY)
PI
PI
PI
a
PI
273
165
3U7
272
12-5
PI
Cl
PI
167
167
167
PI
1
PI
PI
PI
Cl
PI
M
ei
44
27
27
49
16
0
PI
PI
1 5
15
15
H
U
?4
36
198PI I9B5
302 PAHTICULATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY)
PI
PI
PI
PI
ft
273
1 69
3PI8
272
127
PI
Pi
pi
169
169
1 69
PI
PI
0
PI
ft
PJ
0
U
PI
44
?7
?9
50
19
PI
(I
H
15
15
15
PI
PI
24
36
1983
502
EMISSIONS
(TPY)
Pi
PI
PI
PI
PI
273
165
339
3PII*
130
Pi
Pi
PI
1 69
169
169
PI
PI
VI
PI
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
COUNTY PLANT
NUMBER NUMBER
264PI 12
14
15
IB
17
17
17
17
17
1
Ul i y
\
17
17
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
2fl
1975 1975 ISflW 198H 1983 1983
PT. PARTICIPATE 502 PARTICIPATE S02 PARTICIPATE 302
NO, EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY)
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
12
1
1
2
3
4
5
I
2
Pi
14
IS
PI
0
4
a
0
3
2
0
fl
H
PI
P,
(.
PI
7
13
PI
S9
14
PI
4
30
RPI
PI
173
126
PI
0
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
fl
6
0
PJ
1 4
6
PI
0
4
g
H
3
2
ft
I/I
PI
a
0
M
H
PI
7
13
PI
30
14
a
5
42
89
PI
193
141
PI
PI
PI
PI
ft
PI
fl
PI
fi
PI
0
1 5
6
PJ
ifl
4
0
a
3
2
PI
PI
fl
0
til
a
0
0
7
13
n
31
14
(I
3
45
95
d
2PI5
I3«
PI
PI
PI
Pi
PI
'i
M
B
fl
Pi
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
264PI
1Q75
NT PI, P*RTICULATE
HEH kIO, EMISSIONS
21
21
21
22
22
25
25
25
25
27
27
28
28
2fl
301
3«
30
301
31
32
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
1
120
17S
12
63
0
3
3
»
M
4
2
0
1
ri
«
H
P,
M
e
|5«
1973 19R« 198PI 19fl5 1985
SO? PARTICIPATE 502 PAHT1CULATE 502
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TRY) (TPY) (TRY) (TRY) (TRY)
370
540
162
SIR
PI
12?
12?
PI
PI
ft
PI
P,
3
PI
0
PI
PI
ft
62
2*
96 144
135 ?i»5
•52 61
« J 7HH
» 01
3 124
3 124
H PI
0 PI
4 0
2 P)
fl PJ
1 3
H (1
« «
M PI
11 PI
0 0
8 63
1 *$ 33
fl7 131
1 ?4 187
36 36
81 70n
fl H
3 127
3 127
0 1
^ Pi
4 t*
2 Pi
0 d
1 3
1?) PI
kl H
a n
0 PI
« 0
8 63
160 33
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
2640
1975
NT PT, PARTICULAR
f»EH NO, EMISSIONS
(TPY)
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
34
3d
34
34
34
34
34
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
1 1
12
13
i
2
J
4
5
6
7
11
n
0
«
H
H
VI
H
isa
u
483
fl
4fi4
238
284
4H
4H
4
4
H
1975 198rt
S02 PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY)
1
t
1
I
1
I
1
1
flee
VI
6fll
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
COUNTY PLAHT
264H
00
I
1975 1975 19B0
IHT PT, PARTICIPATE SO? PARTICUI.ATE
IBER NO. EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY) (TPY)
34
35
35
36
37
39
39
39
39
39
39
4*
4(1
41
41
41
41
4?
42
42
8
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
?
1
2
•>
4
1
2
3
H 2
46 ?33
46 333
2 192
5 3PI
1 P
?7 ?IPI
9 102
21 3CI3
« 114
0 d
2 2
2 2
15 131
15 131
15 »31
5 5
166 1187
1 «l 621
Sfl 35P
1
(1
H
2
5
1
26
1 1
?4
0
W
2
2
15
1 5
13
6
66
l\7
54
SO? PAKTICULATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (1PY)
4
(I
PI
225
3d
PI
2*6
138
333
274
a
2
2
131
131
131
6
1147
660
334
1
(1
PI
3
5
1
28
12
26
0
HI
2
2
15
15
15
8
66
*7
54
198S
302
EMISSIONS
(TPY)
4
[ft
PI
244
3PI
PI
266
152
367
137
U
?
?
131
131
131
6
1 147
669
334
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
COUNTY PLANT
26491
1 975
NT PT. PARTICIPATE
BEH MO, EMISSIONS
( FPY)
42
42
42
42
44
47
47
47
47
4H
48
49
49
49
30
51
51
51
52
32
4
5
6
7
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
J
1
2
219
2
»
16
1
0
77
0
PJ
«
3
PI
4
36
*
12
69
(1
4
1
1975 1980
S02 PARTICIPATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY)
0
0
12
64
PI
*
763
0
0
0
21
0
17
278
0
IHfl
493
0
21
1
234
2
0
6
1
0
77
PI
Q
«
3
4
4
36
0
t 1
94
0
4
1
1980 19B5 1985
502 PARTICIPATE S02
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY) (TPY)
0 23"4
0 2
13 t
24 6
0 1
0 M
765 77
PI 0
0 0
0 0
21 3
PI 0
17 4
27B 36
0 0
172 14
fi68 1
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
2640
O
I
1975
NT PT. PARTICIPATE
BER NO. EMISSIONS
(TPY)
52
58
56
56
57
58
59
58
58
5«
59
60
691
eei
6J
61
61
61
61
61
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
ft
40
78
2
H
9
16
17
63
«
2
15
15
15
9
4
4
4
6
A
1975 198d I960 19P5
SO? PASTICUI.ATE 302 PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (IPY) (TPV) (TPY)
ft
fll
HI
42
Cl
62 .
107
1H
419
ft
4
17(1
t;«i
17VI
1
16
16
Ifi
«
P\
M
4H
78
2
0
9
16
17
61
0
2
1 4
IS
15
VI
3
3
3
ft
H
III
81
61
42
0
44
76
80
286
a
3
159
17tl
17P1
n
13
13
13
«
P
w
4CI
78
2
H
9
16
17
61
ft
1
13
15
15
0
3
3
3
P
VI
1985
S02
EMISSIONS
(TPY)
VI
81
fll
42
PI
44
76
80
286
81
3
148
17W
17U
PI
13
1?
13
a
a
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
2640
1973
NT PT. PARTICULATE
IBER MO. EMISSIONS
(TPY)
fit
61
61
6)
61
SI
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
62
6?
62
62
fi2
62
62
7
8
9
IB
11
12
1.1
1 4
13
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
6
ft
Id
IPt
7
10
fi
9
6
g
n
H
e
B
H
0
0
0
1975 1980
SO? PARTICIPATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY)
231
1
PI
a
231
2
a
PI
271
1
0
PI
237
18
IB
18
a
PI
c
01
a
«!
u
»
i
a
p>
12
M
ll
0
1H
0
0
H
a
H
H
M
01
1980 19B5
S02 PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY)
IK
ft
171
d
PI
(1
PI
(1
304
0
PI
PI
261
21
21
21
n
n
PI
PI
H
e
ei
«i
o
n
n
12
u
0
H
10
0
8
8
B
PI
PI
U
H
1985
302
EMISSIONS
CTPY)
0
01
PI
0
(4
PI
PI
PI
3M4
PI
PI
PI
261
24
24
24
0
Pi
0
0
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
2640
NT PT. PAHT1CUIATE SU2 PAHTICULATt S02 PAHTICULATt 502
l»et< NO, EMISSIONS tMISSIUNS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY) UPY) (TPY) (TPY) CTPY)
02
62
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
66
66
09
70
70
?»
7*
7H
71
71
71
B
9
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
J
H 0
0 0
1 4
79 740
u rt
& 30
u 0
U 0
0 0
K) H
27 a
kt ft
3U 426
3d 426
3B 426
3U 426
3 11
tt vl
9 tlk)
12 115
Id t
a 1
1 4
90 691
0 9
9 3»
Id 0
k) (9
Vt PI
k) 0
27 a
H H
19 11
1U 11
19 It
iy 11
3 9
M H
IB . ys
1H 99
a
a
2
9*
id
9
t)
li)
0
ia
27
tt
19
19
1«
19
2
*
21
It)
17
17
5
691
H
3M
»
«
«
0
H
19
1 1
11
11
11
6
0
109
99
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
COUSTY PUANT
264PI
1973
NT PT. PART1CUI.ATE
IBEK NO, EMISSIONS
(TPY)
71
72
7.1
74
75
7fi
77
7fl
79
4
1
1
1
1
fl
fl
PI
PI
3
H
PI
«
0
0
0
0
n
1975 19BPI |9B?l 19P5 19flS
S03 PARTKULATE 302 PARTICULATE S02
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
(TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY)
3
PI
Pi
PI
0
PI
Pi
PI
352
4 4
H PI
PI PI
0 PI
» 91
0 PI
0 01
PI PI
]PI 414
4 4
a n
o PI
H pi
0 PI
pt PI
H PI
0 PJ
10 441
LO
I
-------
1.1.3 Compliance Analysis
As will be discussed in detail in Section 1.3, each
source which emitted particulates or SOa was subjected to a
comparison with allowable emissions as determined by the Indiana
SIP and the federal New Source Performance Standards. The
emissions reported in Table 1-1 represent emissions which were
calculated assuming complete compliance with all state and
federal regulations. There were, however, several sources which
when analyzed solely on the basis of projected process parame-
ters would generate emissions greater than those allowed by the
regulations. These sources are listed in Table 1-2 along with
the projected emissions based on process parameters and the
final projected emissions based on regulations.
1.2 Data Acquisition
This aspect of the point source projection procedure
involved acquiring both the 1974 baseline emissions and the
growth parameters for the 1975, 1980, and 1985 projections.
This section, therefore, is divided into a subsection on base-
line data and a subsection on projection data. The data acquired
by the methods described below were used as input to the pro-
jections procedures described in a subsequent section.
1.2.1 Baseline Data
The year which was used as a baseline in these pro-
cedures was 1974. The 1974 emission and process parameter data
used was that supplied by the Indiana Air Pollution Control
Division (IAPCD) in the form of a 1974 National Emissions Data
System (NEDS) point source inventory computer tape and a 1974
Emission Inventory Subsystem (EIS) printout.
-14-
-------
TABLE 1-2. MARION COUNTY COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Plant
Number
3
5
8
9
11
12
22
Point
Number
1
2
1
2
3
1
7
8
1
2
3
2
1
Regulation
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
5
5
5
4R
4R
4R
Year
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
Violation
Actual
Emissions
(TPY)
4
4
4
3
3
3
105
110
110
737
995
995
19
25
25
1694
1044
1044
377
377
377
227
227
227
214
218
218
214
218
218
214
218
218
70
101
101
396
167
167
Allowed
Emissions
(TPY)
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
55
55
105
128
128
13
15
15
716
866
866
273
273
273
165
165
165;
167
169
169
167
169
169
167
169
169
28
36
36
63
81
81
Continued
-15-
-------
TABLE 1-2 (Continued)
Plant Point
Number Number
32 1
33 9
11
13
34 1
2
3
4
5
6
35 2
39 2
3
4
41 1
2
Regulation
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
4R
13
13, NSPS
13, NSPS
13, NSPS
13, NSPS
13, NSPS
13, NSPS
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
4R
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
Year
75
80 '
85
75
75
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
75
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
75
80
85
75
80
85
Violation
Actual Allowed
Emissions Emissions
(TPY) (TPY)
226
249
273
1627
3074
24393
4070
3393
59575
39130
33679
4522
4567
4412
3833
3872
3741
3317
3350
3235
3317
3350
3235
1373
1387
1339
1373
1387
1339
498
63
510
394
434
164
175 '
192
272
75
75
75
75
75
75
159
160
160
152
866
6816
1601
1335
8049
6020
6363
1278
1416
1416
1278
1416
1416
933
1037
1040
938
1037
1040
384
431
431
384
431
431
333
46
210
206
266
102
138
152
303
15
15
15
15
15
15
Continued
-16-
-------
TABLE 1-2 (Continued)
Plant
Number
42
47
56
53
60
62
Point
Number
3
1
2 .
3
2
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
Regulation
4R
4R
4R
4R
13
4R
4R
4R
4R
13
4R
4R
4R
13
13
13
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
Year
75
80
85
75
75
75
75
80
85
75
75
30
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
30
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
Violation
Actual
Emissions
(TPY)
75
75
75
593
1977
263
134
144
144
597
934
234
234
918
906
906
120
120
120
26
20
20
45
35
35
43
21
21
176
131
131
19
18
16
19
19
19
19
19
19
9
10
12
Allowed
Emissions
(TPY)
15
15
15
166
1187
101
50
54
54
359
77
77
77
765
765
. 765
78
78
78
9
9
9
16
16
16
17
17
17
63
61
61
15
14
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
8
8
8
Continued
-17-
-------
TABLE 1-2 (Continued)
Plant
Number
64
68
Point
Number
2
3
8
9
1
1
Regulation
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
4R
Year
75
80
85
' 75
' 80
85
85
85
75
80
85
75
80
85
Violation
Actual
Emissions
(TPY)
9
10
12
9
10
12
13
13
863
939
939
88
88
88
Allowed
Emissions
(TPY)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
79
90
90
27
27
27
-18-
-------
When the baseline data was required for a projection,
the data shown in Table 1-3 was drawn from the NEDS or EIS data
base and was assumed to be correct.
1.2.2 Projections Data
The two types of data which were used for emission
projections are 1) growth estimates provided by the emitting
facility and 2) growth estimates based on economic growth as
projected by the United States Department of Commerce. The
first type of data, as provided by the facility, was used when-
ever possible and the generalized growth factors were used only
as a backup when more specific data was not available. The pro-
cedures used in obtaining the source specific estimates are dis-
cussed in the following section on the Growth Survey and the
general factors are discussed in the section on PEERS Estimated
Growth.
1.2.2.1 Growth Survey
The growth survey consisted of mailing a two-part
questionnaire to each facility listed in the 1974 NEDS point
source inventory. These questionnaires were mailed out to these
facilities under a cover letter designed by IAPCD and shown in
Figure 1-1. Part one of the questionnaire was designed by the
IAPCD and Radian and consisted of general questions related to
overall plant changes and growth. An example of this nart of
the questionnaire is shown in Figure 1-2. Part two of the ques-
tionnaire was developed by Radian and consisted of a request for
growth projections (in the form or projected throughput, fuel
use, etc.) for each specific process at the facility. A request
was also made for data on any projected new emission sources at
these facilities. An example of a completed Part II Question-
naire for a facility in Indiana is shown in Figure 1-3.
-19-
-------
TABLE 1-3. 1974 DATA AND NEDS LOCATION
Data
County Number
Plant Number
Establishment Name
Point Number
SIC
Particulate Control
Efficiency
S02 Control Efficiency
Operating Time
Particulate Emissions
SO 2 Emissions
Allowable Particulate
Emissions
Allowable S02 Emissions
sec
Operating Rate
Maximum Design Rate
Percent Sulfur
Percent Ash
Card
All
All
1
2-6
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
Location
Column
3-6
10-13
22-61
14-15
18-21
53-55
56-58
26-30
31-37
33-44
18-24
25-31
18-25
26-32
33-39
40-42
43-45
-20-
-------
STATE- °x INDIANA_ o wv
INDIANAPOLIS
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
Address Reply to:
An Equal Opportunity Employer ^S^XL-2^' Indiana State Board of Health
1330 Weat Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Re: Air Pollution Point Source Survey
The Air Pollution Control Division of the Indiana State
Board of Health is responsible for preparing a special evaluation
of the impact of air pollution in eleven Indiana counties. This
objective is part of an overall goal of the Federal EPA to
evaluate the attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards. A federally-sponsored contractor will assist in the
data gathering.
Your company is requested to fill out the enclosed ques-
tionnaires as part of an inventory of 1975 emissions and data
collection to give an idea of what future emissions may be in
1980 and 1985.
We realize that calculation of growth factors and through-
put for 1980 and 1985 will be speculative. We believe, however,
that your estimates will be better than the use of nationally-
developed growth factors, and that this survey will lead to an
accurate estimation of future air emissions.
Please complete and return this form to our office before
May 21, 1976. If you have any questions, feel free to contact
Sue Schrader, Indiana Air Pollution Control Division, at (317)
633-4814, or at the above address.
Very truly yours,
/fy-4W£±
Harry B-/ Williams, Director
Air Pollution Control Division
SES/vs
FIGURE 1-1
SURVEY COVER LETTER
-21-
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE I
Instructions: Of the following questions, answer those which are
pertinent to your operation. Base your answers on
your growth projections for the next ten years.
If you have more than one plant location, please
make out a form for each.
Company Name Location_
Person to Contact Phone
Concerning Responses
A. General Questions
1. How many employees do you have or estimate you will have for
1974 137 1980 135
1975 135 1985 135
2. What technological advances do you foresee that will affect:
a. Plant Operating Capacity
None
b. Employment .
No change anticipated
3. Given that your company continues to grow, what will your
plans be concerning:
a. Plant Expansion (Do you have available land to expand?)
No land available - no expansion of steam system currently planned.
b. Plant Relocation
1. in county
2. out of county All electric expansion will be out of the county.
4. If you needed to relocate, and could not expand at your
present location, would you prefer land in an industrial
park or an individual site? Individual site out of the county.
FIGURE 1-2
EXAMPLE SURVEY FORM - PART I
-22-
-------
-2-
B. TOTAL FACILITY FUEL USE
Amount
(a) Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
(Both in Tqns/Yr.}
(b) Distillate Fuel Oil
Residual Fuel Oil
(Both in Thousand
Gal./Yr.)
(c) Natural Gas (Million
CF/Yr.)
(d) LP Gas (Thousand
Gal./Yr.)
(e) Wood (Tons/Yr.)
(f) Other (Specify)
Explain major shifts in fuel use pattern.
1974
0
392,245
59
cf
42,390
0
0
0
1975
0
376,480
152
0
45r957
0
0
0
1980
0
418,000
300
0
Ignition
0
0
0
1985
0
419,000
300
0
Gas Only
0
0
0
Sulfur Content (Percent) (as received).
4.
5.
6.
7.
(a) Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
(b) Distillate Fuel Oil
Residual Fuel Oil
(c) Other
Ash Content (Percent)
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
NA NA
2.77 3.1
.3 .3
NA NA
NA NA
10.3 11.
List the vendors of these fuels for 1974
% of Total
Fuel Purchased Vendor
Hawthorn Coal 26.9 Peabodv Coal
Lyrmville Coal 9.8
Enos Blackfoot Coal 63.3
Peabody Coal
Old Ben Coal
NA NA
2.82 2.72
.3 .3
NA NA
NA NA
2
Address
Sf. T.nm'tSj Mn
St. Louis, Mo.
Co. Chicaeo. Illinois
Is the fuel use proportional to plant throughput?
Yes
What type of equipment is used for space heating?
Not applicable, steam heating
What are your plans for replacement of obsolete fuel burning
equipment?
Description of Equipment
No. replacement planned through 1985
Date of Replacement
-23-
-------
— 3-
C. Total Facility Incineration
Tons/Year Incineration
1. Type of Incinerator 1974 1975 1980 1985
(a) Not applicable
(b)
(c)
2. Is the incineration proportional to plant throughput?
D. Industrial Processes
1. What are the expected process changes between 1974 and 1985_
by type, amount, and year?
Not applicable
2. What are your plans for replacement of obsolete processing
equipment which are sources of air pollution?
Description of Equipment Date of Replacement
3. For 1975, 1980 and 1985, please estimate the % change in total
plant production anticipated relative to 1974.
1975 % 1980 % 1985 %
4. What is the expected use of water to meet State Air Quality
Standards (e.g., for air scrubber operation)?
1975 (gal./yr.) 1980 1985
5. How much particulate matter will you remove and dispose of
into sanitary or storm sewers?
1975 (tons/yr.) 1980 1985 •
-24-
-------
NAME I AOD8ESSI
PLANT 101 COUNTYI MARION
I, „ j...... ,....3....
CITVI 8140 PAGE 1
« 01 BOILER 11
t.cc.1
THROUGHPUT
PN SCC PROCESS SCC CODE 1074
v* »-.-....-•«•« t.......?-....,.,.....,^
SICI
»r---r5-^-»
UNITS/YEAR
1-01-0B2-B2 SBCafl TONS BURNED
191.808
•»i6« W--7*" »»-»^8«'-*» ^•••.»9-»*»"-—-^^i 1O*^*"*"^"1* 11 «^«
GROWTH PROJECTED • PROJECTED CONSOLS
YEAR FACTOR THROUGHPUT TYfE(S) ' X EFF POLLUTANT
1980
1989
184,852
205 ..2 38
205.729
I
r-o
Ln
I
02 BOILER 12
CCCL!
» 01 BOILER IS
CCt^ I
li-ai-002.02 09000 TONS BURNED
l.Bl-e02»U2 ftSfijCfl TONS BURNED
1975
1980
I98S
135,533
1980 150.480
'983 150,840
04 BOILER 14
l-fli-0a2.02 83808 TONS BURNED
* Boilers share the same stack and have similar characteristics
1975
1980
1989
WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR GROWTH FACTORS!
FIGURE 1-3
EXAMPLE SURVEY - PART II
-------
The complete questionnaire was then assembled by
IAPCD and mailed to each facility in Marion County. The approxi-
mate number of facilities surveyed and the number of existing
emission points analyzed in Marion County are as follows:
Number of facilities surveyed: 79
Number of points analyzed:1 209
Of the approximately 79 questionnaires which were sent
to the Marion County facilities, approximately 90 percent were
completed and returned. Out of the remaining 10 nercent, how-
ever, more than one half were sent to facilities which had no
previously reported particulate or S02 emissions. The effective
response, therefore, was about 96 percent.
The values which were used as a basis for projections
were the projected throughput or growth factor2 and the projected
emission control efficiency from Part II (Figure 1-3) of the
questionnaire. If a facility responded to the survey but did
not supply this information, the overall projected plant growth
from Part I of the questionnaire (Figure 1-2) was used along
with the assumption that the emission control efficiency did
not change from that reported for 1974. If neither of these
methods was possible, due to no response or an incomplete
response, generalized growth factors were used as described
in the next section along with the assumption that the emission
control efficiency did not change from that reported in 1974.
!These points represent all the points at the facilities re-
sponding to the survey and the points which emitted particulates
and/or S02 in 1974 at the nonresponding facilities.
2The growth factor is defined as the throughput in the pro-
jection year divided by the throughput in the base year (1974).
-26-
-------
1.2.2.2 Generalized Factors
If no facility-supplied growth projections were avail-
able, a growth factor had to be developed from generalized
economic forecasts for the geographic area containing the
facility. The factors used for this purpose were developed
from economic projections as reported in OBERS Series E. These
growth factors were derived by the following method:
1) Interpolate between 1971 and 1980 earnings as
reported in OBERS to find earnings for 1974, 1975,
1980, and 1985 by the following equation:
Earnings = Earnings-, -, x
Earningsig80
Earn ings _
where x = the projection year (e.g., 1975)
2) Determine an earnings index for each year based
on the following equation:
Earning Earnings
Index = = , -
Year x Earnings1974
3) Find an OBERS multiple for 1974, 1975, 1980,
and 1985 based on 1971 and 1980 multiples re
ported in OBERS by the following equation:
Multiplex = Multiple
,x-1971
Multiple1980< 9
-27-
-------
4) Determine a multiples index for each year based
on the following equation:
Multiple
Multiple Index = ^ ,«.. , x
x Multrpleig74
5) Determine a growth factor for each year by the
following equation:
Growth Factor = Earning Index x Multiple Index
^ XX
These procedures were followed for each year for each
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) for which OBERS data was
available. The OBERS which was used in this analysis were state-
wide OBERS projections developed for Indiana. A summary of the
growth factors determined by these procedures is shown in Table
1-4.
-28-
-------
TABLE 1-4. GROWTH FACTORS DEVELOPED FROM OBERS SERIES E
Min ing
Metal
Coal
Crude Petroleum, and
Natural Gas
Non-Metallic,
Except Fuels
Manufacturing
Food and Kindred
Products
Textile Mill Products
Apparel and Other
Fabric Products
Lumber Products and
Furniture
Paper and Allied
Products
Printing and
Publishing
Chemicals and Allied
Products
Petroleum Refining
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Machinery, Excl.
Electrical
Electrical Machinery
Motor Vehicles
Transportation,
Equipment, exc.
intr. v.
Other Manufacturing
Transportation,
Communication and
Public Utilities
SIC
10
11,12
13
14
20
22
23
24,25
26
27
28
29
33
34,19
35
36
371
37 except
371
21, 30-32,
38,39
40-49
1974/
1974
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1975/
1974
—
1.0147
0.9998
1.0341
1.0206
—
1.0347
1.0367
1.0445
1.0411
1.0501
1.0336
1.0319
1.0527
1.0387
1.0544
1.0392
1.0322
—
~
1980/
1974
1.0917
0.9987
1.2227
1.1304
—
1.2269
1.2417
1.2992
1.2734
1.3404
1.2187
1.2070
1.3610
1.2557
1.3750
1.2599
1.2091
—
~
1985/
1974
—
1.1377
1.0306
1.3166
1.2408
—
1.3628
1.4138
1.5018
1.5024
1.6775
1.4085
1.3149
1.5843
1.4216
1.7092
1.4730
1.3573
—
~
NOTE: "—" indicates not available from OBERS
-29-
-------
1.3 Projection Methodology
The following discussion describes the methods used
to calculate particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions for the
projection years 1975, 1980, and 1985. The basis for these
emission projections is as follows:
1) 1974 NEDS data as supplied by the
IAPCD.
2) EPA emission factors, AP-42 .
3) Process growth projections from the
growth survey.
4) Emission control equipment projections
from the growth survey.
5) Fuel characteristic projections (i.e.,
% ash and 70 sulfur) from the growth
survey.
6) Emission limitations due to the Indiana
SIP (Appendix C).
7) Emission limitations due to New Source
Performance Standards (40 CFR 60).
Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors. 2nd ed. AP-42 with supple-
ments, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973.
-30-
-------
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROCESS IS
NEW, EXISTING, OR DELETED
(SECTION 1.1)
EXISTING
NEW
DELETED
DETERMINE WHETHER A NSPS
APPLIES (SECTION 1.2)
NO
PROJECTED EMISSIONS EQUAL
ZERO FOR EACH PROJECTION YEAR
CALCULATE EMISSIONS WITH AN
EMISSIONS FACTOR (SECTION 1.4)
YES
DOES POINT HAVE MORE THAN
ONE 3CC PROCESS (SECTION 1.3)
YES
DETERMINE EMISSIONS WITH
EMISSION FACTOR < SECTION 1.4)
MO
1
DETERMINE WHAT PORTION OF
PROCESS IS SUBJECT TO NSPS
(SECTION 1.2)
DETERMINE EMISSIONS 3ASED
ON 1974 NEDS DATA
(SECTION 1.5)
.ACCOUNT FOR PROJECTED CONTROL
EQUIPMENT (SECTION 1.5)
CALCULATE EMISSIONS ALLOWED
3Y STATE SIP (SECTION 1.7)
ACCOUNT FOR PROJECTED CONTROL
EQUIPMENT (SECTION 1.6)
DETERMINE EMISSIONS ALLOWED
3Y STATE SIP (SECTION 1.7)
DETERMINE PROJECTED EMISSIONS
^SECTION 1.9)
DOES POINT HAVE MORE THAN ONE
SCC PROCESS (SECTION 1.3)
YES
.TO
DOES A NSPS APPLY?
(SECTION 1.2)
YES
MO
CALCULATE «PS ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS ^SECTION 1-3)
j
1
_L
DETERMINE EMISSIONS WITH
EMISSION FACTOR
(SECTION 1.4)
DETERMINE EMISSIONS 3ASED ON
1974 NEDS DATA (SECTION 1.5)
ACCOUNT FOR PROJECTED CONTROL
EQUIPMENT (SECTION 1.6)
DETERMINE PROJECTED EMISSIONS
i. SECTION 1.10)
CALCULATE EMISSIONS ALLOWED
BY STATE SIP (SECTION 1.71
DETERMINE PROJECTED EMISSIONS
(SECTION 1.9)
CALCULATE EMISSIONS ALLOWED
BY NSPS (SECTION 1.3)
DETERMINE PROJECTED EMISSIONS
(SECTION 1.10)
Figure 1-4. Emission Projection Methodology
-32-
-------
8) Methods outlined in Guidelines for Air
1 2
Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis. '
9) Emissions' calculation procedures as shown
in A Guide to Compiling a_ Comprehensive
Emissions Inventory, APTD 1135.
The projections were made for each SCC process in the 1974 NEDS
data base and each new source for which data was reported in
the growth survey. An overview of the method used to calculate
these emissions is shown in the flow diagram in Figure 1-4. A
more detailed discussion of the methods used is contained in the
following numbered subsections. Each subsection number can be
matched to the numbers contained in the steps shown in Figure
1-4. By using Figure 1-4 and these subsections, a complete
methodology can be found for any process. These subsections,
therefore, are presented in the order as shown in Figure 1-4
and not necessarily in order of importance, difficulty, or
frequency of use.
The procedure outlined in Figure 1-4 and discussed in
the subsequent subsections was carried out for every SCC process
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance Planning Analysis. Vol. 7., Projecting County
Emissions, 2nd ed. EPA 450/4-74-008, Contract No. 68-02-10~05
Task 4. Bethesda, Maryland, Jan. 1975.
2
Baldwin, T. E. et al., Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 137~AlTocating Pro-
jected Emissions _to Sub county Areas , Final Report, EPA 450/4"-74-
Oi4. Argonne, 111., Argonne NaTTT Lab., Energy & Environmental
Systems Div., Nov. 1974.
3
Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Air and
Water Programs), Guide for Compiling a Comprehensive Emission
Inventory, revised. APTD-1133: Research Triangle Park"—N~C~
March 1973.
-31-
-------
in every projection year for each pollutant. That is, the
procedures were followed once for each projection year (1975,
1980, and 1985) for each pollutant, thereby requiring six
iterations through Figure 1-4 for each SCC process. (A total
of approximately 1200 iterations were completed for Marion
County.) The bulk of the calculations was performed by
computer.
1.3.1 Determination of Whether Source is New, Existing,
or Deleted
This determination was made on the basis of growth
survey data and the 1974 NEDS data base. A new source was
defined as any source for which data was supplied in the growth
survey response but was not represented in the 1974 NEDS data
base. A deleted source is any source which was in the 1974
NEDS but by the growth survey response was shown to no longer
be in use after 1974. An existing source is any source in the
1974 NEDS which continued operation in any or all of the sub-
sequent projection years.
1.3.2 Determination of Whether New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) Apply
The first type of case where this analysis was made
was on a new source. The SCC number for the process was first
compared to a listing of each SCC process for which there is
currently or is projected to be an NSPS regulation. If the
number was not on the list, NSPS did not apply. If the
number was on the list, it was determined whether the process
was operational before or after the NSPS became effective. If
the process was operating before this date, NSPS are not
applicable. If the process began operation after the effective
-33-
-------
date, it was determined that NSPS did apply. For those sources
which were found not to be subject to NSPS, it was assumed that
they would have at least a 15 year operational life and would
not be subject to the NSPS in any year of the projection
period. The listing of SCC processes which was used to deter-
mine applicability was derived from the supplement to Volume
13 of the Guidelines (Accounting for New Source Performance
Standards in Projecting and Allocating Emissions - Hypothetical
Example) .
The second type of situation where an NSPS analysis
was made was for existing sources. The method used for these
processes is that outlined on pages 20 through 23 of Volume 7
of the Guidelines (see Appendix A) and the supplement to Volume
13. The capacity which was used in this analysis was the
capacity reported in the 1974 NEDS. Since the capacity was
reported in NEDS as an hourly capacity, the annual capacity
was determined by multiplying the hourly capacity by the
operating time reported in NEDS (see Equation 1-3) .
/ "1 _ O \
, -, . weeks operated
Annual Capacity = Hourly Capacity x - -
days operated x hours operated
week day
The equipment life was determined to be twice the upper limit
equipment life as stipulated in Tax Information on Depreciation,
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Waste Management, Accounting for New Source Performance Standards
in Projecting and Allocating Emissions, Hypothetical Example.
EPA 450/4-74-014 b, A Supplement to Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis--Volume 13: Allocating Projected
Emissions to Subcounty Areas (EPA 450/4-74-014).
-34-
-------
Publication 534, Department of the Treasury, 1976. The replace-
ment rate on this basis is calculated according to Equation 1-2.
Replacement Rate = (upper limit life x 2) (1"2)
The "expected activity growth" (see Appendix 1) was determined
on the basis of growth survey data. On the basis of this data,
each process for which an NSPS might be applicable was subjected
to the analysis as described in Appendix 1. The calculation of
allowable emissions from the data resulting from this analysis
will be discussed in Section 1.3.8.
1.3.3 Determination of Whether NEDS Point Has More Than
One SCO Process
This step is necessary since the NEDS emissions data
cannot be used for projection of emissions at one SCC process
if the reported NEDS emissions include more than one SCC process.
If the point was comprised of more than one SCC process, projec-
ted emissions were calculated on the basis of EPA emission
factors (see Section 1.3.4). If, however, the point was made up
of only one SCC process, the methods shown in Section 1.3.5 were
used. Determination of the number of SCC processes at a NEDS
point was made by inspection of the NEDS printout.
1.3.4 Emissions Calculation by Use of Emission Factors
The emission factors which were used in these calcula-
tions were EPA factors as reported in EPA publication AP-42.
Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors. 2nd ed. AP-42 with supplements.
Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973.
-35-
-------
The emissions which were calculated in this procedure are un-
controlled annual emissions. The equation used in this calcu-
lation is shown below as Equation 1-3 for general processes
and Equation 1-4 for processes which included 70 ash or 70
sulfur in the emission factor.
Projected Projected Annual Emission Factor ton
Uncontrolled - Throughput (SCC x (lb/scc unit) x lQOO~Tb
Emissions (TPY) units/year) v
x -L ~~ O /
Projected Projected Annual Emission Factor
Uncontrolled = Throughput (SCC x n, /e,rr, ._ • M U-
-------
(1-6)
Uncontrolled _ Projected Emissions _ j-QO _
Emissions (TPY) (Equations 1-3 and 1-5) 100-1974 Control
Efficiency (70)
The equation which was ultimately used in this analysis,
therefore, is a combination of Equations 1-3, 1-5, and 1-6
and is shown in Equation 1-7.
Projected Projected 1974 Emissions ^'^
Uncontrolled = Annual x 1$74 Throughput
Emissions (TPY) Throughput fa K
_____ _ 10>0 _
x 100-1974 Control Efficiency
1.3.6 Accounting for Projected Control Efficiencies
This procedure was used to account for the reduction
of predicted uncontrolled emissions due to the control equip-
ment efficiency as projected by the sources and reported in the
growth survey. If no control efficiency was projected, the
equipment was assumed to be the same as that operating in
1974. The equation used in this calculation is shown in
Equation 1-8 below.
(1-8)
Projected Project ed 1QQ - Projected Control Eff. (7.)
Controlled = Uncontrolled x - J - , - - — -
Emissions Emissions
1.3.7 Calculation of Emissions Allowed by State SIP
The quantity of particulate and S02 emissions allowed
by the Indiana SIP was determined in one of the following two
ways :
-37-
-------
(1) If the throughput in the projection year
was the same as the throughput in 1974,
it was assumed that the allowable emissions
as reported in NEDS were correct.
(2) If the throughput was not the same as the
1974 throughput as reported in NEDS, the
allowable emissions were recalculated
using the applicable regulation. The
regulations which were used are repro-
duced in Appendix C.
When it was determined by the methods described in
Section 1.3.2 that a portion of the process was subject to a NSPS
the State allowables were calculated on the basis of that por-
tion of the throughput which was regulated by State regulations.
If the regulations required that a factor be determined which
related allowed emissions to process input (e.g., Pt^: pounds
of particulate emissions per million Btu input in APC-4R) on
the basis of a total capacity, the total plant capacity was
used in all cases.
An example of such a calculation is shown below for a
Marion County point source:
Source Description: coal fired boiler (SCC Number
1-02-002-09)
Applicable Regulations:
1) Particulate - APC 4-R, Section 2
Pt = 0.87 Q0'16 where
-38-
-------
= pounds of particulate matter emitted
per million Btu heat input.
= total plant operating capacity rating in
million Btu heat input per hour.
For values of Q less than 10, Pt,; shall not exceed
0.6 and where 0 is greater than 10,000, Pt^ shall not exceed
0.2.
2) Sulfur Dioxide - APC 13, Section 2
E = 17.0 0 "°'33 where
m Tn
E = maximum allowable sulfur dioxide emissions
in pounds per million Btu fuel heat input.
0 = total combustion equipment capacity rating,
fuel heat input in millions of Btu per
hour.
The value of E shall not exceed 6.0 Ibs of sulfur
dioxide nor shall it be required that Em be reduced below 1.2
Ibs of sulfur dioxide per million Btu of heat input.
Calculation of Allowable Emissions:
1) Particulate -
The total hourly input capacity for the three
boilers at this facility is reported in NEDS
as 8.43 tons of coal per hour. 0 , therefore,
is found as follows:
-39-
-------
= 8.43 ton/hour x 23 x 10s Btu/ton = 193.89 x 106 Btu/hour
Ptf is found from the equation of APC 4R as
follows:
Ptf = 0.87 x 193.89~0'16 = 0.375 lb/106 Btu
The 1975 coal usage at this boiler was reported
by the facility as 2972 tons. The allowable
particulate emissions for this point, therefore,
is found as follows:
Allowable
Particulate = 0.375 lb/106 Btu x 2972 tons/year x 23
Emissions
x 106 Btu/ton x ton/2000 Ib
= 12.8 tons per year
2) Sulfur Dioxide
Q , as discussed previously, was found to
be 193.89 million Btu per
fore, is found as follows:
be 193.89 million Btu per hour. E , there-
r m
Em = 17.0 x 193.89"0'33 = 2.989 lb/10s Btu
The 1975 allowable is calculated from fuel
use as follows:
Allowable
S02 = 2.989 lb/106 Btu x 2972 tons/year x 23
Emissions
x 106 Btu/ton x ton/2000 Ib
102 tons/year
-40-
-------
Summary:
The allowable emissions for subsequent years
were found by assuming that overall plant
input capacity (C^) remained constant unless
the facility reported projected new equipment
within the growth survey. A summary of the
data used and allowable emissions calculated
for the boiler discussed in this example is
shown below for all projection years.
EXAMPLE ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS
Year
1975
1980
1985
Coal
Usage (tons)
2972
4000
4400
ptf
(lb/10 Btu)
0.375
0.375
0.375
Em
(lb/10 Btu)
2.989
2.989
2.989
Allowable
Particulate
13
17
19
Emissions (TPY)
Sulfur Dioxide
102
138
152
1.3.8 Calculation of Emissions Allowed by NSPS
The annual emissions allowed by the applicable NSPS
were calculated on the basis of data presented in the supplement
to Volume 13 of the Guidelines (Accounting for New Source Per-
formance Standards in Projecting and Allocating Emissions).
This data was in the form of a control efficiency which would
be required to comply with the NSPS (an equivalent control
efficiency). The allowed emissions, therefore, were calculated
by applying this control efficiency to the uncontrolled emissions
generated by the process or portion of the process found to be
-41-
-------
subject to the NSPS by the methods of Section 1.3.2. The
equation used in this calculation is shown below as Equation
1-9.
NSPS Projected 70 of the process (1-9)
Allowed = Uncontrolled x under NSPS
Emissions Emissions 100
100-Equivalent Control Efficiency
X 100
It should be noted that if the entire process was
found to be subject to an NSPS (i.e., a new process beginning
operation after the effective date of the NSPS), the second
term on the right side of Equation 1-9 is unity.
1.3.9 Determination of Projected Emissions Where NSPS
Do Not Apply
The projected emissions for a process where NSPS do
not apply were determined to be the least of the actual con-
trolled emissions based on process parameters (see Equation 1-8)
and emissions allowed by the applicable state regulation, if
any (see Section 1.3.7). Once the projected emissions had been
determined for each SCC process at a point source, they were
totaled to find the projected point source emissions. It should
be noted that although this procedure assumes compliance with
all applicable regulations, it does not consider compliance
schedules, conditional variances or other enforcement measures
which would permit emissions greater than that specified by the
applicable regulation.
-42-
-------
1.3.10 Determination of Projected Emissions Where An NSPS
Applies
There are two possible cases where this determination
must be made: (1) where the entire process is subject to an
NSPS and (2) where a portion of the process is subject to an
NSPS (see Section 1.3.2) The methods in these two cases are
described below.
The Entire Process is Subject to an NSPS: The pro-
jected emissions in these cases were assumed to be the least of
the actual projected controlled emissions (Equation 1-8), the
NSPS allowed emissions (Equation 1-9), and the state allowed
emissions (Section 1.3.7). (This assumes compliance with all
applicable regulations.)
A Portion of the Process is Subject to an NSPS: In
these cases, the SCO process was treated as if it were two pro-
cesses -- that is, one process subject to state regulations
and one process subject to an NSPS. The projected emissions
for the state regulated portion of the process were determined
to be the least of the projected controlled emissions determined
by Equation 1-10 and the state allowed emissions determined in
Section 1.3.7.
State Regulated Projected Controlled % of Process (1-10)
Projected = Emissions (from x under state
Emissions Equation 1-8) regulation
100
Once the emissions had been projected by the above methods for
each portion of the process, the total projected emissions for
the entire process were determined by totaling the projected
emissions for each portion.
-43-
-------
1. 4 Inputs to Projection Methodology
The purpose of this section is to describe the data
which was acquired by the methods discussed in Section 1.2 and
processed by the procedures of Section 1.3 for Marion County.
A listing of the data used in these procedures is shown in
Appendix D. A description of the listing format is shown in
Table 1-5. The following discussion is to aid in interpretation
of this data for 1975, 1980, and 1985. The base year (1974)
input data from NEDS is not reproduced herein.
Most of the process data was taken directly from the
point source growth survey to be used in conjunction with the
1974 NEDS data base. The only deviation from this procedure
was when the percent ash and/or percent sulfur in the fuel to be
burned changed from 1974. When one or both of the values
changes, the projected process throughput was altered to allow
computation of the correct projected particulate emissions in
all cases. These alterations are reflected in the entries on
the listing in Appendix D. The basis of these alterations is
described below:
(1-11)
Projected Throughput (Appendix D) = Projected Throughput (growth
survey)
Projected % Ash
o
19
74 % Ash
This operation was necessary since the method of calculation of
projected emissions where the percent ash was a part of the
emission factor (e.g., coal-fired boiler) was based on the
following equation:
-44-
-------
TABLE 1-5. INPUT DATA DESCRIPTION AND FORMAT
Column Title
Description
C #
CNTY NUMB
PLNT NUMB
PT #
M S
SCC
N,D
RP, YR
1975 THRUPUT
GTH FAC
PRT EFF
Card number: a "1" in this column indicates
that the following information is process
data; a "2" indicates a comment.
County Number: SAROAD county number.
Plant Number: NEDS plant number.
Point Number: NEDS point number.
Multiple SCC: an "M" in this column indicates
that the point has more than one SCC process.
Source Classification Code: This is the
SCC number for the process being analyzed.
New, Deleted: an "N" in this column indi-
cates that the source is new (i.e., not the
1974 NEDS); a "D" in this column indicates
that the source no longer operates as of
1975 but was included in the 1974 NEDS.
Replacement Year: This column contains
the last two digits of the year in which
a piece of equipment will be replaced or
the year a new source becomes operational.
1975 Throughput: 1975 throughput as
reported on the questionnaire in SCC units
(either this value or a growth factor
appears for each year of operation for a
process with particulate and or S02
emissions).
Growth Factor:
1975 Throughput
1974 Throughput
(either this value p_r a throughput appears
for each projection year for a process
with particulate and/or S02 emissions).
Particulate Control Efficiency (%): This
number indicates the % particulate control
in 1975. A blank indicates no change from
1974. (A decimal should be placed between
the last two digits of this value).
Continued
-45-
-------
TABLE 1-5 (Continued)
Column Title
Description
S02 EFF
1980 THRUPUT
GTH FAC
PRT EFF
SO2 EFF
1985 THRUPUT
GTH FAC
S02 Control Efficiency (?0) : This number
indicates the % S02 control in 1975. A
blank indicates no change from 1974. (A
decimal should be placed between the last
two digits of this value).
1980 Throughput: 1980 throughput as re-
ported on the questionnaire in SCC units
(either this value or a growth factor
appears for each year of operation for
a process with particulate and for S02
emissions).
Growth Factor:
1980 Throughput
1974 Throughput
(either this value or a throughput appears
for each projection year for a process
with particulate and/or S02 emissions).
Particulate Control Efficiency (%): This
number indicates the 70 particulate control
in 1980. A blank indicates no change from
1974. (A decimal should be placed between
the last two digits of this value).
S02 Control Efficiency (%). This number
indicates the % S02 control in 1980.
A blank indicates no change from 1974.
(A decimal should be placed between the
last two digits of this value).
1985 Throughput: 1985 throughput as
reported on the questionnaire in SCC units
(either this value or a growth factor
appears for each year of operation for
a process with particulate and for S02
emissions).
Growth Factor:
1985 Throughput
1974 Throughput
(either this value p_r a throughput appears
for each projection year for a process
with particulate and/or S02 emissions).
Continued
-46-
-------
TABLE 1-5 (Continued)
Column Title Description
PRT EFF Particulate Control Efficiency (%): This
number indicates the 7> particulate control
in 1985. A blank indicates no change
from 1974. (A decimal should be placed
between the last two digits of this value).
SC-2 EFF S02 Control Efficiency (%) . This number
indicates the % S02 control in 1985.
A blank indicates no change from 1974.
(A decimal should be placed between the
last two digits of this value).
7, SF Percent Sulfur: This value indicates the
7, sulfur in the fuel. It only appears for
a new source where the emission factor
includes the 70 sulfur. (A decimal should
be placed before the last two digits).
7o ASH Percent Ash: This value indicates the 70
ash in the fuel. It only appears for a
new source where the emission factor in-
cludes the 70 ash. (A decimal should be
placed before the last digit).
NE No Emissions: an "N" in this column
indicates that the source has no particu-
late or SOa emissions.
-47-
-------
Projected = 1974 Throughput Emission (1-12)
Emissions • & r Factor 1974
70 Ashp . , Projected Throughput
x Projected x 1974 Throughput
or
7 Ash (1-13)
Projected = lg?4 Emissions x '" ^Projected
Emissions % Ash-,g-,,
Projected Throughput
x 1974 Throughput
If the percent ash remained constant (i.e., 7=, Ashprcr;ecteci =
7o Ash-,Q7,) then Equation 1-13 reduced to the form shown in
Equation 1-14. Since Equation 1-14 was the basis of the auto-
mated emissions projection, if the percent ash did not remain
constant, the second term in Equation 1-13 (70 Ashp . ,/
70 Ash-jo-,,) was included in the projected throughput of
Equation 1-14 by using Equation 1-11. In the cases where
the percent ash was projected to change, therefore, the values
listed in Appendix D included the second term in Equation 1-13.
Projected -,„-,, „ . . Projected Throughput (1-14)
Emissions = 1974 Emissions x 1974 Throughput
When the throughput was varied as described above, it caused
two effects: (1) the projected S02 emissions were incorrect and
(2) the calculated growth factor was incorrect. In order to
correct these values, the following information was entered on
the comment cards: (1) a "sulfur factor" which, when multiplied
by the calculated S02 emissions, yields the correct S02 emissions
and (2) the correct growth factor. In other cases, only the
-48-
-------
percent sulfur changed. In these cases the projected throughput
and growth factors are correct and only a "sulfur factor" ap-
pears in the comment.
A third use of the comment entries is to indicate
when actual projected process throughputs were not available and
another type of projection was used. In these cases the com-
ment will indicate the basis for the projections (e.g., OBERS
projections, total plant growth, etc.) and in which years they
were used. The comments also occasionally were used for pro-
cess description and/or data explanation.
-49-
-------
2.0 BASEYEAR AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
This section describes the methods employed to calcu-
late 1974 area source county and gridded emissions for Marion
County, Indiana. Countywide emissions also are included in the
text below. Gridded emissions in tabular form have been trans-
mitted to the Indiana APCD. Wherever possible the most detailed
1 2
inventory methods were used. ' Projected area source emis-
sions are described in Section 3.0.
2.1 Residential Fuels
2.1.1 County Emissions
This category includes fuel consumption at all resi-
dential dwellings. The method selected to gather required
data was a fuel dealers' survey. The following fuels were
surveyed: anthracite and bituminous coal, distillate and
residual oil, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
A mailing list was developed using telephone books, the Indiana
Coal Mine Directory, and advice from the Governor's Energy
Office and the DMD. The survey also requested total sales,
commercial/institutional sales, and industrial fuel sales.
Annual sales for 1974 and 1975 were requested along with esti-
mates of 1980 and 1985 sales. Sulfur content of the fuel oils
and coal also was requested. Extensive assistance by the State
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Vol. 7, Projecting
County Emissions, 2nd' ed. , EPA 450/4-74-008. Contract No. 68-
02-1005, Task 4, Bethesda, Maryland, Jan. 1975.
2
Baldwin, T. E. et al., Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 13, Allocating Pro-
jected Emissions to Subcounty Areas, Final Report, EPA 450/4-
74-014, Argonne, 111., Argonne Nat'1. Lab., Energy & Environ-
mental Systems Div., Nov. 1974.
-50-
-------
APCD and the DMD insured that all local and out-of-town dealers
serving Marion County were contacted. Appendix B contains the
survey cover letter and example questionnaires. Survey results
and computed emissions are shown in Table 2-1.
2.1.2 Subcounty Apportionment
To accurately apportion county residential fuel emis-
sions to IRTADS districts, the type of fuel used in each home
must be known. Space heating is the largest residential fuel
use. Therefore, 1970 census data, count of occupied units by
house heating fuel, were chosen. Although these data are re-
ported at the census tract level, the DMD recommended that below
the township level the resolution for Marion County was
questionable. Therefore, township emissions were apportioned to
districts using percentage of dwelling units (DU). This pro-
cedure is described below.
For each fuel, county emissions were apportioned to
each township by the following equation:
Township _ County Township DU
Emissions Emissions x County DU
Township emissions for each fuel were then summed to obtain
total residential emissions for each township. Total township
emissions were then apportioned to IRTADS districts by the
percentage of housing units computed from Table Y in the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of_ the Census,
Detailed Housing Characteristics, Indiana, Washington, D.C.,
GPO.
-51-
-------
TABLE 2-1. RESIDENTIAL FUEL SURVEY RESULTS AND EMISSIONS
1
Ln
ho
Fuel
Natural Gas
LPG
Distillate
Fuel Oil
Anthracite
Coal
Number of
Dealers
1
9
31
1
Emission Factors County Emissions
1974 Fuel Sales
26,857xl06ft3
2, 622x10 3gals
59,078xl03gals*
24 tons
TSP
10 lbs/106ft3
1.9 Ibs/
103gals
2.5 Ibs/
103gals
S02 TSP S02
0.6 lbs/106ft3 134 tons 8.1 tons
0.02 lbs/103gals 2.4 Neg
142(0.3) lbs/103gals 73.8 1,258
(included in bituminous)
Bituminous
8,042 tons
21.5 Ibs/ton 38(3.1) Ibs/ton
86.5
475
297 tons 1,741 tons
* includes 100,000 gals of residual
Note: For two distillate fuel oil dealers reporting only total sales, the following average
of all other dealers was used: 56% Residential, 34% C/I, and 10% Industrial.
-------
publication UPP 500/Work Paper 2_. The 1974 housing units were
obtained from Table Y by interpolating between the years 1970
and 2000.
2. 2 Commercial/Institutional Fuels
2.2.1 County Emissions
The commercial/institutional (C/I) category includes
establishments engaged in retail and wholesale trade, schools,
hospitals, government buildings, and large apartment complexes.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) groups 50-99 en-
compass the sources in this category. Three data sources were
used: the point source survey, the fuel dealers' survey and
permits from the files of the Indianapolis APCD.
The permits were for fuel burning equipment greater
than 650,000 Btu/hour input. The city supplied a 43 page table
of data for almost 600 area source facilities. Radian separated
the sources into C/I and industrial sources. The estimated 1974
fuel consumption for each facility was then totaled for each
fuel. The permit data represents one portion of C/I area source
emissions.
The fuel survey was performed in conjunction with the
residential and industrial fuels survey. For each fuel, the
commercial/institutional portion was totaled. Some amount of
Indianapolis, City of, Indiana, Dept. of Metropoli-
tan Development, Div. of Planning and Zoning, Small Area Socio
Economic Forecasts for the Year 2000 by Traffic Analysis Zones
Work Paper 2. May 1975.
-53-
-------
the total for each fuel is used by point sources. The point
source surveys were then analyzed to determine the amount of
each fuel dealer's sales sold to C/I point sources. This amount
was then subtracted from the total fuel dealer sales. The dif-
ference represents fuel dealers' area source usage. These data
are shown in Table 2-2. As evident from the table, the C/I
point sources in Marion County reported substantially more bi-
tuminous coal use than the fuel dealers' sales estimate. Dis-
cussions with the Indianapolis APCD led to the conclusion that
the supplied permit data would include all C/I coal boilers.
Therefore, the permit data have been used.
The last component of C/I area sources is fuel com-
bustion not in the NEDS point source file at point source
facilities. These amounts are not substantial because the NEDS
point source file contains almost all significant fuel use at
these facilities. In general, space heating fuels at these
facilities are considered as "area sources". Table 2-3
summarizes these data along with emissions computed from the
fuel survey and the permit data.
2.2.2 Subcounty Apportionment
Two basic methods were used to apportion county com-
mercial/institutional emissions to the IRTADS districts. The
permitted area source facilities were individually located in
each district by address. The area source emissions at point
source facilities also were located by address. The remaining
area source emissions were allocated to the districts using the
distribution of non-manufacturing employees. The employee
-54-
-------
TABLE 2-2
Fuel
Natural Gas
(106ft3)
LPG
(103gals)
Distillate Fuel Oil
(103gals)
Residual Fuel Oil
(103gals)
Bituminous Coal
(tons)
Anthracite Coal
(tons)
COMMERCIAL/ INSTITUTIONAL FUELS
1974 FUEL SURVEY AND PERMITS
(Total \ / Fuel Dealer \ /Fuel Survey \ /Permitted \ Area Sources
Fuel Dealer j-j Sales to C/I ] = { Area Source J-l Area 1= Apportioned
Sales / \Point Sources/ \ Fuels / \ Sources / By Employment
1 11,884 310 11,574 2,974 8,600
6 3,100 - 3,100 - 3,100
19 51,795 3,416 48,379 7,506 40,873
1 25 25 25
4 22,616 38,775 * (, 20,183
0 - - -
* Negative number indicates that permits should be used.
-------
TABLE 2-3
I
Ln
Fuel
Natural Gas
LPG
Distillate
Fuel Oil
Residual
Fuel Oil
COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
Area Sources „ . . _ .
A t . _, Emission Factors
By Employment TSP S02
8,600xl06ft3 10 lbs/106ft3 0.6 lbs/106ft3
3,100xl03gals 1.8 lbs/106ft3 0.02 lbs/106ft3
40,873xl03gals 2.0 lbs/103gals 142(0.3) lbs/103gals
25xl03gals 16.5 lbs/103gals 157(1.3) lbs/103gals
Permitted Area Sources
Area Sources at Point Sources
Emissions
TSP S02
43 tons 2.6 tons
2.8 Neg
40.9 870.6
0.2 2.6
86.9 875.8
32.8 180.2
6.5 67.3
County Area Source Emissions
126 tons 1,123 tons
-------
district percentages were computed from Table I1 in UPP/500,
Work Paper 2_ . The emissions allocated by each method are sum-
marized in Table 2-3.
2. 3 Industrial Fuels
2.3.1 County Emissions
The industrial fuels category includes emissions from
all boiler fuel and space heating fuel consumption at manu-
facturing facilities too small to be point sources. The facili-
ties included are within SIC groups 19-39. The procedures
described in the commercial/institutional fuels section are
also applicable to industrial fuels.
First the fuel use from industrial sources in the
permit data was tabulated by each fuel. The fuel survey re-
sults were then tabulated along with industrial point source
use by dealers in the survey. It should be noted that several
point source fuel suppliers were not in the original fuel sur-
vey mailing list. These suppliers were generally out-of-town.
Most of these out-of-town dealers sell directly to large (point
source) industries in Indianapolis. They do not sell directly
to smaller facilities which are area sources. Emphasis was
placed on obtaining fuel sales from all local dealers because
they sell the bulk of area source fuels. Table 2-4 summarizes
the fuel survey results and the permit data.
Indianapolis, City of, Indiana, Dept. of Metropolitan
Development, Div. of Planning and Zoning, Small Area Socio-
Economic Forecasts for the Year 2000 by Traffic Analysis Zones.
Work PapexHT May T9T5.
-58-
-------
TABLE 2-4
INDUSTRIAL FUELS
Fuel
Natural Gas
(106ft3)
LPG
(103gals)
Distillate Fuel Oil
, (103gals)
Ln
f Residual Fuel Oil
(103gals)
Bituminous Coal
(tons)
Anthracite Coal
(tons)
1974 FUEL
/ Total \
Number of I Fuel Dealer ]
Dealers y Sales /
1 9,398
5 2,145
8 23,135
4 14,619
5 2,014,800
0
SURVEY AND PERMITS
/ Fuel Dealer \ / \
-1 Sales to ]=( Fuel Survey V-
\Point Sources/ yArea Sources/
6,887 2,511
71 2,074
8,399 14,736
10,777 3,842
2,298,800 *
>/Permitted\ Area Sources
I Area |= Apportioned
y Sources / By Employment
645 1,866
2,074
6,467 8,269
623 3,219
117
* Negative number indicates that permit data should be used.
-------
The last component of industrial area sources in Marion
County is minor fuel combustion at point source facilities. The
point source survey results were used to compute the difference
between total facility fuel use and fuels listed in the point
source file. This difference represents miscellaneous fuel use
by small process sources and space heating. Table 2-5 sum-
marizes these emissions along with emissions computed from the
fuel survey and the permit data.
2.3.2 Subcounty Apportionment
Two methods were used to apportion county industrial
area source emissions to IRTADS districts. The permitted area
source facilities were located by street address into the appro-
priate district. The area source emissions at point source
facilities were also Icoated by address. The remaining area
source emissions were allocated to the districts using the dis-
tribution of manufacturing employees. Percentages were computed
from Table I' in UPP/500, Work Paper 21. Table 2-5 summarizes
the emissions allocated by each method.
2.4 Mobile Sources - Highway Vehicles
2.4.1 County Emissions
This category includes emissions from vehicular travel
on all roads and streets. The required parameter is annual
total vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This includes travel by all
Indianapolis, City of, Indiana, Dept. of Metropolitan
Development, Div. of Planning and Zoning, Small Area Socio-
Economic Forecasts for the Year 2000 try Traffic Analysis Zones.
Work Paper 2. May 1975.
-60-
-------
Area Sources
TABLE 2-5
INDUSTRIAL AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
Emission Factors
Emissions
Fuel
Natural Gas
LPG
Distillate
Fuel Oil
Residual
Fuel Oil
By_
1,
2,
8,
3,
Employment
866xl06ft3
074x10 3gals
269x10 3gals
219x10 3gals
10
1.
2
16
TSP
lbs/106ft
3
8 lbs/103gals
lbs/103gal
.5 lbs/103
S.
gal
SO,
0.6 lbs/106ft3
0.02
142(0
157(1
lbs/10 3gals
.3) lbs/10 3gals
.3) lbs/10 3gals
9.
1.
8.
26
TSP
3 tons
9
3
.6
0.6
Neg
176
341
S0?
tons
Permitted Area Sources
Area Sources at Point Sources
County Area Source Emissions
46.1 517.6
16.6 171.3
126.3 432.1
189 tons 1,121 tons
-------
types of road vehicles, both gasoline- and diesel-fueled. In
addition to VMT, the vehicle-type mix is desirable to accurately
specify the particulate and S02 emission factors. Emissions
reported in this section include tail pipe exhaust, tire wear,
and brake lining wear. Dust entrained from the highway pavement
by vehicles is treated in Section 2.14.
To obtain VMT at the county level, daily traffic counts
(ADT) for over 2,000 roadway links were converted to VMT and summed,
The counts were taken from maps supplied by the Indianapolis DMD.
These counts were used to update to the 1974 baseline a 1964
Street Facilities Inventory provided by the DMD on computer cards.
In addition, recent counts for state highways provided by the
Indiana Highway Commission were used as a check. After computing
the individual VMT's for each link and summing, the county total
was 11.8 million daily vehicle miles traveled. Annual VMT was
computed by multiplying daily VMT times 303.
Vehicle travel mix data was also supplied by the DMD.
The following percentages were used:
light duty gasoline vehicles 88% VMT
heavy duty gasoline trucks 670
heavy duty diesel trucks 6%
100% VMT
To compute county emission factors, the above percentages are
used with 1974 vehicle-specific emission factors from AP-42 as
follows:
TSP EF = .88(.54 g/mi) + .06(1.21 g/mi) + .06(1.6 g/mi)
= .64 g/mi (1.4 Ibs/mi)
-62-
-------
SOa EF = .88(.13 g/mi) 4- .06(.36 g/mi) + .06(2.8 g/mi)
= .30 g/mi (0.66 Ibs/mi)
The above emission factors can be applied to the annual county
VMT to yield:
Emission Factors Emissions
Annual VMT TSP S02 TSP S0:
3.58 x 109 1.4 Ibs/mi 0.66 Ibs/mi 2,540 tons 1,190 tons
2.4.2 Subcounty Apportionment
The over 2,200 traffic links used to establish the
county total VMT were located in IRTADS districts. Links which
were coincident with a district boundary were assigned a 50% to
one district and 50% to the other. Links which crossed a district
boundary were allocated to each district to the nearest 10%. The
ADT, and length of each link along with the allocation percentages
were coded, keypunched and input to a computer program which per-
formed the calculations. The output was the VMT for each district.
The subcounty variation in vehicle travel mix was
unavailable, so the county distribution was assumed for each
district. The VMT percentages for each district were then used
to apportion county emissions.
2.5 Mobile Sources - Railroad Engines
2.5.1 County Emissions
The primary fuel used by the railroad engines in Indiana
is diesel fuel. Emissions were computed for two engine duties:
road hauling and switching. To compute emissions, diesel fuel
consumption for each engine duty must be obtained. The National
-63-
-------
Railroad - Highway Crossing inventory (NRHCI) was selected as
the best data source to determine railroad engine activity in
Marion County .
Fuel used by engines on road hauling operations was
computed based on an average fuel consumption of 7.8 gallons per
2
train-mile . The number of train-miles was estimated by using
the following procedure. First, using the NHRHI, numbers of
road hauling trains per day were tabulated for sixteen track
sections in the county. The number of trains per day was then
multiplied times the measured length of track to obtain daily
train-miles. Multiplying daily train-miles times 365 yielded
600,900 annual train-miles for the county. Using the afore-
mentioned fuel consumption factor, approximately 4.69 million
gallons were used in road-hauling operations in 1974.
. Switching operations for the county originate at four
yards. The quantity of fuel used by these engines was obtained
from the diesel superintendent at the Avon, Indiana rail yard,
the dispatching point for all railroad fuels in the area. The
total trucked to the four Marion County yards was estimated to
be 1.2 million gallons in 1974.
Annual emissions from railroad engine operations in
Marion County are then as follows:
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Railroad-
Highway Crossing Inventory, Procedures Manual.
2
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1975, 96th ed.,
Washington, D.C. , T9~75.
-64-
-------
Emission Factors Emissions
Operation _ Fuel _ TSP _ S02 _ TSP S02
Road-hauling 4,690 x 10 3 gals 25 - 57 j 59 tons 134 tons
Switching 1.200 x 10 3 gals " " 15 tons 34 tons
5,890 x 103gals 74 tons 168 tons
2.5.2 , • Subcounty Apportionment
Subcounty apportionment was accomplished separately
for road-hauling and switching operations. Road-hauling emis-
sions were apportioned by (1) measuring the length of track in
each IRTADS district, (2) applying track-specific train move-
ments (trains per day) to each measured segment, and (3) comput-
ing fuel use and emissions as described above. Switching opera-
tions were apportioned in two steps. First, an estimate of
actual fuel consumed at each yard was obtained. Each yard was
then located in the proper IRTADS district. Next, the amount
used by switch engines outside the yards (1,200,000 - 739,000 =
461,000) was apportioned to districts by using switching move-
ments from the NRHCI . The track sections with switching opera-
tions were measured into IRTADS districts to obtain switching
train-miles per day in each district. The relative number of
train-miles was then used to apportion the 461,000 gallons and
emissions to each district. Switching operations are summarized
below:
Yard Annual Fuel Use Apportioned By
Hill 105,000 gals Location
Transfer 205,000 Location
Hawthorne 275,000 Location
Indy Union 154,000 Location
Outside Yards 461,000 Switching Train-Miles
Total Switching 1,200,000 gals
-65-
-------
2.6 Mobile Sources - Vessels
In Marion County boating is limited to pleasure crafts
on Geist Reservoir. Discussions with local representatives
have led to the conclusion that pleasure boating contributes a
very insignificant amount of particulate and sulfur dioxide
emissions. Generally, it can be assumed that the predominant
power source for vessels on Geist Reservoir is the gasoline
outboard engine. The conclusion regarding the insignificance
of emissions from this category is due to the nature of the fuel
and the exhaust characteristics of outboard marine engines.
Gasoline fuel has relatively low sulfur content, less than 0.1%.
Exhausts from outboards are below the waterline, thus providng
an extremely efficient scrubbing mechanism for particulates.
In addition, some outboard engines require low or no-lead gaso-
line, thus reducing particulate emissions significantly.
An estimate of gasoline consumption by outboards in
Marion County can be made based on state total sales for marine
uses in Highway Statistics, 1974 . This document reports 19.173
million gallons sold in Indiana in 1974. Apportioning this
to Marion County on the basis of inland water surface area as
2
found in Area Measurement Reports, Areas of Indiana yields the
following:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Transportation, Highway Statistics. Washington, D.C., GPO, 1973
2
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Area Measurement Report, Indiana, 1960. GE 20, No. 16,
Washington, D.C., GPO, February 1967.
-66-
-------
Inland Water Marine Gasoline
State 102 sq. miles 19.173 million gallons/year
Marion
County 1.8 sq. miles .338 million gallons/year
Particulate emissions from the 338,000 gallons are negligible;
sulfur oxides emissions are about 1.1 tons.
2.7 Mobile Sources - Aircraft
2.7.1 County Emissions
The data for aircraft operations were obtained from
the Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA) and the Metropolitan
Airport System Plan, Work Paper !_. The total aircraft opera-
tions per type of aircraft for Weir Cook Airport and Eagle
2
Creek Airport were provided by the IAA. The Airport System
Plan supplied the number of based aircraft for thirteen other
air facilities. Using Eagle Creek's operations and number of
based aircraft, a value for operations per based aircraft was
calculated. The operations were then estimated for the other
air facilities using their based aircraft and the value for
operations per based aircraft.
The necessary emission factors and number of engines
per type of aircraft were obtained from AP-42. The summarized
results are presented below:
(Arnold) Thompson Associates, Aviation Consultants
Metropolitan Airport System Plan, Physical and Statistical In-
ventory. Work Paper I/Job 570. March 1974"
2
Orcutt, Daniel C., Private Communication, Indianapolis
Airport Authority, Weir Cook Municipal Airport, 6 March 1975
-67-
-------
County Total Emissions
Operations Particulates Sulfur Dioxide
503,600 58.8 TPY 73.8 TPY
2.7.2 Subcounty Apportionment
Each air facility was located into the proper IRTADS
district. Table 2-6 summarizes the data applicable to each
airport and computed emissions.
2.8 Mobile Sources - Other Off-Highway Fuels
2.8.1 County Emissions
This category includes diesel and gasoline consumed
by internal combustion engines in six subcategories: agri-
cultural equipment, industrial equipment, construction equip-
ment, lawn mowers, snow mobiles, and motorcycles. The method-
ology used for Marion County was to obtain county estimates made
by the National Air Data Branch (NADB). The NADB data has been
calculated using the area source fuel apportioning program,
ASFAP. The ASFAP estimates county fuel consumption and emis-
sions for the six subcategories defined above. The years of
record for these estimates vary from the 1969 Census of Agri-
culture to 1972. The estimates shown below should also be
representative of 1974.
EMISSION FACTORS EMISSIONS
FUEL MARION COUNTY TSP _ S02 _ TSP S02
Gasoline 8,235,000 gallons 10.7 — — — 56 — — - 44 tons 23 tons
10 gals ' 10 gals
Diesel 7,000,000 gallons 33.3 1 29.8 1()lb*ls 117 tons 104 tons
161 tons 127 tons
-68-
-------
TABLE 2-6
1974 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND EMISSIONS
Weir Cook Airport
Air Carrier
Jumbo Jet
Long Range Jet
Medium Range Jet
Turbo-Prop
Air Taxi
Piston Transport
Turbo-Prop
Military
Piston
Jet
Helicopter
Turbo-Prop
General Aviation
Business Jet
Turbo-Prop
Piston Transport
Piston
Percentage
Aircraft Operations/ No. of
Type Year Engines LTO's*
100 102,570
0 40
2 4 1,026
86 2.26 44,105
12 2 6,154
100 18,100
33 1.5 2,987
67 2 6,063
100 10,000
14 1 700
3 2 150
80 1 4,000
3 2 150
100 246,286
3 2 3,695
7 2 8,620
60 2 36,943
30 1 73,885
Particulate
EF
(Ibs/LTO-eng)
1.30
1.21
0.41
1.10
0.56
0.20
0.28
0.31
0.25
1.10
0.11
0.20
0.56
0.02
Emissions
(tons)
0.0
2.48
20.43
6.77
1.25
1.26
0.09
0.04
0.50
0.16
0.40
1.72
20.68
0.73
Sulfur Dioxide
•EF
(Ibs/LTO-eng)
U r
1.82
1.56
1.01
0.40
0.28
0.18
0.14
0.76
0.18
0.41
0.37
0.18
0.28
0.01
Emissions
(tons)
0.0
3.20
50.33
2.46
0.62
1.09
0.04
0.11
0.36
0.06
1.36
1.55
10.34
0.51
cr\
TOTAL Weir Cook Airport
Other Fields
County Emissions
377,000
126,600
56.6
2.2
58.8 tons
72.1
1.7
73.8 tons
LTO - Landing Takeoff cycle = 2 operations
-------
Agricultural uses of diesel and gasoline have been
estimated using the number of tractors and an average fuel con-
sumption of 1,000 gals/yr. The Census of_ Agriculture reports
1,037 tractors at farms in Marion County, about 7070 gasoline-
fueled, those purchased before 1965, and 30% diesel-fueled,
2
those purchased after 1964. Assuming a small decrease in
number of tractors between 1969 and 1974, the tractor fuel
use for 1974 is estimated to be 300,000 gallons diesel and
700,000 gallons gasoline. Emissions from agricultural uses were
apportioned to IRTADS districts based on the distribution of
harvested acreage in the county (refer to Section 2.11). Emis-
sions from the remaining other off-highway fuels were appor-
2
tioned using total employment. The emissions allocated by
each method are shown below.
AGRICULTURAL EMISSION FACTORS EMISSIONS
USES
Gasoline
Diesel
CONSUMPTION TSP
7nn oon 0-3 1 c in 7 i£.s.
/uu,uuu gaxs i.u . / 7V^3 — •-
1 V.O
inn nnn a^ic 11 i - ...... . ..
juu , uuu gaxs Jj.j ..3
10 gals
S02
r f Ibs
J'G 103gals
or) q IDS
^'3 lO^gals
TSP S0
3. 8 tons 2.0 tons
5.0 tons 4.5 tons
- -
8.8 tons 6.5 tons
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Vol. ~T, Proj ecting
County Emissions, 2nd ed. EPA 450/4-74-008, Contract No. 68-
02-1005, Task 4, Bethesda, Maryland, Jan. 1975.
2
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1969 Census of Agriculture, Volume I, Area Reports, Part II,
Indiana, Section 2, County Data. Washington, D.C., GPO, March
ITJT.
3
Indianapolis, City of, Indiana, Dept. of Metropoli-
tan Development, Div. of Planning and Zoning, Small Area Socio-
economic Forecasts for the Year 2000 by_ Traffic Analysis Zones.
Work Paper~lT May 1975.
-70-
-------
EMISSIONS
REMAINING TSP S02
Gasoline 44-3.8=40.2 tons 23-2=21 tons
Diesel 117-5.0=112 tons 104-4.5=99.5 tons
TOTAL 152.2 tons 120.5 tons
2. 9 Solid Waste Disposal - Open Burning
2.9.1 County Emissions
In 1974, only residential open burning was allowed in
Marion County. Therefore commercial/ institutional and industrial
open burning emissions are zero. Emissions from residential on-
site open burning have been provided by the Indianapolis Air
Pollution Control Division. The results of this study are
summarized here. A copy of the communication supplied to Radian
is included in the Appendix B. The Indianapolis APCD study in-
dicates that by mass balance, approximately 18% of trash generated
at one and two dwelling unit residences is disposed on-site. The
total is 47,800 tons annually. In addition, an estimate of the
quantity of leaves burned is included in this study. The results
of this study are summarized below.
TYPE QUANTITY EMISSION FACTORS EMISSIONS
TSP _ S02 TSP _ S02
Trash 47,800 tons 35 — .5 836.5 tons 12 tons
ton ton
Leaves 5,686 tons 46.5 - 132.5 Neg.
ton _ _
969 tons 12 tons
-71-
-------
2.9.2 Subcounty Apportionment
The county emissions presented above were allocated to
townships in the City APCD report. Radian apportioned these into
IRTADS districts by the distribution of dwelling units. See
Section 2.1.
2.10 Solid Waste Disposal - Incineration
2.10.1 County Emissions
On-site incineration occurs in Marion County at food
and department stores, schools, hospitals, and other establish-
ments. In this report all residential on-site disposal is con-
sidered open burning rather than incineration. See Section 2.9.
It is also assumed that all incinerators in the county are per-
mitted. Therefore, permit file data from the City APCD has been
used to quantify emissions from this category. An additional
component of area source incineration is incineration at point
source facilities. Radian's point source survey requested data
on incineration. The amounts incinerated are included here if
the incinerator(s) was not in the NEDS point source file. The
tables below summarize these quantities.
Commercial/Institutional Industrial
At point sources 577 tons 2,818 tons
Schools 22,399 tons
Other 6,778 tons 1,542 tons
29,754 tons 4,360 tons
-72-
-------
EMISSION FACTORS EMISSIONS
CATEGORY QUANTITY TSP S02 TSP S02
Commercial/ ,, ,,
Institutional 29,754 8—- 2.5—- 120 tons 37 tons
ton ton
Industrial 4,360 8-— 2.5 17 tons 5 tons
137 tons 42 tons
2.10.2 Subcounty Allocation
Each facility operating an incinerator was located by
street address in the appropriate IRTADS district.
2.11 Agricultural Tilling
This section considers dust generated by agricultural
tilling operations. Emissions were estimated using the following
equation from AP-42:
PTT 2
EF = 1.12 s/(^) , where
EF = suspended dust emission factor for
particles <30 ym (Ibs/acre-tilled)
s = silt content of soil
PE = Thornwaites precipitation - evaporation index
(PE=106 for Marion County)
The required parameters are (1) acreage tilled and (2) silt
content of soil. Information for 1974 on field crops in Marion
County is presented on the following page:
Kahlo, Clarke R. , Private communication, City of
Indianapolis, Department of Metropolitan Development, 30 Sept
1976.
-73-
-------
ACRES AVERAGE ACRES
CROP HARVESTED TILLING OPERATIONS TILLED
Corn 29,700 3.5 104,000
Soybeans 25,000 3.5 87,500
Wheat 5,900 2 11,800
Oats 900 2 1,800
Hay 5,600 2 11,200
TOTAL 67,100 216,300
The silt content varies across the county. See Figure 2-1.
To compute county emissions the following grid specific calcula-
tions were performed. First, the IRTADS district map was super-
imposed on the soil map (Figure 2-2). Then the average silt
content for each district with farm land was estimated. Next,
the district emission factor was computed. Emissions for each
district were then computed by measuring the fraction of agri-
cultural land in each district. This fraction was applied to
the county acres-tilled which was 216,300. Emissions for each
district were summed to yield county emissions of 1,410 tons.
2.12 Heavy Construction Activities
This category includes dust created by mechanical ac-
tivity at building and major highway construction sites in Marion
County. The data requirements are the acreage,.duration, and
location of the projects, the soil silt content, and Thornwaite's
precipitation-evaporation index (PE).
A uniform ucontrolled emission factor was used for all
construction activities in the county. A PE=106 and a silt con-
tent = 52.57o was used to adjust the construction emission factor
as recommended in AP-42. The resulting emission factor for Marion
County is
EF = .04 (52.5)/(106/50)2
= 0.46 tons/acre-month.
-74-
-------
9 0 » (
0.2 E
^
•*.!£.
?^r^i
1ZE.
* a » s » • to
SOIL
4
38
64
83
84
AVERAGE SILT %
50
52.5
57.5
62.5
50
SOURCE:
Sinclair, H. Raymond, Jr., Private
Communication, U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, Indianapolis, IN, 5 March 1976.
FIGURE 2-1
GENERAL SOIL MAP AND SILT CONTENTS
-75-
-------
Geist
Reservoir
FIGURE 2-2
SOILS OF AGRICULTURAL AREA ON
IRTADS DISTRICT MAP
-76-
-------
For building construction, very detailed informa-
tion was supplied by the DMD. A county map was provided which
showed all building construction sites and acreages. The sites
were identified as single family, multi-family, industrial and
commercial. For the residential sites, DMD could not specify
the actual period of construction at each site. It decided
to use the acreages to represent a two-year average (1974 and
1975) at each site. Therefore, it was assumed that the 6-
month development period occurred 3 months in 1974 and 3 months
in 1975. Except for industrial sites, a cut-off project size
of 10 acres was selected. The duration of dust-creating activi-
ties at commercial and industrial sites was assumed to be 11
months.
Highway construction information was supplied by the
Indiana State Highway Commission. Six major sites totaling
13.3 miles were identified. An estimate of 300 feet was used
to compute acreage. Dust-creating activities were assumed to
take place at these sites during a 6-month period in 1974.
The watering program used for dust prevention was assumed to
have been 50% effective. The following summarizes heavy
construction for the county.
TYPE
Highway
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
ACRES
484
46.5
202
418
MONTHS
6
11
11
3
ACRE-
MONTHS
2,900
512
2,222
1,254
EMISSION
FACTOR
r) o Ibs
•~J acre-
month
.46
.46
.46
EMISSIONS
668
232
1,022
576
tons
2,500 tons
Cowherd, Chatten C., Jr., Christine M. Guenther, and
Dennis D. Wallace, Emissions Inventory of Agricultural Tilling,
Unpaved Roads and Airstrips, and Construction Sites. EPA-450/'
3^74-085, PB 23~8~r9T97KanTas City, Mo., Midwest Research Inst
Nov. 1974.
-77-
-------
Each project was. located into the appropriate IRTADS district
by address.
2.13 Fugitive Dust Vehicles
Fugitive dust occurring from travel over both paved
and unpaved roadways is included in this section. Discussions
with city agency personnel concluded that no significant travel
on unpaved roads occurs in Marion County, except for trucks
traveling over the landfill sites in the county. Vehicular
travel over paved roads also creates some amount of dust by the
action of tires on loose roadway particles. This source is
referred to as dust re-entrainment. Although AP-42 at this time
has no published emission factor for re-entrainment, a background
study for emission factor development has been conducted in
Kansas City and reported. In the referenced study emission
factors are reported based on vehicle miles traveled and land
use. The factors range from 1.2 g/mi to 11 g/mi. The appli-
cability of these factors to Indianapolis roads is not known.
Rather than biasing the inventory through use of land-use
dependent factors, a constant factor (1.2 g/mi) has been chosen
to estimate emissions for Marion County. This factor is re-
ported to be applicable to roads in commercial areas. Since the
factor is also climate dependent, a correction factor has been
applied as shown below.
EF = 1.2 g/mi (225/265) = 1 g/mi
Midwest Research Institute, Quantification of Dust
Entrainment from Paved Roadways, Draft Final Report. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1403, Task 7. Kansas City, Mo., March
1976.
-78-
-------
where 265 is the number of "dry days" per year in Kansas City
and 225 in Indianapolis. The 1 g/mi factor was applied to the
VMT for each IRTADS district (see Section 2.4)
equal 3,944 tons.
County emissions
Another type of vehicular fugitive dust source was
identified in the county, garbage trucks traveling over land-
fill sites. Dust is generated by the travel made on trips to a
dumping location at the sites. Using data on six sites pro-
vided by DMD (see Appendix B), the following emission calcula-
tions have been made:
EF = (.6) (.81)s (V/30) (d/365) where
EF = uncontrolled emission factor (Ibs/NMT)
S = silt content (assume 5270)
V = vehicle speed (assume 20 mph)
d = annual number of "dry days" (assume 225).
Also assume 5070 control for water and/or oil application. An-
nual truck travel was computed assuming 260 days per year (5
days per week). The following summarizes emissions for the six
sites.
IRTADS
GRID LANDFILL SITE
ANNUAL TRAVEL EMISSION FACTOR
EMISSIONS
43
62
62
54
52
36
2700
2561
2102
3400
4600
2401
S. Emerson
Kentucky
S. Harding
S. Harding
Bluff Road
Senour Rd.
1
7
8
883 VMT
,970
39
,800
286
,840
5.
5.
10.
5.
5.
5.
7 Ibs/VMT
7
4
7
7
7
2.
5.
f
22.
0.
25.
5
6
2
3
8
2
tons
56.6 tons
National Climatic Center, Local Climatological Data
Asheville, N.C. (1973-1975).
-79-
-------
These emissions were included in the entrainment gridded emis-
sions .
2. 14 Wind-Blown Dust
2.14.1 County Emissions
This section includes dust suspended due to wind
erosion of farm land. Wind erosion can be quantified using a
1 2
wind erosion equation such as shown below. '
E = IKCL'V
where: E = an emission factor* for total wind erosion
(ton/acre/yr). It should be noted that this
represents total wind erosion and not just
suspended particulates. An adjustment of E.
to account for this will be discussed sub-
sequently .
I = soil erodibility index (tons/acre/yr).
This factor is a measure of maximum soil
erodibility under worst conditions. The
subsequent terms serve to reduce this index.
K = roughness factor (dimensionless). This
factor takes into account surface roughness
Cowherd, Chatten, Jr., et al., Development of Emis-
sion Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources, Final Report. EPA-450/
3-74-037, Contract No. 68-02-0619. Kansas City, Mo., Midwest
Research Inst., June 1974.
2
Woodruff, N. P. and F. H. Siddoway, "A Wind Erosion
Equation", Soil Science Society of America, Proc. 29(5), 602-08
(1965).
-80-
-------
which tends to dissipate wind energy and trap
particles.
C = climatic factor. This parameter relates
soil erodibility to meteorological conditions.
L1 = unsheltered field width factor (dimen-
sionless). This parameter is a function of
actual field width (L) and soil erodibility
(I).
V = vegetative cover factor (dimensionless).
This parameter is a function of actual
quantities of crop residue left on a field
while it is bare (V) in Ib/acre, roughness
factor (K), field width factor (L') and
climatic factor (C).
Substitution of typical parameters into the above equation yield
emission factors in the range 23-29 Ibs/acre. This assumes
that 2.5 percent of eroded soil stays suspended. Annual emis-
sions are computed by assuming that agricultural land is subject
to wind erosion for 3 months of the year. A county-wide erosion
factor of 25 Ibs/acre has been used:
ACREAGE EMISSION FACTOR EMISSIONS
67,100 25 Ibs/acre (3/12) 210 tons
2.14.2 Subcounty Apportionment
County emissions were apportioned to IRTADS districts
using the factors developed for agricultural tilling. See
Section 2.11.
-81-
-------
2. 15 Process Losses
Estimates of actual process particulate emissions for
fourteen industries in Marion County were provided by the City
APCD from their permit files. " Emissions from these non-point
sources totaled about 153 tons. The sources were located in
IRTADS districts by street address. The individual source
emissions are listed in Table 2-7.
2.16 Structural Fires
This category includes emissions from building fires.
The DMD has provided a county-wide estimate of 3,474 for 1974.
An average emission factor per fire has been computed as fol-
lows. Assuming 4.25 tons combusted per fire and open burning
emission factors weighted as 90% wood and 1070 automobile com-
ponents, the emission factors are:
TSP = 1(0.9 x 17) + (0.1 x 100)1 x 4.25 = 108 Ibs/fire
S02 = 1(0.9 x 0.00) + (0.1 x 0.5)| x 4.25 = 0.2 Ibs/fire
The emissions are then as shown below:
Number of Emission Factors Emissions
Fires TSP S02 TSP SO,
3,474 108 Ibs/fire 0.2 Ibs/fire 187 tons .35 tons
2.17 Negligible and Uninventoried Categories
The following categories are negligible combustion
sources of particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions in Marion
County in 1974: forest fires, slash burning, and agricultural
-82-
-------
TABLE 2-7. UPDATE OF PERMITTED
NON-POINT SOURCES
Source Names Tons/Year
Asphalt Mix Products 5.0
Asphalt Surfacing Company 3.0
Astro Paving, Inc. 22.0
Dundee Cement Company 0.562
Ertel Manufacturing Company 10.4
Glass Container Corporation 77.6
Harding Paving 13.0
Indiana Auto Shreders 7.1
Rite Mix Corporation 0.379
Suits Foundry, Inc. 2.8
Superior Coffee and Tea 0.937
Asphalt Surfacing Company 6.48
Acme-Evans Company 0.3
Spickelmier Industries 3 . 6
153.2
-83-
-------
burning. Potential sources of fugitive dust such as unpaved
parking lots, unpaved alleys, street sweepers, etc., were not
inventoried in this project.
Wagner, Philip A., Ill, Private Communication,
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 15 June 1976.
-84-
-------
3.0 PROJECTED AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
This section describes the methodologies used to pro-
ject 1974 base year countywide area source emissions to 1975,
1980, and 1985. The 1974 and 1975 inventories are identical
except for two categories: agricultural tilling and wind-blown
dust. Therefore, the following chapters will describe projec-
tions for a 10-year period with 1980 being an interim year.
The methods described below rely on population growth, employ-
ment, etc. For each area source category, pollutant and year,
emission growth factors (EGF) were computed, which when multi-
plied times the base year emissions yield future year emissions.
The county EGF was also applied to the gridded baseyear emis-
sions described in Section 2.
3.1 Residential Fuels
The important parameters required to project residen-
tial fuels are housing losses, housing gains, and the types of
heating fuels. The DMD has provided IHCC estimates of popula-
tion growth for Marion County and the nine townships. DMD has
recommended that 757, of new housing will be all electric, and
25% will be heated with oil.
The remaining unknown is the number of housing losses,
especially among those "older" homes heating with coal and oil.
The population change for Center Township is slightly downward
(670 decrease from 1975 to 1985). It can be assumed that the
decrease will represent coal and oil heated housing losses.
This 67, decrease will be applied to Center Township base year
emissions. The other townships combined will have a net 8.670
population increase between 1975 and 1985. The emission growth
factor will be 8.670 x .25 = 2.270. The resulting emission pro-
jections are shown below.
-85-
-------
1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMISSIONS
TSP S02 EGF TSP SQ2 EGF TSP S02
Center Township 148.9 tons 842.4 tons -.94 140 792 -.94 140 792
Other Townships 148.1 899.6 1.013 150 911 1.022 151 919
County Total 297 tons 1,742 tons 290 1,703 291 1,711
Growth factors were computed based on the IHCC population forecasts
shown below.
1975 1980 1985
Center Township 239,537 225,200 225,012
Other Townships 551,509 579,154 599,174
Marion County 791,046 804,354 824,186
3.2 Commercial/Institutional Fuels
The emissions from this category have been projected
using employment forecasts from IHCC provided by the DMD. Non-
manufacturing employment has been projected to increase approxi-
mately 20%. The resulting emission projections are shown below.
1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMISSIONS
TSP SO2 EGF TSP S02 EGF TSP S02
Marion County 126 tons 1,123 tons 1.084 137 1,217 1.197 151 1,344
1975 1980 1985
Non-Manufacturing 277,977 301,264 332,727
Employment
3 . 3 Industrial Fuels
Industrial fuel emissions have been projected using
manufacturing employment forecasts from IHCC. The results are
shown below.
-86-
-------
1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMISSIONS
.TSP S02 EGF TSP S02 EGF TSP SO2
Marion County 189 tons 1,121 tons 1.006 190 1,128 1.008 191 1,130
1975 1980 1985
Manufacturing 113,363 114,097 114,296
Employment
3.4 Mobile Sources - Highway Vehicles
Projections of county emissions for this category
have been using VMT projections previously supplied to USEPA
by the DMD. Emissions growth factors account for VMT in-
crease and projected emission factors as follows:
Emission Factors (AP-42), Appendix D.7)
1980 1985
TSP S02 TSP S02
.47 .20 .41 .19
Travel
1975 daily VMT = 9,005,800
1985 daily VMT = 11,752,200
1980 VMT/1975 VMT = 1.152 1985 VMT/1975 VMT = 1.305
1980 TSP EGF = (.47)/(.59) x 1.152 = .918
S02 EGF = (.20)/(.23) x 1.152 = 1.002
Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of_ Air
Pollutant Emission Factors. 2nd ed., AP-42 with supplements.
Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973.
-87-
-------
1985 TSP EGF = (.41)/(.59) x 1.305 = .907
S02 EGF = (.19)/(.23) x 1.305 = 1.078
These growth factors applied to 1974 emissions yield the pro-
jected emissions shown below. It also has been assumed that
1974 VMT and emissions equals 1975 VMT and emissions.
1975 Emissions 1980 Emissions 1985 Emissions
TSP SO, TSP S02 TSP SO;
2,530 tons 1,190 tons 2,322 1,192 2,294 1,283
3.5 Mobile Sources - Railroad Engines
Railroad engine emissions have been projected to
increase corresponding to total employment in Marion County.
The resulting projections are shown below.
1974 Emissions 1980 Emissions 1985 Emissions
74
To
3.
TSP S02
EGF TSP S02
tons 168 tons 1.061 78 1
tal Employment
6 Mobile
1975 1980
391,340 415,361
Sources - Vessels
78
EGF TSP
1.142 85 192
1985
447,023
No significant change in emissions is expected from
boating in Marion County. About 1 ton of sulfur dioxide is
projected for 1980 and 1985.
-------
3.7 Mobile Sources - Aircraft
Aircraft emission projections have been made for Weir
Cook Airport based on estimates of future air traffic by the
IAA. Emissions from the other air fields in the county were
also projected using the projected emissions for Weir Cook as
growth factors.
WEIR COOK 1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMISSIONS
CATEGORIES TSP S02 EGF TSP S02 EGF TSP S02
Commercial
Civilian
Military
32.
23.
.
2 tons
6
8
57
13
.7 tons
.8
.6
1.22
1.14
1.0
39.2
27.0
.8
70.2
15.8
.6
1.
1.
1.
39
20
13
44.8
28.4
.9
80.1
16.6
.7
56.6 tons 72.1 tons 67.0 74.0 97.4
WEIR COOK OPERATIONS 1975 1980 1985
Commercial 122,500 149,000 170,000
Civilian 246,560 281,600 297,000
Military 10,000 10,000 11,250
3.8 Mobile Sources - Other Off-Highway Sources
Emissions from the sources in this category have been
projected to increase proportionally to population growth in
Marion County (see Section 3.1).
1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMISSIONS
TSP S02 EGF TSP S02 EGF TSP S02
161 tons 127 tons 1.02 164 129 1.04 168 132
Orcutt, Daniel C., Private Communication, Indianapoli:
Airport Authority, Weir Cook Municipal Airport, 6 March 1975.
-89-
-------
EGF
1.02
TSP
988
S02
12
EGF
1.04
TSP
1,008
S02
13
3.9 Solid Waste Disposal - Open Burning
Residential open burning has been projected assuming
business as usual and a constant per capita burning rate. There-
fore, population growth will be the emission growth factor as
shown below.
1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMISSIONS
TSP S02
969 tons 12 tons
3.10 Solid Waste Disposal - Incineration
Incineration is divided into commercial/institutional
and industrial subcategories. Projections have been made using
non-manufacturing and manufacturing employment as the growth
factors (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3).
1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMSSIONS
TSP S02 EGF TSP SO2 EGF TSP SO;
C/I
Ind.
120 tons
17
37 tons
5
1.08
1.006
130
17
40
5
1.20
1.008
144
17
44
5
3.11 Agricultural Tilling
Fugitive dust emissions from tilling operations have
been projected based on extrapolation of total harvested acreage
in Marion County. From 1955 to 1975, harvested acreage of corn,
soy beans, wheat, oats, and hay decreased from 83,100 to 61,600.
This trend is reflected in the emission projections below.
-90-
-------
1974 1975 1980 1985
Acres Harvested: 67,100 61,600 57,800* 53,900*
TSP Emissions: 1,410 tons 1,290 1,210 1,130
*Regression equation using 1955, 1960, 1965, 1974, and 1975 acreage:
projected acres = 121,000 - (790) (Year - 1900)
3.12 Heavy Construction Activities
Emission projections for this category have been made
for the four subcategories: highway, residential, commercial,
and industrial. No substantial change has been predicted in
commercial and industrial construction. Therefore, projected
emissions will be the same as for 1974. Residential construc-
tion in the county should decrease due to land availability.
The DMD has predicted that annual residential land consumption
between 1975 and 1980 should be about 30 percent less than the
o
1970 to 1975 period. This 30' percent decrease should be
applicable to the residential construction acreage also. A 30
percent decrease between 1980 and 1985 also seems appropriate.
Highway construction estimates have been made for 1980
3
and 1985 by the Indiana Highway Commission. These estimates
are shown on the following page with projected emissions.
Schmidt, Eric J., Private Communication, State Board
of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana, 25 October 1976.
2
Indianapolis, City of, Indiana, Dept. of Metropolitan
Development, Div. of Planning and Zoning, Population, Housing and
Residential Land Consumption/1980. Work Paper 4. July 1976.
3
Bolyard, F. Sterling, Private Communication, State of
Indiana, Urban Planning Dept., 6 Feb. 1976.
-91-
-------
1
TSP
668 tons
576
,022
232
EGF
.15
.70
1.0
1.0
TSP
100 tons
403
1,022
232
EGF
.20
.70
1.0
1.0
TSP
135 tons
403
1,022
232
1975 Emissions 1980 Emissions 1985 Emissions
Project Type
Highway
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
2,500 1,860 1,890
1980 Highway Construction: 2 miles
1985 Highway Construction: 2.7 miles
3.13 Fugitive Dust-Vehicles
Fugitive dust from vehicles traveling over paved roads
has been projected using the increase in county VMT. The result-
ing emissions are shown below. Emissions from trucks traveling
to the landfill sites over unpaved roads were estimated to be
the same as 1974.
1975 Emissions 1980 Emissions 1985 Emissions
Re-entrainment
Unpaved Roads
3.14 Wind-Blown Dust
Wind erosion emissions have been projected using the
estimated harvested acreage as described in Section 3.11. The
resulting dust emissions are shown below.
1974 1975 1980 1985
3,950 tons
56
EGF
1.15
1.0
TSP
4,450 tons
56
EGF
1.30
1.0
TSP
5,140 tons
56
Acres 67,100 tons 61,600 tons 57,800 tons 53,900 tons
Emissions 206 189 177 165
-92-
-------
3.15 Process Losses
Emissions from processes have been estimated to change
proportioned to manufacturing employment. The small increase in
manufacturing employment yields a negligible emissions growth
for this category.
3 .16 Structural -Fires
The number of building fires has been projected based
on county population. These results are shown below.
1975 EMISSIONS 1980 EMISSIONS 1985 EMISSIONS
TSP SO2 EGF TSP S02 EGF TSP S02
187 tons .4 tons 1.017 190 .4 1.042 195 .4
-93-
-------
4.0 COM CONVERSION
This section describes the methods used to translate
the emissions into input format for the Climatological Disper-
sion Model (CDM). The methods are described below for point
source projections and area sources. The computer card format
for the CDM is shown in Table 4-1.
4.1 Point Sources
The conversion of stack-by-stack emission projection
was performed using a deck of stack parameters and UTM coordi-
nates supplied by the IAPCD. The conversion was not direct
since the NEDS-based stack-by-stack projections did not corre-
spond to each CDM "stack". Those cases which a correspondence
could not be made were reported as such in the documentation
accompanying the card decks. Card decks were generated for
1975, 1980, and 1985 emissions.
4.2 Area Sources
Conversion of gridded emissions from the IRTADS dis-
trict system into CDM format involved the following steps.
First, a CDM grid system was selected. This grid system is
portrayed in Figure 4-1. It consists of 124 square grids:
sixteen 1-square km grids, sixty 4-square km grids, and forty-
eight 16-square km grids.
Next, the areas of the IRTADS districts were appor-
tioned into the CDM grids. This was performed for each IRTADS
district such that the entire area of Marion County was appor-
tioned into the square CDM grids. The measured apportioning
factors are shown in Table 4-2. The horizontal axis of this
-94-
-------
TABLE 4-1. CDM INPUT FORMAT
Card No.
100a
Column
1 to 6
7 to 13
14 to 20
21 to 36
37 to 43
44 to 49b
50 to 56b
57 to 63t
64 to 68fc
Format
F6.0
F7.0
F7.0
2F8.0
F7.0
F5.0
F7.0
F7.0
F5.0
Contents
X(X map coordinate of the southwest
corner of the area emission grid, or
if appropriate, the X map coordinate
of a point source)
Y (Y map coordinate' of the southwest
corner of the area emission grid, or
if appropriate, the Y map coordinate
of a point source)
TX (Width of an area grid square in
meters. It is important that no entry
be made in the case of a point source.)
S1-S2 (Source emission rate in grams
per second for the two pollutants)
SH (Stack height in meters)
D (Diameter of stack in meters)
VS (Exit speed of pollutants from
stack in meters per second)
T (Gas temperature of stack gases in
degrees centigrade)
SA (If this field is blank, Briggs1
formula is used to compute stack height.
Otherwise, the product of plume rise
end wind speed is entered in square
neters per second. )
There will be as many cards of this type as there are area and point
sources. The next card type will arbitrarily be numbered 1000.
Needed for point sources only. Leave blank on area source cards.
-95-
-------
UJ
2
00
U)
U)
M
UJ
o
o>
to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
471
48|
49
sq
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59\
59,
eq
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103.
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
4420 KM N
4388 KM N.
FIGURE 4-1. MARION COUNTY COM GRID
-96-
02-1600-
-------
TABLE 4-2. IRTADS TO CDM GRID APPORTIONING FACTORS
i
MD
COM GRID
1
2
3
it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2"
25
26
21
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
V<
39
40
41
0 000000001 11 11 11 1 222222223 333334444444455555556666
1 23456789123^567(3123456761234561234567812345671234
66677777777B68688
56712345678124567
0 £000 0»0-0^»0 P'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-fr»frfrtrftrfr*HH> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0
»~^ettt?-0 (H>00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0
«.-o o o o o o n o o o o o o o o o-o o o o Q o o o o o o o o o o o
t>() (1044>0 0 0 0 (M) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 00000 iW) 00000000000-
#- 01> -t>-tM>6 (HHt 0 -0
-e»o o o o o o o 5 o o o o o o 0'
-08000000000000000
(H)50UOOOO()0000000
-o-e 000 -tt-e 0000000002
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti 0 i) 00000000 0-Q-tHH»+> S
frfe 0000 0 0 0 0 (* 0 0 0 000000 fHHWH^HHV
-00000000000000060-
) 00000000009
ij _ 0 o
* 0 0
.»4-a.4 44-000 4>-a-0-Q-a--0 0 0 O-O O-O 6 7 1 1 -¥00000
Hro o o o u <' o e-m* o o o oo o »o o o o o o Q o o-o 2 21 o o o o o o o o o 2^ o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0'-' 0 0 0 01) 0 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 n o 01) 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
(i 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 (- 0 0 0 0 i) n o (• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01' 0 (I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 2 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i' 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0002000000000000 0 0 H 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Hi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0
() 0 0 0 0 'Hi HO 0 f) 0 0 0 0 C 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 00 C 0 0010
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000021
0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000 0 0 0 0000
0 000 n >y 0 (i fi 0 0 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 i) 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 U 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ') (i u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 0 0 0 i) 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 you () 0 0 0 0000 C 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 U 0 (,' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 u 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0000000
0 0 0 (»0 i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (M/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 U n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 U
0 0 0 i) o 0 0 01) 0 0 5 o 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & 0 0 0 0 0
on oooooo oooo o o o o
00400000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0
00000000000000201
00000000000000210
0000000000000U210
00000000000002000
0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01> 0 2 0 0 0
00000602000000000
00000150300000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
00000000000000200
00000000000010200
00000000000031000
00000000000031000
00046300000 010000
00004050000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o n o
0 0 (i 0 (i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 U 0 (j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ') 0 0 0 0 0
00000 Olio 00 OHO 'JO 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i> 0 0 0
00000000000010000
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-2 (continued)
00
I
0 000000001111111 122222P223333334444444455555556666
COM OHIO 1 2345678912345678123456/812345612345b7812345o71234
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (>
'43 0 00000 00000 00 000000000 000000000000000 0000000000000
44 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
•45 (i 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (10 0 0 0 0 0 (10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
46 0 0000000200000000000000000000000000000000000003000
47 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 010 0 00 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
48 0 1 0 3 U u 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 I! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 '100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 II6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'i 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i) 0
00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 01? 0 0
0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000000000000004020000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 01) U 000 0012000 (; 00000000 0000 000 OOCOOOOOOOOOOOO 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 o 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000? /I 0 0 0 I o 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0090200000 n n o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 (I 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000
0 J 0 0 0 5 ?. 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 (i 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 u 0 u 0 1 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 •' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 ?0 0 u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 00 00000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 'J 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00000000302000000
00 o 0 0000000 000(1 0000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0u 0 0 0000 000033 1 1 0 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
0000000000000016 0 00000000000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 U 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 M0 0 0 0 00 0 000000000000000000000000 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 010 0 0 010 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 00 000000 0 0 000000 0
000 0 0 0000 0 l) o 0 0000/40000000000000 0 0 0 000000 0 00000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000000000000200000008000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 (i 00000 0 01 OOOOOo 0000 00 00 00000 00000
000000000000000000000000000000120000 0 000100000000
0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000010000000000200000 0
i) 0 o 0 0 0 0 n U 0 (i 0 2 0 00000 (: 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0
00000000 (i 0 0 0 000001005000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 000000000000003200000000000000000000000000000 0
0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
HO
81
82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1
0
0
0
66677777777886888
5671234567812ub67
00000000000710000
00010000000300000
OOO'sOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000 00000-jOOO
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
0000U000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
00000000000 0 00000
00000000000000000
ooooooooooooooooo
00000000000000000
ooooooooooooooooo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ooooooooooooooooo
ocooooooooooooooo
00000000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
000 0000 OOOOOQG 000
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
(continued)
-------
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOdOO
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
0 0 0 C' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
0 0 0 'T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
0000000000 0 0 000 0 0
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 JO 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
00000000000000 COO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00000000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (' 0 n 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r>2 I
0 0 (I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f) 2 0 "i 0 0 0 0 0 'i d 0 0 d n 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 000 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 fi t t
0000000 0 000000 0 ') 0 0 0 0 d (i 0 (i 020 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0') 0 0 0 fi 0 0 0 0 0 0 L\ \
0 0 0 0 0 00000022 00000000 0 000 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 911
00000000000 11 2200000f>uo uoonoooO'MiooOfti.UiOPononon no ° ^ l J
0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 2 2') f 0 0 I 0 t « 0 (> 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U 0 0 o 'Hi 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 :) 0 0 0 0 n II
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (> 0 0 0 0 0 0 t I S 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £ t I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !) 0 0 ?. 0 2 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? t I
0000000000000000000000000220000000000000000000000 0 III
00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 I! 0 00 0 2 0 (i 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 ') <) 0 CM) o o 0 0 0 0 0 r; 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 ') i) o 0 0 00 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2ft
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 {' 0 0 0 0 0 ?, n 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i 0 0 0 0 o <) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000001200 0 0 0 0 0 OOooOOO 0 6 H
0 0 0 0 t; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 'M.> () (i n <) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99
0 0 0 0 2 0 9. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <' t? o 0 0 0 0 (> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01) 0 0 0 0 0 /. ti
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 f0 t 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 99
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f? 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 S «
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO t I 0000TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC'OOOOOi) 0 (79
.0000000000000000000000090000000000000000000000000 0 £ ti
i oiaa
0
cr\
9999SciS?iSS<;f7t7t7t7f7r7t7l7S:f?:£?:f2?222222IUIIIIlO 0000 000
319VI,
-------
table is the IRTADS district number. There are 67 columns
corresponding to each of the 67 IRTADS districts. The vertical
axis is the CDM grid number corresponding to Table 4-1. There
are 124 rows, one for each CDM grid. The entrees in the matrix
are the apportioning factors in tenths.
An example of the use of Table 4-2 is shown below.
CDM grid 43 = (1/10) IRTADS District 71 +
(3/10) IRTADS District 81
where the 1/10 and 3/10 are the apportioning factors from Table
4-2. To obtain the CDM emission rates the district totals for
each pollutant as listed in Appendix E were multiplied by appro-
priate apportioning factors. To continue the above example
consider the 1974 TSP emissions. Table E-5 lists the district
total emissions as
1974 TSP District 71 emissions =41.7 tons
1974 TSP District 81 emissions = 34.3 tons
These annual emissions were converted to grams per second by
dividing by 34.72. Use of the above apportioning factors yields
the CDM emissions.
CDM grid 43, 1975 TSP emissions =
[(1/10)(41.7) + (3/10)(34.3)]/34.72 = 0.4165 gm/sec
A similar procedure was followed for S02 and the projection
year's emissions. Note that IRTADS Districts 01, 02, and 65 are
entirely with CDM grids 58, 48, and 14, respectively. Appor-
tioning factors for these grids are 1 or 10/10.
-100-
-------
At the request of the Indiana APCD, the plume height
for all area source grids was set at 12.0 meters. An ambient
temperature of 25 C was selected. UTM coordinates were
measured for each grid and entered in the appropriate fields.
See Figure 4-1.
-101-
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
GUIDELINES FOR AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING
AND ANALYSIS, VOL. 7, PROJECTING
COUNTY EMISSIONS
-------
EXCERPT FROM VOLUME 7: PROJECTING COUNTY EMISSIONS,
GUIDELINES FOR AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE
PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, PAGES 20-23
(3) The Effect of New Source Performance Standards
on Forecasted Emissions
The value for the future equivalent control efficiency
to be "plugged into" the emissions equation is usually a function
of the laws and regulations already agreed upon by the State
agencies and EPA. There are, however, some industrial processes
that are now, or are likely to be, subject to Federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). Some NSPS became effective in
1971 while others will be implemented in 1975. Still others
will probably be in effect by 1980 or by 1985. Preliminary
estimates of the emission reductions resulting from these
promulgated and proposed NSPS have been tabulated by EPA for
use in Air Quality Maintenance emission projections and can be
obtained from the AQMA representative in each EPA Regional
Office. This reference specifies either the required control
efficiency (percent removal of uncontrolled emissions) or the
maximum amount of pollutant allowed per unit of activity for
each process likely to be affected by NSPS between 1974 and 1985.
Federal NSPS apply to the following industrial
activities:
(a) New equipment installed in an existing
facility
(b) Replacement of obsolete equipment within
an existing facility
(c) All equipment in a new facility
Federal NSPS do not apply to utilization of idle capacity,
however.
A-l
-------
Thus, three different situations can exist for an
industrial process subject to NSPS:
(a) The entire facility is subject to NSPS
(b) Part of the production is subject to NSPS
and no other laws affect the remaining
production
(c) One part of the production is subject to NSPS
and' the remainder is subject to a local
agency regulation
Exhibit 1 depicts plan information for a source that
is currently subject to a local regulation or compliance
schedule and also will be subject to an NSPS in 1980. The
objective of this example is to show, in general, how to estimate
1985 emissions when one portion of the 1985 source production
will be subject to an NSPS and the remainder will still be
subject to the local regulation. This method is also valid
when the NSPS is the sole control regulation affecting the
industrial process. Before constructing a graph similar to
Exhibit 1, the following data must be collected for the point
source under investigation:
(a) Production rate for the base year
(obtained via interviews)
(b) Design capacity (obtained via interviews)
A-2
-------
I
u>
EXPECTED ACTIVITY
GROWTH
DESIGN CAPACITY
IN 1980
EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENT
RATE
1990
CALENDAR YEAR
EXHIBIT 1
SAMPLE PLANT PROJECTIONS
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTAL AREA SOURCE DATA
B-l Area Source Fuel Dealers Survey Cover Letter
and Fuel Oil Questionnaires
B-2 Residential Open Burning Communication From
Indianapolis APCD
B-3 Fugitive Dust From Garbage Trucks Data Provided
by Indianapolis DMD
-------
APPENDIX B-l
Area Source Fuel Dealers Survey Cover
Letter and Fuel Oil Questionnaire
-------
June 14, 1976
Re: Fuel Survey
The Air Pollution Control Division of the Indiana State
Board of Health is responsible for preparing a special evaluation
of the impact of air pollution in eleven Indiana counties. This
objective is part of an overall goal of the Federal EPA to
evaluate the attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards. A federally-sponsored contractor will assist in
the data gathering.
Your company is requested to fill out the enclosed questionnaire
as part of an inventory of 1974 and 1975 fuel sales and an estimate
of what future fuel sales may be in 1980 and 1985.
We realize that the allocation of fuel into residential,
commercial/institutional and industrial categories and projecting
fuel sales for 1980 and 1985 will be speculative. We hope,
however, that the estimates you indicate on this survey will
provide a more accurate estimation of fuel consumption patterns,
in each county, than estimates determined by nationally-developed
data, and that this survey will lead to an accurate estimation
of future air emissions.
Please complete and return this form to our office before
June 23, 1976. If you have any questions, feel free to contact
Sue Schrader, Indiana Air Pollution Control Division, at (317)
633-6855, or at the above State Board of Health address.
Very truly yours,
Harry Williams, Director
Air Pollution Control Division
SES/dd
B-l
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
We are interested in estimating fuel oil use in the
following Indiana counties: Allen, Dearborn, Jefferson, Lake,
La Porte, Marion, Porter, St. Joseph, Vigo, and Wayne. Please
fill in the amount sold in 1974 + 1975 for direct consumption in
the above counties serviced by your company. Please use one sheet
per county. Attempt to divide the amounts into residential,
commercial + institutional, and industrial (see definintions
below). If possible, estimate 1980 + 1985 sales and record in
the same manner.
Residential: All residential dwellings from single-family
residences to apartment complexes.
Commercial/
Institutional: Retail and wholesale stores, schools, hospitals,
government and public buildings.
Industrial: All manufacturing industries regardless of size.
B-2
-------
Company Name:
Address:
Phone No.:
Name of Person
Completing this Form:
Date:
Amount Sold Directly to Consumers in
County.
Fuel Type
Distillate 1974
Fuel Oil 19?5
If possible, l~1980
please estimate [_1985
Residential
gals % S
Commercial/
Institutional
gals % S
Industrial
gals % S
Total
gals % S
I
LO
Fuel Type
Residual 1974
Fuel Oil
1975
If possible, [~198Q
please estimate 1985
Residential
gals % S
Commercial/
Institutional
gals % S
Industrial
gals % S
Total
gals % S
For Wholesalers: Amount sold to retailers who serve this county (1974):
Distillate gals. Residual gals.
-------
APPENDIX B-2
Residential Open Burning Communiction
From Indianapolis APCD
-------
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
c
April'23, 1976
To: M.T. DeBusschere
From: W.M. amuse
Subject: Banning of Open Burning
The present Indianapolis regulation permits open burning of house-
hold refuse in some single and multiple family dwellings. In reality,
not all residential units open-burn their household refuse, but sane
corrmercial firms do conduct open burning. "( Primary violators have been
small firms, many times located in a building previously used as a res-
idence; some schools and churches, etc.)
The present Indianapolis regulation permits open burning of leaves
for both residential and commercial properties. Again, not all leaves
are burned in our residential areas and the primary contact we have had
with cornnercial leaf burning has been with large wooded areas such as
cemeteries.
At this time both Beech Grove and Speedway prohibit open burning of
any kind, both leaves and trash. It is cur understanding that Federal
installations also prohibit open burning of any kind.
«
The following analysis is based on household trash burning and household
leaf burning in Marion County. No data is available to account for the
volume of trash or leaves that are curned in the commercial conmunit3;r;
consequently the following data is conservative in estir^cing the emission
tonnage per year, but because the commercial firm is not served by tax
supported refuse collection the costs indicated are,,valid for our Sanitary
District.
Extensive use has cade of AP-42 for emission factors for trash burning,
an EPA contractor's results for emission factors for leaf burning, Depart-
ment of Metropolitian Development data on residential units in Marion County,
an analysis by Black and Veatch indicating the volume of refuse, and leaves
burned in Marion County, and'recent conversations with the Indianapolis
Sanitary District relating to current trash volumes, costs, and future
capabilities of collection operation. *
OPEN BURNING OF TRASH
Table A indicates the number of single and double occupied residential
units in Llaricn County in 1974, as obtained from DMD. Present volume of
trash collected (ssff Per residence per week) is less than Black and Veatch
indicated would be generated (4S,4jr per residence per week). Table A in-
dicates the tons of refuse burned in 1974. The expected particulate, CO,
and EC emissions were calculated from AP-42, Household ccnestic incinerator
factors of 35,300, and 100 pounds per ton of refuse. The resulting emissions
are indicated in Table A.
- - "' " • B--4
-------
2. ' - ,
Table A indicates, in summary, that 47,800 tons of refuse ware open-burned
in 1974, causing 8SS.5 tons of participate emissions, 7,133.8 tens of CO emissions,
and 2,392.4 tons of EC emissions. The Indianapolis Sanitary District, collecting
from only half the residences in the county, would require $71,700. CO per year to
pay the landfill cost; but current reorganization of collection routes within
the District permits the collection of the additional refuse to be acccmodated
without additional personnel or equipment.
LEAF BURNIXG
Table B indicates the expected tonnage of leaves in liar ion County in 1974,
as obtained from K.3D and the Black and Veatch analysis. BrJLssicn factors from
an EPA contractor have been used to calculate the participate, CO and EC yearly
tonnage. V/hile all figures in Table B are yearly figures, the leaf season is
only about eight weeks long, so the collection of leaves and/ or the emissions
will take place during that period of the year only.
Table B indicates in summary that 5,686 tons of leaves were burned in Marion
County in 1974; causing 132.5 tons of particulate emissions, 310.5 tons of CO
emissions, and 64.8 tons of EC emissions. ( Tne presumption made in distribution
of leaf volume throughout the county is that volumes are dependent upon land area,
not population.) The Indianapolis Sanitary District estimates that their total
cost of collection and disposal of the leaves within their district would be
$63,607.00 per year, wherein they are anticipating a special collection service
to assist with their problems during that particular period of the year.
ESDIANAFCLIS SANITARY DISTRICT
The costs previously indicated from the Indianapolis Sanitary District, 'and
their willingness to accept these additional challenges is appreciated by the
Air Pollution Control Division. Mr. Curtis Daugherty, Manager of the Solid Waste
Division, indicated that for their convenience the suggested starting date for
banning open burning and increasing the work load of the Solid Waste Division
would be January I, 1977. We indicated to Curtis that his suggested starting date
would be a matter of record, and that while the Air Pollution Control Board might
wish to discuss with him a modification of that date, cur initial presentation
would be made with his date as the target.
A ban on open burning of trash and leaves would result in a reduction in
particulate emissions of 959 tons per year, a reduction in CO emissions of 7,479
tons per year, and a reduction in HC emissions of 2,457 tons per year. The addit-
ional cost to the Indianapolis Sanitary District would be $135} 307. 00 per year
to handle the trash and leaves that are now being burned.
B-5
-------
Townships & Total
TABLE A
Pike Washington lawrerice Wayne Center Warren Decatur Perry Franklin
Total
No. of single and
double occupied
residences.
Tons of household refuse
burned par year
Participate emissions,
tons per year
CD emissions, tons per
year
HC emissions, tons per
year
Tons of leaves burned.
per year
Particulate emissions,
tons per year
CD emissions, tons
per year
HC emissions, tons
per year
4,294 35,974
957 8,022
16.7 140.4
11,803 32,072 80,274 25,753 4,230 16,483 3,470 214,353
i
2,632 7,152 17,901 5,743 943 3,676 774 47,800
46.1 125.2 313.3 100.5 16.5 64.3 13.5
TABLE B
631.8 631.8
14.7 14.7
836.5
7,108.8
2,392.4
631.8 631.8 631.8 631.8 631.8 631.8 631.8 5,686
t-
14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 132.5
310.5
64.8
-------
APPENDIX B-3
Fugitive Dust From Garbage Trucks
Data Provided by Indianapolis DMD
-------
Fugitive Dust Emissions.Data for Landfill Sites in Marion County, Indiana in 1974
2700 South Emerson Avenue
2561 Kentucky Avenue
2102 South Harding
3400 South Harding
4600 Bluff Road
2401 Senour Road
Trucks Entering
Dust Control
Unpaved Roads
200 feet
1000 feet
100 feet
1/2 mile
500' gravel
1500'
Daily
80 to 100
400
7 to 8
60
12
120 est.
Measures
Oil
Water Spray
?
Road oil as need
Oil
Water Spray
*Data collected by survey of landfill facilities
Prepared by:
Clarke Kahlo 9-20-76
CRK:st
B-7
-------
APPENDIX C
REGULATIONS (INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE)
-------
REGULATIONS (INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE)
REGULATION APC-2, Promulgated December 6, 1968
Amended REGULATION APC-3, Promulgated October 7, 1974
REGULATION APC 4-R, Promulgated June 8, 1972
REGULATION APC-5, Promulgated December 6, 1968
REGULATION APC-6, Promulgated December 6, 1968
REGULATION APC-7, Adopted May 28, 1975
REGULATION APC-13, Promulgated November 22, 1974
NEW RULE NUMBERED APC-14, Promulgated January 21, 1972
REGULATION APC-18, Promulgated January 22, 1974
REGULATION APC-20, Promulgated January 22, 1974
REGULATION APC-22, Promulgated August 15, 1974
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
INPUT LISTING OF GROWTH SURVEY AND OTHER DATA
FOR POINT SOURCE PROJECTIONS
(Limited Distribution - submitted under separate
cover and in computer format)
-------
APPENDIX E
EMISSIONS SUMMARIES
-------
EMISSIONS SUMMARIES
Point Source Emission Summaries
In order to facilitate a comparison of the projected
point source emissions to baseyear emissions, emission summaries
have been prepared for Marion County. These summaries are shown
in Table E-l, Table E-2 and Table E-3. The summaries were
prepared from the stack-by-stack projections described in
Section 1. Table E-l shows plant total emissions for 1974
(from an existing NEDS data base), 1975, 1980, and 1985. In
addition, this table shows emission growth factors for each
projection year at each plant (i.e., projection year emissions/
baseyear emissions). The plant numbering system is correspond-
ing to the 1974 NEDS inventory used as the basis for projec-
tions. The SIC is the Standard Industrial Classification for
each plant as extracted from NEDS. Table E-2 shows county total
particulate and S02 emissions along with county total emission
growth factors. Table E-3 shows county total emissions for
1974, 1975, 1980 and 1985 grouped by Standard Industrial Clas-
sification.
It should be noted when using these summaries as a
means to compare projected emissions to 1974 emissions that the
projected emissions, as discussed in Section 1.0, assume com-
pliance with all applicable regulations. The baseyear emis-
sions, however, reflect actual estimated emissions as reported
in NEDS.
Area Sources Emission Summaries
Gridded area source emissions were computed in this
study for eighteen categories. The categories inventoried are
E-l
-------
TABLE E-l. POINT SOURCE PLANT EMISSION SUMMARIES
PLANT TOTALSfTHNSXls>**-6}
PLANT
COUNTY & SIC POL
1974
197& 7S/74
1980 80/74
1985 85/74
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
1
2042
325b
3999
4
3411
5
33«2
6
8221
7
3714
8
2W92
9
8062
TSP
S02
TSP
302
TSP
502
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
302
TSP
SO?
TSP
0,005
a, 000
9,008
0.043
0,000
0,000
1,327
0,0^5
0,016
0 , C 0 0
0,0^0
0. 166
0,969
0,479
0,^10 2 , w 0 0
0 , K? 0 0 0 , 0 M 0
0,0/0 0,000
0,002 0.250
0,036 0,837
0,000 0,003
0. , 0 0 tf 0,000
i),171 0.129
1,212 0,643
i9 , 0. 0 2 0,400
0,000 0,000
U , ft 0 0 Kl , 0 0 ^
0,09b 0,511
0.716 M , 7 3 9
0,071 1.291
19,43* W.914
0,000
0,0/10
0,%)37
0,000
0,000
0,198
0,006
0,000
0,090
0,866
0,071
0,438
2,200
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,250
0,000
0 , 1?! A ^
0,149
0,797
0^375
0,000
0,000
P.484
0,894
1,291
0,914'
0,012
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,002
0,038
0,000
0,198
1,504
0J0M6
0,000
0,000
0,090
0,866
0,071
0,438
2,400
0,000
0,000
4,250
0,884
0,000
0,000
0,149
<5,797
0,400
0,375
0,000
0.484
0,894
1,291
0,914
(continued)
-------
PLANT
COUNTY ft SIC POL
TABLE E-l (continued)
PLANT TOTALS(TONS*Jrf***
1974
1975 76/74
1980 Bid/74
1985 85/74
I
CO
2t>40
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
10
3714
11
3714
12
3321
14
8kl62
15
2499
16
3321
17
3714
ia
3569
2834
TSP
SD2
TSP
502
TSP
502
rsp
S02
TSP
502
TSP
SO?
TSP
SH2
TSP
TSP
302
0,179 0,089 M.497
0,730 0,704 0,953
0,524 0,046 0,087
1,113 0,502 0,451
0,289 0,047 0,163
0, 000 0 , 000 0,000
0 , 0i10 0,014 0,000
0,004 0,029 7.250
0,021 0,306 0,286
0,014 0,014 1,000
0,000 0,0^1^) 0,000
0,9117 0,317 1,800
0,132 0,421 3.189
0,000 0,000 0,V)00
0,000 0,000 $,$00
0,090
0,707
0,045
0,507
3,060
0,014
0,030
0,006
0,014
0,000
0,018
0,470
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,503-
0,957 '
0,085
0,456
0,208
0,000
0,000
7,500
0,2df>
1 ,000
0,000
0,000
1,059
3,561
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,098
0,778
0,045
0,507
0,060
0,000
0,015
0.031
0,006
0,014
0,000
0,000
0,018
0,500
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,547
1.053
0,085
0,456
0,208
0,000
7!750
0,286
0.000
1,059
3,788
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
NT TOTALb(TnN3U0**-3)
PLANT
COUNTY & SIC POL
1974
1975 75/74
1980 80/74
1985 85/74
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
20
2043
21
3714
22
23
3714
25
3569
2r>
249 V
?7
2951
Set
8221
30
TSP
SQ2
TSP
SD2
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
St)2
TSP
S02
TSP
502
TSP
802
0,009
0,007
0,136
1.145
0,360
1,265
PI, 000
3, £99
0,239
0,000
0,000
0,002
a , 0 1 7
#,020
0,356
2,063
0,518
0,000
^244
0,000
0,006
M , d 0 0
0,001
0,003
0 , 8 0 0
2,222
0,857
2,618
0,943
0,175
0,409
0,000
0,000
0,061
1,021
0,000
0 »$ v^ o
KI A fe) {^ kl
0,000
0 , /i 0 .1
0,020
0,006
0,283
0,410
0.081
0,700
0,000
0,000
0,006
0,248
0,000
0,006
0,001
0,003
M.000
0,000
2,222
0,857
2,081
0,358
0,225
0,553
0,000
0,000
0,061
1,038
0,000
0,000
1.8IW0
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,020
0,006
0,247
0.374
0,081
0,700
3,000
0,000
0,006
0,254
0,000
0,000
0,006
0,000
0,001
0,003
0,000
0,000
2,222
0,857
1,816
0,327
0,225
0.553
0.000
0,061
1,063
0,000
1.000
0,000
1,500
0,000
0,000
(continued)
-------
PLANT
COUNTY & SIC POL
1974
TABLE E-l (continued)
A
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
PLANT
COUNTY 4 SIC POL
1974
1975 /5/74
1980 80/74
1985 b5/74
2640 41
8062
2640 42
2046
2640 44
2851
71 2S40 45
<* 2819
2640 46
3999
2 t> 4 tf 47
3999
2640 46
2999
2640 49
2999
2640 50
3999
TSP
302
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
rsp
S02
TSP
502
TSP
SQ2
0,005
0,005
2,067
4,474
0,001
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
I'.IS
0,"021
0,044
0,005
0,013
0,350 10,000 0 , 0 b 1
0,398 79,600 0,399
0,554 0.268 0,449
2,243 0,501 2,id7
01001 1.000 0 • 0 «3 1
*•*•* *• p w
0 , a 0 a 0,000 0,020
0,300 0,000 0,000
2, 000 0,0010 0,000
0,000 0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000 0,0*30
»,077 0,000 0,077
0 , 7 6 b W . 0 0 0 0,765
0,003 1,000 0,003
0 . d ? 1 1,000 0,021
0,21 40 0,908 (4,040
0,295 1,468 0,295
0,000 0,000 0,000
0 , 4) (1 0 0,000 0,000
10,200
79,800
0,217
0,489
1 ,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
1 ,000
0,909
1,468
0 , 0 Id 0
0,000
0,051
0,399
0,449
2,187
0,001
0,0(90
0.000
0.000
0,000
0,077
0,765
0,003
0,021
0.040
0.295
0,000
0,000
10,200
79,800
0.217
0,489
I'.lll
3,000
0,000
0,000
0.000
0,000
0,000
1,000
0,909
1,468
0,000
0,000
(continued)
-------
PLANT
COUNTY £ SIC POL
TABLE E-l (continued)
PLANT TOTALS
1974
1975 75/74
1980 80/74
1985 85/74
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
51
2911
52
3714
55
3999
56
2099
57
8S&9
58
3661
59
3714
6ft
3999
61
3312
TSP
S02
rsp
S02
TSP
302
TSP
502
TSP
S02
TSP
502
TSP
S02
TSP
TSP
S02
0,106
0,853
0,005
0,022
0,000
0,000
0,195
0,306
0,000
55,000
0,272
0,592
H"
0,399
0,119
1,119
0 , i) ft 1 0,764 0,12)5
0,681 0,798 0,840
65,005 l.tfflB 0,005
0,022 l.U»0 0,022
0,000 0 , 0 M 0 0,000
0,300 0,000 0,000
0,123 0,615 0,120
8,204 0,667 0,204
i-^ i-^ii :;!;;
0,105 0,386 0,103
0,7 02 1,186 0,466
0,0r/2 0,667 14, 002
0 , fo 0 4 0,667 0,003
id, 045 0,113 0,044
id , 5 1 ft 0,966 0,499
0,109 0,916 0,031
1,023 0,914 0,604
0.991
0.985
1,000
0,000
0,000
0,615
0,667
l;l%
0,379
0,821
0.667
0,500
0,945
0,261
0,540
0.114
0,928
0,005
0.022
0,000
0,000
0.120
0,000
0,000
a, 103
0,486
0,001
0,003
0,043
0,488
0,604
1.075
1,088
1,000
1,000
0,000
0,000
0,615
0,667
0,000
0,379
0.821
0,333
0,500
0.108
0,924
0.261
0,540
(continued)
-------
oo
PLANT
COUNTY £ SIC POL
2640
2640
2640
2640
2b4kJ
2640
2640
TABLE E-l (continued)
PLANT TuT*i,$n"NSxjifl**-3)
1974
197b 75/74
19B0 Bid/74
1985 85/74
62
3322
63
3069
65
3069
66
68
3714
3714
71
3714
TSP
S02
TSP
302
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
ISP
S02
TSP
SQ2
TSP
S02
TSP
8! ,368
0,002
1,100
0,923
0.011
0,037
0,000
0.000
0.072
0,000
0 , 0 W Pi
0,471
0.014
0,066
15,024 0,066 0,024 0,066
0,054 0,409 0,065 0,492
0 » «5 0 1 1 , M ft 0 0,001 1,000
0 , $ 0 4 2 , *l 0 0 0,0^4 2,000
ft, 079 0,071 0,090 0,081
0,740 0,002 0,691 0,749
0,fc)09 0,818 0,0(<)9 0,818
0,330 0,U11 0,030 0,811
^} • 0 0 0 W»(5^t1 W • 0 1) 1$ $ • 51 ^| 0
idfld^^ 1ft t tf W ?) $ w ft 3 (fl W 1 3 $0
0,«327 0.375 0,027 0,375
t),!80t') 0,000 0,000 0,000
0,^0^ &5,000 0,000 0,000
a.«90ft 0,000 0,0 <)0 0,000
H,15£» «?t32a 0,079 0.168
1.7lb id, 763 0,053 0,024
0,iJ24 1,714 0,032 2,2»fi
H,168 2,b4b 0,198 3,0k)0
0,040
0,106
0,002
0,090
0,691
0,030
0,000
0,000
0,027
0,000
0,000
0,000
3. 078
0,050
0,035
0,212
0.110
8,803
2,000
2.5U0
0,749
0,818
0.611
0,000
d.375
0,000
id, 000
0,166
0,022
2,500
3,212
(continued)
-------
PLANT
& sic POL
TABLE E-l (continued)
PLANT T o T A L s ( T n N s x i o * * «• .
1974
197b 75/74 1980 80/74
1985 85/74
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
264M
2640
72
2834
73
2U34
74
2834
75
5172
7b
5172
77
5172
7H
5172
3369
TSP 0,000 0,&00 0,iMfl 3,000 0,000
S02 0,«0H 0,000 0,030 0,000 0,01(30
TSP 0,000 3,000 0 , '4 0 a 0,0 43 0,000
S02 0,000 0,#0!3 0,000 0,000 0,000
TSP 0,000 0,000 65 , 0 M ',1 0,0,30 0,000
S02 0,000 0,000 51.M00 0,040 0,000
TSP 0,000 0,000 0,003 0,000 0,000
302 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,030 0,300
TSP 0,000 0,000 fe),fc)03 0,040 0,000
SD2 0,008 0,400 0,000 0 , 0 id 0 0,000
TSP 9,000 i),i503 0,000 0,040 0 , 0 0 H
S02 0,000 Id , 0 *" 0 f ) , id id 0 0,000 0,000
TSP 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000
SD2 H,000 0,000 0,000 0,040 0,000
TSP 0,007 0,008 1,143 0,010 1,429
502 1,677 0,352 4,210 0,414 0,247
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,0'40
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 a, 000
0.000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 0,000
0,000 2,000
0.010 1,429
0,448 ^,267
-------
TABLE E-2. COUNTY TOTAL POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
COUNTY
2640 1974 T3P 12,874
TSP 4.394
75/74 ^, 357
TSP 3,715
8^1/74 . 0,289
1985 TSP 3,723
1974 S02 118,l?)21
1975 SQ2 38,415
75/74 a, 325
198(9 S02 28,458
bPi/74 0,241
1945 302 28,779
-------
TABLE E-3. POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS GROUPED BY SIC
SIC TOrA|,.SCTUW3Xl/)**-4)
CQJNTY
2640
SIC
?042
3255
3999
3411
3362
8221
3714
2092
8062
3321
2499
3569
2834
21443
9100
2951
4953
4911
3369
2651
2821
2046
2851
2999
2911
1974 TSP 1975 TSP 1980 TSP 1985 TSP 1974 SQ2 1975 $02
1980 SCJ2
1985 S02
8999
3661
3312
3322
3069
5172
Pl.005
0,000
0,412
PJ.M00
1,327
0,006
1,469
0,166
0,060
3,289
0,031
0,099
0 ,008
0 0 i\ Q
** « 3 0 0
PI , PI If) fi
0,0^2
0,222
4,023
0 , 0 (B .Q
0,003
0 , P) M 4
2f P>67
P» . fr» tf 1
0 , 0 « PI
0,047
0,106
Pi, 195
0,000
PI , ? 7 f!
0,119
0 , 3b?
1,111
0,i*72
0.CI00
43,010
0,000
0,124
#1,000
* , 1 7 1
'» , 0 0 4
4,752
3,095
0,135
0,047
0 , 0 1 4
0,006
0,090
M S| P M
KJ • P *5 *5
0.0R6
fl , 0 0 0
0,159
1,817
'A , 0 1 0
0,005
i3, 004
0.554
0,001
3,000
C* • $ 4 *J
tu t sfl O 1
0,120
0,000
0,105
(9, 10&
55 , 024
0,088
H, 1327
0.00W
0.011
0 , M irl
0,123
0,000
0,198
0,004
0,616
0,090
0,136
0,060
0,014
0,006
0 ,00d
0,020
0,081
0 , 0 fl 6"
0 , 0 510
0,160
1,167
0,012
0,005
0,004
0,449
0 , 0 9) 1
0 , 0,00
0,043
0,1^5
0,120
0,000
0,103
0,031
0,024
0.H99
0,027
0.000
0,012
-------
listed in Table E-4. The grid chosen to apportion county
emissions was the Indianapolis Regional Transportation And
Development Study district grid system. This grid system is
shown in Figure E-l. Tables E-5 and E-6 are summaries of the
gridded TSP and S02 1974 area source emissions for each cate-
gory. The horizontal axis of each table is the category number
as defined in Table E-4. The vertical axis is the IRTADS
district number. There are 67 districts in Marion County.
Districts numbered 19, 49, 58, 59, and 68 on Figure E-l are
outside Marion County and are not included in this study. The
entrees in the matrix have the units, tons. A total is also
listed for each district and each category on the right-hand
side and bottom, respectively. Tables E-7, E-8, E-9, E-10,
E-ll, and E-12 are the gridded inventories for the projection
years. The county total emissions in some cases differ
slightly from those reported in the text. This is due to
rounding errors when adding the gridded emissions.
E-12
-------
TABLE E-4. KEY FOR AREA SOURCE SUMMARY TABLES
Area Source Category
Residential Funds
Commercial/ Institutional Fuels
Industrial Fuels
Highway Vehicles
Railroad Engines
Vessels
Aircraft
Farm Tractors
Other Off -Highway
Commercial/ Institutional
Incineration
Industrial Incineration
Residential Open Burning
Tilling
Heavy Construction
Wind Erosion
Reentrainment
Process Losses
Structural Fires
Unpaved Roads
TSP
No.
1
2
3
4
5
*
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
6
TSP
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
*
*
*
*
J-
t\
*
*
Text Sections
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
8,
10,
10,
9,
11,
12,
14,
13,
15,
16,
13,
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.10
3.10
3.9
3.11
3.12
3.14
3.13
3.15
3.16
2.13
VcNo emissions
E-13
-------
nv
-SECTOR BOUNDARY
-DISTRICT BOUNDARY
INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY
§ - CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS
j - INDIANA STATE HIGHWAY
I COMMISSION
I - METROPOLITAN PLAN COM-
MISSION OF MARION'
COUNTY
Figure E-l. Indianapolis, Marion County IRTADS districts.
E-14
-------
TABLE E-5. 1974 TSP AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
>»i>
1
^
4
4
S
h
/
/l
''
1 1
12
1 i
1'J
IS
111
1 /
1 f
f^l
.VI
4S
in
'll
'I 2
M 3
ii -i
4S
'.O
'I/
<|M
SI
s^
1
". 4
u .^
u . -»
1 .0
1 . "
'* . ^
I . 4
u . '>
1 . 11
l<>.-(
'' . ' '
14.'*
rt . "•)
*•'.'•
7 .''
/ . "•'
1 . '
I U . '.1
11.'*
11."
U . /
4 • 'i
'> . /
4.')
*' • l'
'/ . S
1 1 .'<
'' . I1
4. /
/, % f-
i. . t,
''. 1
1 .1. 1
1 . "
f .S
1 .'1
u .11
*' • M
t . '->
'« . t
1 .<•"
4.
2.
4.
3.
1 .
1 .
?.
1 .
>
4
M
1
'1
II
H
1
'4
II
4
Ii
"4
o
7
u
fl
7
4
u
0
I.
4
4
't
5
u
o
ii
4
4
u
'I
1)
/
n
,'
1
2
1
1
il
0
4
II
2
il
i
(i
2
ll
1
t
d
Ut
1
)
0
(i
i
1
S
42
1
o
Ii
n
il
Ii
!'•
I*
l>
U
II
tl
(1
1
4 '1
.2 S.
,b (4 .
.9 41.
. 'l 12.
. ') 17.
.» 14.
. <> 12.
. <' r> .
. ') b .
. 'i "1 .
. '•> In,
. 1 0 7 .
. / b'l.
.() h2.
. 'i 6 (> .
. 1 130.
.5 50.
.4 22.
.1 ^ 11 .
. '1 2(*.
.'' 'i 2 .
. >> 21.
. " " 1 .
.2 62.
.4 7 4 .
.<' .4?.
. '< 34.
. '* ** o .
. i' 5 2 ,
.4 54.
. 1 '».
.9
.n
.2
.«
.2
.4
. '>
. 1
.6
.1*
.4
.1
. 14
.'I
.b
,4
.5
.(>
.'1
.u
.<'
.4
.0
.1
."}
.0
.1
„
u
u
(j
u
(i
u
0
II
I/
II
u
ll
0
II
0
(i
(,
u
(I
u
u
0
0
(1
1)
ll
ll
II
ll
?5
u
(1
2
u
U
0
o
II
I'
0
6
.'1
. o
. o
. i)
. i>
. o
.0
.0
.1)
.0
.0
. 0
.11
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. o
.11
.°
.u
. (1
. o
.tl
. o
. ll
.»
.0
.0
,2
.0
. u
.5
. o
. •!
.0
.0
. '1
.11
. t)
0.
0.
u,
•I.
11 .
0.
o,
o.
o.
o,
o.
o.
o ,
0 .
I).
II.
o.
0.
'1.
1' ,
o.
0.
0.
" .
0.
o .
0.
o ,
II.
0.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
II .
/
II
0
0
0
0
0
It
(1
0
l)
u
0
(1
0
(J
0
-------
TABLE E-5 (continued)
IK) .
to
1 I
12
16
17
18 IHTADS TOTAL
b 4
b4
bb
bi.
b?
o 1
<.2
f> 4
n't
(>b
ou
oV
71
72
74
7«
/b
7e.
77
7'*
"1
I'C1
ml
MS
C*f)
a?
'>. i
(' .S
'•.9
•'.9
v.<>
1 .'1
1 . '1
1 .1
1 .4
I .rt
'i • 'J
1 . u
1 . '*
r1 ,n
/' , ll
I .2
'< . '•>
1 . rt
4.2
1 t .b
2.^
**. 2
11 . 1
2 . \>
S , I
1 .'>
| , U
2.ii
1 .2
0.3
1 . 1
2.4
".7
4.«
0.1
li.l)
n.ii
".1
4 . H
1 . 1
11. 0
t, .11
2.3
" . i
1 .b
S.b
" . <>
2. 7
2 .b
<'. 4
U. S
1 .')
1 . ''
(> . 1
0 . 7
o . 2
«'.b
1 4 . 4
U.9
li.2
U. 1
u. b
i). 0
u . u
l.'l
4.0
0.2
0 . V
b. 4
0.2
1 .2
1."
0.2
1.4
1.3
0.1
2.'.
2li.
72.
93.
ii.
116.
li.
lo.
41.
4 /.
42,
ib.
16.
9.
14.
H.
Ib.
34.
13.
46.
1 'Ib.
ft.
27.
6*).
20.
24,
1 29.
0
u
0
0
2
0
u
1
0
0
0
u
0
4
U
4
2
4
11
11
0
0
I)
(1
0
I)
.*'
.4
.9
.3
,d
.0
.1
.b
.4
.0
.2
.i
.0
.2
.3
.b
.7
. 0
.b
,4
.3
. u
. o
. 0
.0
,0
0.0
22. i
o.o
U.I)
II . U
O.I)
5.6
0,0
U.ll
0,0
0.0
U.O
0 . U
0.0
U. 0
(1, u
''.o
o.u
0 , U
1) . U
o , u
U.O
0.0
U.O
o.u
O.I)
(1
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1)
0
u
I)
0
(1
bb
1)
u
0
u
0
0
1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. J
.0
. u
, 0
.0
. o
.0
.0
. (J
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
'.3
u
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
u
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.0
.0
.0
,4
.3
.0
,0
.0
.1
,u
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
, u
.0
.0
,b43, 73. ,6 bU.l tt.7 152,1 121.1 17,4 970.2 1411, 2502. 206.5 3944, 153,2 185.9 13015. TONS
-------
TABLE E-6. 1974 S02 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
10
11
12 IrtTAOS TOTAL
W
l
1
2
3
t
b
to
7
b
4
1 1
12
13
It
IS
16
17
IB
21
22
23
20
2S
26
27
2b
31
32
33
3t
3S
36
'41
'12
03
'It
Mb
'16
4?
uh
SI
S2
2.
1 .
S,
V.
1".
24.
«.
4.
o.
59.
«s.
7b.
59.
60,
52.
Ott.
13.
So.
b 7.
67.
ID.
22.
?«.
22.
"5.
s«.
54.
s.-}.
23.
27.
.'1 .
si.
57.
o.
1".
4.
0.
S.
<>.
2f>.
>.
01 .
24.
33.
26.
I/,
26.
11.
10.
12,
47.
•v.
52.
11.
39.
8.
13.
0.
22.
It.
IS.
31.
lh.
/.
24,
02.
22.
22.
13.
24.
4.
?.
V.
2«.
0.
i.
i.
n,
0.
".
/.
0.
21.
17.
27.
is.
in.
/.
6.
11.
S.
24.
S,
12.
«.
23.
0.
4.
26.
lh.
10.
16,
21.
4.
o,
3i.
13.
21.
2B1.
16.
*7,
3.
1 .
10,
s.
('.
2.
2.
0.
",
('.
/.
15.
3.
2.
is.
h.
4.
<>.
6.
2.
1.
14.
».
31.
25.
3fl.
it.
M.
20.
10.
14.
li.
20.
10.
14.
24.
37.
15.
is.
02.
25.
25.
4.
lu.
11.
16,
11.
21.
/.
«.
<>.
H.
<>.
0.0
u.o
o.o
u.u
o.u
u.u
t) . 1)
u.o
0.0
u.o
0.6
D.I
0.2
1.5
o.u
1.7
o.S
0.1
0.5
0.3
3.5
0. 1
1.3
0.0
10.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
3.6
1 .4
3.0
0.0
lO.t)
0.0
tl.U
U.6
0.0
0.2
1.0
O.M
ll. 4
d.O
0.0
0.0
o.u
U .0
o.u
0.0
o.O
0 .0
0 . 0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.5
0 ,0
0.0
".0
o.o
I'.O
D.O
0,0
o.O
o.O
0.0
o .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
u.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0,0
0. U
0.0
u.o
u.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.o
o.u
0.0
o.u
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
u.o
u.o
o.u
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
o.u-
u.o
o.u
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
o.u
o.u
u.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
u.o
o.o
0,0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.5
o.l
o.o
o.u
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0. 1
o.o
0.0
0.0
(1.0
0.2
o.o
0.0
o.o
0. 1
o.o
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.0
u.o
S.o
0.0
0.5
i.5
2.0
1.6
0.4
1.4
1.0
5.b
l.t
2.B
1.4
o.s
1.0
l.»
1.1.
2.0
1.7
1.7
3.4
2.1
0.4
3.4
3.1
2.1
3.0
3.7
o.o
O.h
0.3
1.3
1.1
0.0
o. o
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.O
0.4
O.J1
o.o
o.o
o.o
0,2
0.0
0,6
0.7
0.0
o.o
1.1
0.3
1.5
1.1
1.5
o.l
0,3
0.2
1.9
1 .3
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.7
o.tt
1.3
1.5
0.7
2.5
1.2
o.a
1.6
0.0
u.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
2.6
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,0
o.o
0.0
0.0
1.2
o.o
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,1
o.l
o.l
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,3
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.5
o.o
0.0
o.l
0.3
0.0
o.o
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
o.o
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0,2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
o.l
0.0
o.u
o.l
o.l
0.0
72.0
53.0
ea,4
59, e
48. 5
65.3
32.6
30. b
27,0
161,2
69.2
177,6
109.7
16ti.O
46.5
135,7
70.2
112.7
117.9
118.9
110.1
59.9
57.0
116.2
156,2
118.0
382.6
155,7
112.7
69,6
16.3
02.0
110.8
22.2
30,0
36,0
11.3
13.8
15.7
04, i.
35.3
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-6 (continued)
i
M
00
Irtl ADS
b3
S4
Sb
So
b7
61
62
65
64
6b
60
fa7
71
72
73
7't
75
Jo
77
7tt
hi
62
H4
ttb
£6
H/
1
3S.
i.
2M.
s ,
55.
10,
1 1 .
1 1 .
13.
14,
4.
7.
lo.
16.
15 .
7.
2^,
n,
2o.
7i(.
16.
52.
nv.
1 S.
rt.
o .
2
1 7.
45.
13.
3.
10.
23.
6.
34.
1 .
a,
u,
2.
29.
11.
B.
9.
25.
3.
lb.
31.
b.
26.
22.
3.
4.
10.
3
12,
2.
7.
2.
6.
100,
17.
75.
1,
/ ,
0.
o.
16,
7.
3.
b,
41 ,
2.
b.
'/,
2.
13.
11.
t .
b.
I*.
4
13.
44.
44 ,
15.
54 .
6,
7.
14.
22.
20.
16,
B,
4,
7,
4.
7.
16.
6.
21.
06,
4.
14.
40.
9,
14.
60.
b
1.4
0 . 9
2.2
0.7
b.O
0.0
0.4
3.4
I) ,«
O.U
0,5
u.b
0 .0
9.5
0.6
10.9
0.2
9. 1
2o.4
27.1
0.0
0 .0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
6
o.O
0 ,0
o.O
0,0
0.0
0.0
U . 0
o.O
0.0
0.0
U.O
U.O
O.U
o.o
U.O
0.0
o.o
U.O
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
o.o
0.0
0. 0
o.b
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
/2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
a
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.4
0.2
0,0
o.o
0.0
0,1
o.o
0.4
0.7
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.2
0 , 3
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
. 0.2
1.4
9
l.b
oh
1.4
O.b
1.4
1,2
O.b
4.6
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.6
1.3
0,6
1.2
2.9
0..5
1 . 9
2.1
0.4
2.2
2.0
0.4
1.2
1.3
10
1.5
o.o
0,4
0.1
0,2
0, i
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.1
o.o
o.o
o.b
0.7
o.b
o.o
0.3
0,0
0.3
1.7
0.1
1.0
l.b
0.0
o.l
0.1
11
0.2
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o./
0.0
0,1
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.1
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
12
0.2
0. 0
0.1
0 , (
o.
o.
0.
o,
o.
o,
0, <
o.
0.
o.
0.1
o.l
0.2
0.1
0.2
0,6
o.l
o.J
o.*
o.l
0,1
0.1
IRTADS 10TAL
01.b
85,2
96.1
26.7
131.9
142.6
43.1
142.H
36,1
50.4
19.9
Ib.b
63.5
52.6
51.B
43.2
120.7
31.7
209,'ti
29,4
107.5
116.2
27.5
40.0
TUTAL 17^2, 1117. 1121. 1194. 16H.O 1.0 /2.S
7.1 119.1 37.6 b,1 11,5
bb96.
-------
TABLE E-7. 1975 TSP AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
(l< I AII.S
I
2
4
4
S
6
/
H
4
1 1
W'
-i
,_• <4
VO S
6
7
tt
^ 1
i? i?
^3
?'i
2S
t'ti
27
c?H
41
32
44
4 '4
is
4o
<4 1
'42
. 2
0.4
1 ,f>
1 .<*
't.2
1.3
(1 . h
1 .(l
1 0 . '4
H . 0
1 4.4
rt.4
4.0
7.4
7.4
1 .4
I ll . il
1 I .4
I 1 .<»
'1 .7
4. '4
'1 . /
S . 5
4.1!
4 ,S
1
2.3
1 .«
2. 1
/ . 'i
I .(l
2.M
2. I
S.4
3.11
1 . 4
O.rt
2. n
l.o
1.7
4.1'
1 .h
'l. /
2 .4
<4 . 0
2.0
4. 0
4.3
4.4
1 .»
(I.S
1 ."
t . »••
0.0
0..4
0.3
0 . 0
I) . II
0. 0
0. 7
O.fo
4
2.2
t .')
2.4
1 .4
l.o
" .0
H.6
9.2
0 . b
2.4
O.b
1.1
0.7
? . 0
0. 1
1.1
I . S
2, SI
M'l. 1
1 .'1
1 W
•>.<>
O.d
3.2
1.3
s.c
42.4
1."
h.O
".4
0. 1
0.4
°.4
0.0
0.2
" .5
i). i
(l.O
0.0
".5
'»."
a
S.
4.
31.
12.
17.
13.
12,
b.
6.
4 1 .
16,
67.
54.
H2,
06.
130.
SO.
22.
40.
2i>.
42 ,
21 .
4 1 ,
62.
74.
42.
34.
40.
52.
S3,
8.
22.
24,
33.
2 "4 .
45.
14.
1 1 .
IB.
16.
1 4.
5
1.4
O.o
O.o
O.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
0.0
0.3
o.o
11. 1
0.6
0.0
0.8
0,2
1 .8
0.2
1 .9
l.o
o.l
o.o
o.O
6.3
o.l
0.4
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.5
O.o
4.«
0.0
0.0
o. i
0.0
^ • 1
o.b
0.0
0,1
6
0,0
0.0
o , 0
0 ,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
u.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
t'.o
(..0
25,2
o.O
".0
2 . b'
0.0
u.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0,1.
0 .0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
8
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.6
o.l
0.0
0 ,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.o
0.8
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
o.o
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
9
6.3
S. 1
5.6
4.5
3.0
2.0
1.1
2,4
1.3
7.4
1.4
3.6
2.4
5.6
1.3
2.2
1.5
3.0
2.2
2.3
4.9
2.6
1.2
5.0
3.4
2.6
3.8
4.7
5.0
l.o
0.3
1 ,<)
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 . 1
1.0
10
0,0
o.o
o.l
o.s
0.1
2.0
2.3
0.0
o.o
3.7
0.8
4.6
3.4
4.7
0.4
0.4
0.6
6.1
4.1
4.1
1.7
1.6
1 .8
3.6
2,9
2.5
4.0
4.8
2.3
8.1
3.8
2.4
S.I
0.1
o.o
0,0
o.o
0.0
0.0
1.6
O.tt
11
0,0
o.o
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
o.o
8.4
o.o
0.1
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.1
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0. 1
0.1
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
12
0.7
0.3
2.0
3.6
3.9
9.2
3.0
1.3
2.3
23.0
17.7
30.5
35.8
36.3
32.0
31.1
7.8
22,0
26.2
25.4
20,0
13. b
17. B
15.0
33.8
21.0
23.0
34.6
15.9
ia. i
2.4
20.0
22.3
4.3
10.7
10.5
4.7
5.7
7.3
10.2
2.6
1*
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
0.
o.
0.
7.
95.
I",
0.
0.
o,
o.
o.
0,
0.
104,
0.
0,
o.
2.
33,
62.
o.
o,
21.
o.
47.
51.
106.
112.
0.
0.
14
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
65.
50.
40.
60.
30,
0.
0.
0,
6.
103,
593,
120.
125.
1.
95.
1.
0,
0,
58.
77.
0.
2.
15.
102.
48.
0.
26.
1,
0.
20.
53,
0.
0,
23.
50,
0,
15
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
13.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
o.p
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
4.5
8.9
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
6.4
7.2
14, a
15.3
0.0
0.0
16
a.
7.
49.
19.
29,
21.
18.
7.
10.
6/1.
25.
104.
84,
128.
103,
203.
78.
34.
62.
44.
66,
33.
64.
97.
124.
50.
51,
140.
82.
83.
12.
34.
3?.
52,
35.
70.
22.
27,
28.
25.
20.
17
o.p
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.p
0.0
o.p
o.p
o.p
o.p
0.0
4.0
0.0
o.b
9.6
10. W
0.0
5.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
8.0
77.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
o.o
18
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.7
0,3
0,5
3.0
3.3
5.9
7.5
6.3
6.3
6,8
1.1
4.4
6,5
5.4
3.8
2.2
4.9
3.3
7,9
4.5
4.4
4.2
2.7
3.0
0.5
4.1
5.3
O.fe
2.3
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.7
2.2
O.b
IK1ADS T
28.0
21.0
95.0
4b,0
57.9
119,8
91,3
75.6
83.7
192.4
74.0
233. H
198,9
289,9
331.6
1087.8
28B.3
244.1
199.8
227.3
150.6
79.8
137,1
253.5
471,9
129,2
173.9
312.6
281.1
259.1
126.7
129.4
190.8
117.6
94.5
236.0
100.9
173.1
209,3
111.9
41.6
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-7 (continued)
I
to
O
U>3
54
54
55
56
57
61
62
oi
OH
tiS
t)b
67
71
/2
7 4,
74
75
la
7/
/«
M
M . 5
1 . 1'
1."
2,'i
2.S
1 .2
4 . rt
1 . **
4.2
11.5
ft .A
9.2
".1
2.0
2.1
1 .6
2-»f-.tl 1
?
1 .'1
2.0
1.2
u . 3
) . 1
2.4
0. 7
3.'.
u.l
U.tl
0.0
It. 1
4 . 0
1.1
0.6
0.0
2.3
0.3
1 .S
4.5
U.O
2. 7
2 .S
o . 4
H.9
1 .U
l2'l.«
4
1 .9
0.1
0.7
".2
0.5
1 '1.4
0.9
14.2
'». 1
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
4.0
0.2
u . v
5.3
0.2
1.2
1.6
0.2
1. 4
1 .3
0.1
" . 7
2.5
IKY. 3
4
72!
93,
33,
1 16.
13,
16.
41.
4 /,
42,
35.
16.
9.
14.
6.
15,
44,
1 4.
"6,
146.
6.
27.
64.
20.
29.
129.
254 i.
5
0.6
0.0
0.9
0.3
2.2
O.u
O.I
1 .5
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
4.2
0. 4
'4.H
2. /
4 , 0
11. fa
11.9
0.4
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
u.o
73.0
6
o.u
22.3
u.O
0 .0
0.0
0.0
5.8
0,0
0.0
0.0
u.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
u.o
u.O
0,0
56.0
7
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.2
1.4
5tt.l
b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
o.o
0,1
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.7
8.7
9
1.9
0.4
1.6
0.6
1.7
4.1
1.1
5.9
0.2
1.3
o.o
0.0
4.6
1.7
0.8
1.5
3.7
0.6
2,4
2.6
0,6
2.6
2.6
0.5
1.6
1.7
152.1 1
10
o]o
1.2
0.2
0.7
0.6
2.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
o.o
2.5
2. 3
1.5
0.0
1 .4
0.0
0.9
5.6
0.2
3,1
5.9
0.0
0.4
0.3
i21.1
11
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.l
0,0
17.4
13.4
2.3
21.0
3.8
41.3
3,9
4.3
6,9
17,3
6,4
4.3
9.5
3.9
6.2
9.4
4.6
16.0
6.7
12.2
43.2
6.2
20.3
30.6
8.1
18.1
13.3
970.2
0.
0.
0.
63.
39,
0,
0.
0.
15.
63.
127,
0,
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
29,
60.
0.
0.
0.'
0.
36.
212.
1295,
10.
1.
103.
29,
131.
25.
18,
5.
8.
76.
0.
0.
o,
0.
1.
o.
o.
o.
34.
61.
1.
0.
93.
0.
48.
94,
2502,
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
8,7
17.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
3.6
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.1
35,3
169.6
43.
87.
145.
51.
181,
20,
24,
46.
73,
65,
54.
26.
23|
13.
23,
53.
20.
71.
228,
13,
42,
100.
31.
46.
201,
3944.
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,0
O.D
O.D
13. D
22. 0
o.b
o.b
o.b
o.b
o.b
o.U
o.b
o.b
o.b
o.p
o.p
o.p
o.p
o.b
o ,u
o.p
O.u
0.0
153.2 1
18
2.8
0.5
4.7
0.9
9.0
0.6
0.9
2.1
2.0
2.0
0.4.
1.1
o.s
1.3
2.5
1.0
3.6
1.5
2.7
8.3
1.4
4.6
7.1
1.7
2.0
1.5
185.9
JRTAOS IUIAL
114.4
168.5
377,6
538^
86.2
69,5
143.1
167.4
261,8
230.3
72.4
41.7
60.0
39.8
52.8
129.2
48.1
276.6
591,3
34.3
113.0
315.1
63.7
190.2
696.3
12882, TONS
(•Kin, in
1.000 l.OiHi l.UOO 1.000 1.000 1,0011 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.916 1.000 0.916 1.000 1.000 1.000
-------
TABLE E-8. 1975 S02 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
INiAOS
II
12 IKTAOS TOTAL
1
2
3
<4
5
6
/
rt
4
1 1
12
13
1 '4
IS
10
17
1 1
21
22
24
?4
25
2t>
27
2H
41
42
3 5
4.
4.
10.
2'l.
rt .
4.
o.
54.
"5.
7rt.
54.
o((.
52.
'in.
14.
Sh.
h/.
('7.
40.
22.
2'4.
22.
'4S.
S'l.
54.
SM.
24.
2 / .
'1 .
SI.
57.
t> .
1't.
4.
'1 .
S.
0.
?o .
J .
'11.
29.
33.
2b.
17.
2fa.
H.
14,
I 2,
'I /.
4,
42.
1 *4 .
34,
*i.
1 4.
M.
22.
1 ^ .
IS.
31 .
Ib,
/ .
29.
'42 ,
22.
22.
33.
24.
4.
2.
V ,
2h.
o .
4.
3.
0 ,
".
".
/ .
fa.
21.
17.
27 .
15.
10,
7.
fa.
1 1 .
5,
29,
S.
12.
H,
23,
4.
4.
2fa.
Ifa.
14,
Ifa.
21.
4 ,
4.
33.
1 3,
24 . ,
261.
1 6.
27.
5.
1 .
HI.
S.
" .
2.
2.
o.
'.>,
0,
7,
15.
3,
2.
IS.
fa.
9,
6.
o.
2.
3.
1 4.
0.
31.
25,
3H.
31.
fal.
24.
1 o.
14.
13.
20.
10.
14.
29.
4 i .
IS.
is.
42.
25.
25,
•4.
10.
11.
Ifa.
11.
21.
7,
ti.
".
'* .
fa.
0.0
o.u
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.u
0.0
0.0
O.fc
0. 1
0.2
1.5
o.o
1.7
o.S
4. 1
0.5
4.3
S.5
0.1
1 . 3
0.0
1 4 , '(
0.2
1 .0
l.o
i.tt
1.4
3.4
o.u
10. b
0.0
0 .(1
0.0
0 .0
'' .2
l.o
0.11
0. 4
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.o
0.0
0.0
11,0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o , o
i-.O
0.0
0.0
O.U
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.S
o.o
0 . 0
0.0
ti, 0
0.0
o.O
0 . 0
0,0
0.0
O . 0
0.0
0.0
o.O
-------
TABLE E-8 (continued)
10
1 1
12 IKUDS TOTAL
ho
tsi
5i
54
55
56
b7
61
62
65
6<4
65
66
67
n
l<>
73
7«
/'>
76
77
/rt
hi
«2
M
B5
86
h/
3S.
i.
2ii.
'3.
55.
10.
11.
11.
1 4.
I'l.
3.
7.
I'l.
16.
IS.
/.
?•>.
11.
20.
70.
16.
S2.
"'>.
1 i.
6 .
f>.
17.
45.
H.
J.
10.
23.
'>.
34.
1.
M.
0.
2.
29.
H,
H.
9.
25.
3,
IS.
31.
6.
26.
22.
3,
9.
10.
u.
i?.
7.
a.
6.
100.
17.
7S.
1.
7.
0.
0.
16.
7,
i.
H.
<*l.
-------
TABLE E-9. 1980 TSP EMISSIONS
[1(1 Al>S
1
4
4
5
6
7
ft
9
1 I
M
l *
NO '4
U> ^
h
1
16
2 1
cV
2 4
2 '4
2S
26
27
2M
31
42
43
i't
4b
if)
4 1
42
'll
4 '4
MS
46
47
4fl
41
S2
1
". 4
u.2
0.9
1.6
1 .f*
U.I
1. 4
0.6
1 .«'
in. 2
7 .6
1 4.6
'' . /
H.l<
V.7
7 . 7
1 .9
9 . u
1 1 . t>
1 1 .5
1 .'>
4. i
'• . 4"
4.3
I'l .2
9. 0
3.D
'I.I
I'.h
H.9
9.9
1 ."
'"' . '1
1 .'1
41. 0
".'1
1 . '1
4.5
1 .2
2
4.9
4.1
3.6
3.4
1 . (1
2. I
2.5
1 .5
2.3
H.O
1 . 1
3.0
2.4
S.9
3.3
1 .'I
0.9
2 . h
1.7
1 . H
4. 4
1 . 7
d.H
4. 1
4.3
2.2
•1 ,M
4.0
"1 .2
2.0
0 ,S
1.1
2.0
o . o
o.i
o. 4
O.O
O.o
0.0
0 . ft
0.7
3
2. 9
1.4
1.0
0,6
0.6
4.3
(>.5
2 .'1
U. S
\ , 1
0.7
2.0
0. 4
.1
.5
Q
ii t n
.4
.9
O.tt
0.4
3.2
1 .1
5.0
33.1
1 .4
w. \>
II. 3
0,1
0.4
0.4
(1 , i/
0.2
".5
0.4
0.0
0. tl
O.'j
II.K
i
2H.
11.
16.
12.
11.
5.
6.
irt.
15.
62,
50.
'75.
61.
119.
46.
2o .
37.
26.
49.
19.
3H,
57 .
73.
29.
30.
03.
4tt.
49.
7.
20,
22.
30.
21.
4 1 .
13.
16.
17.
15.
12.
b
2.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0. 0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.3
0.0
o.l
0.6
0.0
o.a
0.2
1.9
0.2
2.0
1 .7
o.l
0.6
0.0
6.7
o.l
0 .4
0.4
1.7
1.0
1.6
0.0
5. 1
0.0
o.o
0.3
0.0
o. 1
0.5
o.o
o.l
b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0,0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
25.2
0.0
o.o
2.5
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,6
o.l
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0,0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
9
6.4
5.2
5.7
4.6
3.1
2.0
1.1
2.4
1.3
7.5
1 .4
3.7
2.4
5.7
1.1
2 . 2
1:5
3.1
2.2
2.3
5.0
2.7
1.2
5.1
4.0
2.7
1.9
i. a
5.1
1.0
0.3
1.6
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 .1
1 .0
10
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0,1
2.2
2.5
o.O
0.0
4.0
0.9
5.0
5.7
5.1
0.4
1.0
0.6
6.6
1,1
1.4
i.a
1.7
1.9
3.9
3.1
2.7
4.3
5.2
2.5
a. 7
4.1
2.6
5.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
1.7
0.9
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
0. 1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.l
o.l
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.3
2.0
1.7
4.0
9.4
1.1
1.1
2.1
23.5
la.i
31.1
36.5
37.0
32.6
31.7
8.0
22.4
26.7
26,4
20.4
13.8
IB. 2
15.3
14.5
21.4
23.5
40.4
16.2
18.5
2.4
20.4
22.7
4.4
10.9
10.7
4.8
5.8
7,4
10.4
2.7
13
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
7.
90.
9.
0.
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
0.
97.
0.
0,
0.
2,
11.
59.
0.
0.
20,
0,
44 ,
48.
100.
lOb.
0.
o.
o,
0.
0.
o,
0.
48 ,
17.
10,
45,
22.
0.
0.
0.
4,
77.
441,
89.
91.
1.
71.
1.
0.
0.
41.
57.
0.
1.
11,
76.
16.
0.
19.
1.
0,
15,
19.
0.
0.
17.
17.
0.
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
10.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
14.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
7.2
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
5.2
5.8
12,0
12.4
0.0
0.0
16
9.
8.
56.
22.
11.
24.
21.
8.
12.
74,
29.
120,
97.
147.
118,
211.
90.
19.
71.
51.
76.
18.
74.
112.
141,
58.
59,
161.
94.
95.
14.
19,
41.
60.
40,
81.
25,
31.
32.
29,
23.
17
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.p
o.o
O.P
O.P
4.0
o.o
0.6
9.5
10.14
0.0
5.0
O.'O
O.'O
O.'O
o.'o
0.0
o.'o
0.0
0.0
o.'o
0,0
0.0
e.o
77.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0,0
0.0
18
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.1
0.5
1.1
1.4
6.0
7.7
6.4
6.4
6.9
1.1
4.5
6.6
5.5
1.9
2.2
5.0
1.4
6.1
4.6
4.5
4.3
2.8
3.1
0.5
4.4
5.4
0.6
2.1
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.7
2,2
0.6
IHTADS T
29.4
22.1
100.2
48.3
61.1
105.7
80.7
66.1
69.6
192.3
76.9
244.6
208.2
102.5
115.5
946.1
264.6
216.6
206.7
208.1
157.6
63.6
141.9
249.1
456,1
134.8
180.0
121.8
263.9
251.1
122.8
126.6
195.3
120.9
93.0
225.4
98.6
166.4
196.5
101.9
41.7
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-9 (continued)
11
12
li
16
17
18 IHTAOS TOTAL
i
ho
-P-
ss
S7
0 I
Of1
o i
t,4
hh
6h
o/
71
72
74
74
/S
76
77
7M
(M
82
H4
rlS
(16
«/
AL
Jin
V.'4
1 .1
!.'»
1 .H
t .'<
1 .H
0 .5
1 , i>
1 ,H
f1 . 7
?, '4
1 . 2
4.7
l.o
3.1
1 1 .2
2.7
9.0
/.'*
2.0
2.0
l.n
2H9. /
1
2
1
c)
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
'i
1
0
(1
2
0
1
3
0
2
2
0
1
1
1 JS
!2
.3
. 3
.2
.<>
.t'
.7
. t
,4
.n
.1
.3
.2
. /
.9
.b
.1
.6
.M
.7
.9
.7
.3
.0
.1
.3
1.4
0. 1
0.7
0.2
o . b
14. b
" .9
13. i
0, 1
".5
0.0
li. 0
1.4
3. 0
ft. 2
".V
5. 3
".2
1 .2
I .0
0.2
1.3
1.3
".1
11 . 7
2.^
190.4
66.
30 '.
106,
12.
15.
2H.
43.
39.
32.
15.
a.
13.
7.
14.
31.
12.
42.
134.
7.
2b .
59,
Itt,
27.
1 1H.
2334.
1.0
0.3
2.3
0.0
o.l
1.6
0,4
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
4.5
0.3
5. 1
2.9
4.2
12.3
12.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
78.3
o.O
22.3
0.0
0.0
o.a
o.o
5,8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.6
0,0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.5
68,8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.l
0.0
0.4
o.a
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.2
1.7
8.9 ]
1.9
0.4
1.8
0.6
1.7
<| .2
1 .1
6.0
0.2
1.3
o.o
o.o
4.7
1.7
o.u
1.5
3.8
0.6
2.4
2.7
0.6
2.9
2.7
0.5
1.6
1.7
155.1
0.0
1.3
0.2
o.a
0.4
3.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
o.l
0.0
2.7
2.b
1.6
0.0
1.5
0.0
l.o
6.0
0.2
3.3
6.4
0.0
0.4
0.3
130.8
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
O.l
0.3
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0,0
o.o
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.t
o.o
17.5
13
2
21
3
42
4
4
7
17
a
4
9
4
6
9
4
18
6
12
44
6
20
31
8
18
13
989
.7
.3
.4
.4
.1
.0
.4
.0
.6
.6
.4
.7
.0
.3
.6
.7
.4
.8
.4
.1
.3
.7
.2
.3
• J
.6
.6
0.
0.
0.
36 '.
0.
0.
o.
14.
59.
119.
0.
o.
0,
o.
o.
o.
o,
28.
56.
0.
0,
0.
0,
34.
199.
1215, I
7.
1.
77.
22.
97.
19.
13.
4,
6,
57.
0,
0,
o.
o.
1.
0.
o.
0.
25.
45.
1.
0.
69.
0,
36.
70.
1861.
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,7
o.o
7,1
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
3.1
6,5
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
4.2
20.6
153.6
100,
167.
59.
•206.
23,
28.
55.
84,
75,
62.
30.
16.
26.
15,
26.
61.
23.
82.
262,
15.
48.
115.
36.
53,
231.
0536.
0.0
0.0
0,0
O.!0
0.0
0,0
13,0
22.0
o.'o
o.'o
o.o
o.o
0,0
O.[i
o.o
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.'o
o.b
0.0
o.b
0.0
o.p
o.p
o.p
153.2 1
2
0
0
9
0
0
2
2
2
0
1
0
1
2
1
3
1
2
a
i
4
7
1
2
1
189
.9
.5
!9
.2
.8
.9
.1
.0
,0
.4
.1
,5
.3
.6
.0
.7
.5
.8
.5
.4
.7
.2
.7
.0
.5
.6
116.fi
195. fa
366.0
185.5
520.4
82.2
87.6
147.2
171.5
245.1
226.1
71,9
43.7
63.0
41.2
55.5
135.3
50,4
283.9
594.9
35.5
117.9
302.3
66.9
179.8
672.6
12564.
hAC.lu.iS -1V CAftMJNr:
'i.'(/o l.olxt l.iiUb 0.918 1.061 1.000 1.184 1.020 1.020 1.080 1.006 1,020 0.861 0,744 0.744 1.150 l.OOiO 1.020
-------
TABLE E-10. 1980 S02 EMISSIONS
t
N>
ui
1
2
4
1
S
6
7
*l
9
1 1
12
1 4
11
15
16
17
10
21
22
24
21
2S
26
27
2tf
41
42
44
41
45
46
1 1
12
14
11
IS
11
i /
in
si
S2
1
,>.
1 .
S.
V.
1 «».
2 4.
i>.
4.
f>.
SK.
i'i .
7t>.
SH.
59.
S 1 .
"7.
14.
5S.
60.
6<>.
<^ .
22.
2 4.
22.
"1.
54.
Sn.
''7.
22.
2t>.
i.
5o.
Sh .
'>.
1 '1 .
4.
1 .
S.
6.
2'i.
/ .
2
11.
41.
4 11.
2«.
IB.
2h.
12.
IS.
14.
SI.
10.
56.
IS.
12.
4 .
11.
S.
21.
IS.
16.
41.
17.
l*.
41 .
16.
21 ,
21.
4n,
31.
10.
2.
1 d .
40.
o.
4.
4.
o.
o.
0.
n.
7.
4
2t,
IV !
27 ,
15,
10,
7,
6,
11.
5,
29,
S.
12.
6,
24.
1 ,
S ,
26.
lo.
11.
1 6.
21.
9,
1 .
44.
14.
24.
2rt 4,
16,
2 / .
4.
1.
10.
S.
0.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
7,
IS,
1
4.
t.
15.
6.
9.
6.
fc.
2.
3.
19.
H.
31.
25.
4a.
41 ,
61.
21.
0.
9.
4.
20.
0,
'i .
29.
47.
IS,
IS.
12.
25,
25.
i.
in.
I 1.
16.
11.
21.
/.
e.
t>.
i.
6.
5
0.0
0.0
1.7
0, 0
0 . II
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.6
o.l
0.2
1 .1)
0.0
1 . t>
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.6
4.7
0. 1
1.1
0.0
15.4
0.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
2.0
4.6
o.O
11.5
0.0
0.0
0,6
o.o
0 .2
1.1
o.o
0. 4
6
0.0
0 . U
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 , 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0,0
0, 0
o.S
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
o.O
/
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 , 0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0,0
b
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
u.O
0.0
o.o
0.5
0.1
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.1
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.2
0.1
O.o
0,0
o.l
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
<(
S.I
<- . 1
1.6
4.6
2.1
1.6
0,9
1 .9
1.0
5.9
t.l
2.9
1.9
1.6
l.o
l.B
1 f 1
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.0
2.1
0.9
1.0
4.2
2.1
3.1
3.H
1.1
O.tt
0.4
1.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
o.fl
10
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.6
o.a
o.O
0.0
1.2
0.3
1.6
1.2
1 .6
0.1
0.3
0.2
2.1
1.1
1 .1
0.5
0.5
- 0.6
1 .2
0.0
0.9
1.1
1.6
o.fl
2.7
1.4
0.9
1.7
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.5
0.2
1 1
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
1.2
0.0
o.o
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
o.l
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.2
0,0
0.4
0.4
o.l
o.o
0.1
0.0
0.0
o.l
0.1
0.0
12 IrtTAOS TOTAL
75.6
55.6
92,1
62.0
19.8
67.1
33.5
35.7
27.9
161.4
69.1
ItJO.O
109.a
170,5
96.2
146.1
71.9
113.9
117.9
119.2
112.5
60.9
57.4
120.6
159.9
119.1
485.1
157.6
115.2
70.2
16.7
JJ2.2
116.a
22.1
40.0
46.2
11.2
13.7
15.7
19.6
45.6
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-10 (continued)
w
K>
CT>
1KTAOS TOTAL
62.6
69.1
96.9
27.0
132.0
115,0
U3.6
146.2
38.2
50.9
19.9
16.7
66.0
53.9
32.3
44.6
122.9
32.3
162,2
212.9
29,6
106.6
117.3
27.5
41.5
66.6
5691. TONS
MCruUb uY CAItljuKlT:
J.-J/f. I.OUU 1,006 1.002 1.061 1.000 1.201 1.0^0 1.U20 1.060 1.006 1.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,00(
lllj
bj
S4
bb
b6
57
6l
62
63
04
6*D
06
67
71
72
/3
7U
75
76
77
/ £j
til
fl C
hM
dS
it 6
U7
1
34.
i.
27.
b.
by.
1 0.
11.
1 1.
1 i.
I <| .
4.
/ ,
1 0.
1 n.
15.
7 .
2H.
1 1.
20.
60.
1 <>.
51.
4 It.
1 i.
'>.
<> .
2
IB.
49.
14 .
3.
1 1 .
25,
7.
37.
1 .
9.
0.
2.
il.
12,
9.
10.
27.
i.
16.
34,
7.
2't.
2«.
i.
1 o .
M.
i
12.
2,
/ ,
2,
6.
101.
17.
75.
1,
7 ,
''.
0,
I 6 ,
7.
1.
a.
41.
2.
6.
9.
2.
Ii.
11.
2.
rt ,
^.
i|
Ii.
34 ,
44.
IS.
5<4.
6.
7.
1".
22.
2u .
1 0.
o.
4.
7.
4,
/ ,
16,
fa.
21.
6tt.
1,
Ii,
30,
9.
1 a.
60.
,
1
<>
0
b
0
1)
i
0
0
0
0
0
to
0
11
6
9
20
2o
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
.5
, 0
t i
. 7
,i
.0
.1
,6
.b
.0
.5
.«
.0
.1
.6
.6
.6
. /
.0
. o
.6
. 0
.0
. o
.0
.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.5
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.6
0,0
0,0
0,0
o.o
0.0
0,2
0.2
o.o
0.0
0.0
0)2
o.o
o.o
0.0
0,1
0.0
0)7
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.2
0.3
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.2
1.4
1.5
0.3
o!b
o.b
4.7
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.7
1.3
0.6
1.2
3.0
2.1
0 .4
2.2
2.0
o.u
1.2
1.3
10
1.6
0.0
0.4
o.l
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.0
o.l
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
1.8
0.1
1 . I
1.9
0,0
O.I
0.1
11
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0,1
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.l
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.1
0,0
o.
o.
o,
o,
0.
o.
0.0
0.
o,
0.
0.
0.
0.1
0.2
0,6
0.1
0.3
0.4
o.l
o.l
o.l
17("4. 1211. 112(1. 1196. 17H.2 1.0 87.1 7.2 1^1.5 40,6 b.l 11.7
-------
TABLE E-ll. 1985 TSP AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
l
to
OS
1
j
a
S
6
7
8
i,
1 1
\t
j
'I
S
e
7
H
<> 1
,V
2i
2'i
2S
2o
2 /
2<(
^ 1
W
i S
34
4S
So
Ml
«2
M i
44
'IS
4h
4 7
4«
'D 1
W
1
i'.3
o .^
0.9
1.6
1 .11
«. 1
1 .3
o<
10.2
7 • ^
13.6
It. 7
7. /
7.7
1 .'<
V . H
11.7
1 1 .f>
" .6
S . 3
'' .6
3.0
r .».
4.3
1 ii.2
S.O
3.6
4 . 1
H.6
n.v
''.''
1 . '1
''.'I
1 .4
0 . f>
II . <•<
1 .Ii
4 . S
1 . «>
2
^4 X
3^5
^ , U
3.7
2 . ii
2.3
2 . ft
1 .7
2.S
f> .9
1.2
3 . 4
2JS
6.S
5.6
1 .6
1 .<'
2.9
1 .9
2 . fi
4 , o
1 .9
I) . h
3.S
4.6
<'.4
1 0 . H
4.U
£j 7
2.2
11.6
1.2
2.2
II . 0
0. 11
ii . t,
0 . II
1) . 11
ll . II
O.I'
ii . 7
3
2.2
1.5
2.9
1 .4
1.0
(1,6
(1 .6
9.4
U . S
2.4
".5
1.1
'1.7
2.0
U. (4
1.1
1 .S
2.9
44, b
1.4
t .9
0,6
i). 4
4.2
1 .3
5.0
33.2
1.4
*.l
0.3
ii. 1
0.9
ii.4
11 . U
" . 2
n. S
0.3
" . ti
0.0
0 .b
0.0
4
4.
11!
12!
11.
5.
37.
IS.
ol.
49.
74.
60,
lib.
fl t.
2o ,
-i f> 0
2S.
i".
19.
37 .
56.
72.
29.
it).
«2.
47.
4h.
7.
2o.
22.
ill.
21.
41 .
li.
IS.
16.
IS.
12.
S
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.i
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.9
0,2
2.1
0.2
2.2
1.8
0.1
0.7
0.0
7.2
O.'l
o .5
o.s
1.0
l.o
1 .7
0.0
s.s
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
O.I
0.6
o.o
D.I
6
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.O
0.0
o.o
0.0
U.O
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
u.O
U.O
U.O
0.0
U . ll
U.O
u.O
l-.O
".0
2S.2
0 . 0
u . 0
2.5
U.O
U. 0
0.0
0.0
o , o
0.0
O.tl
7
0,0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
II. 0
0.0
0,0
0,0
O.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
U.O
0.0
O.U
0.0
0 . U
u.o
o.u
U.O
O.kl
0.0
0 ,0
u.o
O.'l
0 , 0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0. 0
8
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
O.I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0. 0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
u.o
o.u
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
O.I
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
u.o
0.0
9
5.6
1.5
3.0
2.0
1. 1
2.4
I. 3
7.4
I. 4
3.6
5>
I. 3
2.2
l.S
3.0
2.2
2. 3
4.9
2.6
1. 2
5.0
3.9
2.6
3.B
4.7
5.0
l.o
o.i
I .6
I. 4
0.0
0.5
0.6
U.O
O.u
o.o
l.l
l.o
o.o
0.0
o.i
0.6
O.I
2,1
2.B
0.0
0.0
4.4
l.o
5.5
1.1
5.6
0.5
1.1
0.7
7.3
4.9
4.9
2.0
1.9
2.2
4.3
i.S
i.O
4.8
5.B
2.8
9. 7
4.6
2.9
6. 1
0.1
o.o
0.0
U.O
o.o
0.0
1.9
l.o
It
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.1
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
3.7
0.1
0.0
O.B
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0. 1
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0. J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. t
12
0.7
0.3
2.1
3.7
4.1
9.6
3.1
1.1
2.1
23.9
18.4
31.7
37.2
37.8
33.3
32.3
H.I
22.9
27.2
26.9
20.6
14.0
18.5
15.6
i5.2
21. B
23.9
41.2
16.5
IB. 8
2.5
20.8
23.2
1.5
11.1
10.9
4.9
5.9
7.6
10.6
2.7
li
0.
0,
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o,
o.
o.
o.
6.
84.
9.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
91.
0.
o.
o.
2.
29,
55,
0.
0.
16.
o.
41.
15.
93.
98.
0.
o.
14
0,
0.
0.
0.
o.
49.
38.
30.
15.
23,
0.
0.
0.
5.
78.
448,
91.
94.
1.
72.
1.
0,
0.
11.
58.
0.
2.
11.
77,
36.
0.
20.
1.
0.
15.
10.
0.
o.
1 7 »
38.
0.
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.B
10.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.2
3.7
7.3
0.0
0.0
2.3
0,0
5.3
5.9
12.2
12,6
0.0
0.0
16
10.
9,
61.
25.
36.
27,
23,
9,
13,
83.
32.
135.
109.
166,
134,
264,
101.
11.
ei.
57.
86.
13.
63.
126,
161.
65.
66.
182.
107.
106.
16,
11.
18,
66.
15.
91.
29.
35.
36.
32.
26,
117
0.0
0.0
0,0
O.jO
0,0
0.0
o.u
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.'o
1.0
0.0
0.6
9.5
10.4
0.0
5.0
o.p
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.P
6.0
77,6
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
o.p
2.6
o.o
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.9
0.7
0.3
o.s
3. 1
3,1
6.1
7.6
6.6
6.6
7.1
1.1
1.6
6.6
5.6
1.0
2.3
5.1
3.4
8.2
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.8
3.1
0.5
1.5
5.5
0.6
2.1
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.7
2.3
0.6
16 1RTADS TOTAL
31.0
23.3
107.6
51.4
65.5
110.1
64.4
68. 0
72.0
203.5
81.1
261.0
221.B
322.9
332.2
979.6
276.9
224.6
217.0
217.2
168.3
69.0
153.9
264.7
470,6
143.0
189.4
345.8
277.9
265.3
121.4
132.7
202.4
127.1
98.5
233.5
98.7
163.9
194.1
106.6
46.6
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-ll (continued)
IKT APS
bi
S'l
bS
S6
b7
r>l
b2
o4
h'l
oS
fib
hrj h '
I ?!
to 72
00 7j
/'i
/s
/h
7 1
7M
*' 1
112
i.'l
ub
hb
tt/
1
h . 11
O.b
4.rt
».'>
«• .4
I , h
1 ."
1 . rt
1 .9
1 .»
<>.b
1 . 0
1 .«
2.7
2.4
1 .2
4.7
I • ^
5. 1
11.4
2. 7
'' . "
/ . '-'
P i >
?. I
1 ."
2
I./
1 .«
0.4
1.3
2.9
O.I)
4 . 1
0.1
l.i'
1). 0
o. 1
4.«
l.i
0.7
1 .0
2.(i
o.'l
1 • H
'4 .2
0 . 7
5.2
4.0
0.4
1 . 1
1 .2
3
".1
0.7
0.2
0 ,b
I'l.b
0.9
14,3
0. 1
o.b
0. 0
0 . 0
1 4
3 , u
0.2
vl .9
b. 3
0.2
1 .2
1 .6
0 , d
1 . 3
1 .3
0. 1
0. 7
2.b
4
H4,
30.
1 Ob,
12,
IS.
2b.
44.
3H,
15,
a.
i i ,
7.
14,
31.
12,
42.
1 42.
7.
24 ,
5«.
1".
26,
1 1 /.
0
0
1
0
^
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
b
3
4
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
b
.7
.b
.0
.3
. b
.1"
.1
.7
.'->
.'>
.2
.4
.0
,8
.3
.b
. 1
.6
.2
.6
.3
, o
.0
.0
.0
.0
b
0,0
o.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
b.tt
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0,0
ii, 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
0 , 0
O , 0
u .0
0 . 0
0.0
ll.O
o.O
0.0
O.'l
0,0
0,0
0.0
o.o
•0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
74.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.3
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
a
.0
.0
.0
.4
.3
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.4
.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.8
9
i!a
0.6
1.7
4. 1
1.1
5.9
0.2
1.3
o.o
o.o
4.6
1.7
O.fl
1 .5
3. 7
0.6
2,4
2.6
0.6
2,tt
2.6
o.b
1.6
1.7
10
5.6
o.o
1.4
0.2
0.8
l.o
3.4
0.2
0.5
0,5
0.1
0.0
3.0
2.8
1.6
o.o
1.7
o.o
1.1
6.7
o.2
3.7
7.1
0.0
0.5
0.4
1 1
0.6
0.0
0.2
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 1
o.o
o.o
0. 4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.1
o.o
12
13.9
2.4
21.8
4.0
43.0
4. 1
4.5
7.2
18,0
8.7
4.5
9.9
4, 1
6.4
9.0
4.8
16.7
7.0
12.7
44.9
6.4
21.1
31.6
8.4
18.8
14.8
13
0.
o.
o.
55.
34.
0.
0.
0,
13.
55,
111.
0.
0.
o,
o.
o,
o.
0.
26,
52,
0.
0,
0.
o.
31,
18b.
14
8.
1.
78,
22.
99.
19,
H,
4.
6,
57.
0.
o.
0.
o,
1.
o,
o.
o,
26,
46.
1,
0,
70.
0,
36.
71.
15
o.o
0.0
0,0
7.6
1.7
0.0
0,0
0.0
1.7
0.0
7.2
14.5
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
3.1
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,2
29. 1
16
56,
113.
189.
66.
235,
26,
31,
62,
95.
85.
70,
34.
16.
30,
17.
30.
69.
26,
92.
296,
17.
55.
130,
40.
60.
261,
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
.0
.0
.0
• 9
,0
.0
'9
.0
.0
.,0
.,0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
•p
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
18 IHTAD3 Tl
2.9 124.1
0.5 208.2
4.9
0.9
9. a
0.8
0.9
2,2
2.1
2.1
0.4
1.1
0.5
1.4
2.6
1.0
3.7
1.6
2.8
8.6
1.5
4.8
7.4
1.8
2.1
1.6
388.9
169,3
546.9
85.8
91,7
154.6
181.7
251,6
226.1
76.1
46.5
67,1
43.6
59.4
143.9
53.8
301.1
627.7
37.7
125.1
319.5
71.6
185.3
690.2
101AI.
. H
»4.3
7S.9 9.0 Jh2.7
17.51009.0 1133, 1892. 156. J 5127, 153.2 J93.3 13142. TONS
Ks Mr f/siH-owy;
1.197 J.dOrt 0.907 1.142 l.dOo 1.307 1.040 1.004 1.200 1.006 1.040 O.BOi 0,7b6 0.756 l.JOO 1,000 1.040
-------
TABLE E-12. 1985 S02 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
i|)S
1
2
4
4
b
o
7
rt
4
1 I
12
1 4
1 4
IS
1 6
1 /
Ut
21
22
24
24
2S
20
27
2(1
41
42
"i4
V4
ib
\o
41
42
4 4
44
4S
4o
(l /
4B
SI
S2
1
2.
1 .
b.
4.
Id.
24.
b .
1.
6.
So.
'"• .
7 / .
b'1.
^9,
S 1 .
47.
13.
ss.
tib .
(>t> ,
t"J .
2d .
r*4 .
2?,
44 .
b4.
bit.
b / .
2 S .
27.
4 .
So .
So.
''.
1 •' ,
'< .
U .
S.
" .
2« .
/.
2
49.
15.
40.
41 .
20.
41.
li.
I/.
1".
56 .
1 1 .
62,
17.
47.
10.
16.
lu.
26,
17.
1 H.
47 ,
1''.
tt .
4S.
b<>.
26.
2<>.
40.
4b .
1 t.
2.
11.
V(.
li.
4 .
4.
it .
0.
0.
rt .
7.
1
21.
17,
2/ ,
Ib.
III.
7.
6 .
11.
b.
29 ,
b.
12.
H,
24.
4.
9,
26,
16.
14.
16,
2 1 .
4,
it .
44.
14,
24 .
2d i.
16.
27.
3.
1.
H).
5.
" .
2 .
2.
0.
u.
0.
7.
Ib.
U
i.
i.
lo.
6.
10.
6.
6.
2.
5.
20.
9.
44.
27.
41.
11.
66.
26,
11.
20.
H.
22.
11.
2(1 ,
41.
40.
16.
!<••.
4b.
2/ .
27.
4.
11.
12.
17.
12.
24,
tt.
9.
4,
4.
<> .
u
0
b
0
It
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
j
0
4
0
4
4
U
1
U
16
0
J
I
4
d
^
0
12
0
0
0
11
0
1
0
0
b
.0
."
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
./
.1
.2
./
.0
, 9
.6
.7
.6
.9
.0
. I
.b
.0
.4
.2
. |
.1
.1
• ^
,9
.U
. S
. 0
. 0
./
. 0
.£
.1
.0
.4
u.O
0.0
u .0
U.O
0.0
0,0
0,0
o.u
0,0
U .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.o
0.0
U.O
0,0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.O
U.O
O.b
u.O
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
0,0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
u.O
o.o
u.o
0.0
7
0.0
o.o
O.U
0.0
o.o
0.0
0 , (I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0. 0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.u
o.o
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
u
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
O.u
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.5
o.l
0.0
o.o
u.O
0.0
u.O
0.0
0.0
o.l
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.u
0,4
o.'o
o.o
O.i
u.O
u,i
o.i
U.6
O.o
0.0
0.0
b.2
4,2
4.7
4.6
2.b
1.7
U.9
2,0
l.o
6.0
1.1
2.9
2.0
4.7
I .u
i.v
1.1
2.b
l.ft
l.tt
4.1
2.2
0.9
4.1
4.2
2.2
4.1
4.2
0 ,ti
0.3
1.4
1.1
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0,0
U.9
O.tt
10
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.2
o.o
0.7
0.9
o.o
o.O
1.3
0.4
1."
1.1
1.6
0.1
0.4
0.2
.2.1
1.6
1.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.4
U.li
1.0
1.6
1.6
u.tt
4.0
1.4
1.0
1.9
U.O
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.2
it
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0,0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
12 IHTAOS TOTAU
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.l
0.2
0,4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
O.l
0,1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
o.l
o.l
o.o
60.6
59.1
97.b
65,b
52.6
70.7
17!5
29.6
171.6
71.0
109.6
111.6
176.5
99.7
142.6
77.6
116.0
121.b
122.7
118.2
61.7
126!4
169.0
123.4
189,6
I6b.2
121,0
71.7
17.7
64.1
122,1
21.1
11.2
18.2
11.6
14.4
16.4
51.2
17.1
(continued)
-------
TABLE E-12 (continued)
to
O
OS
Si
st
SS
Sb
S7
()1
b2
bi
6t
oS
(>b
hi
71
72
73
7'J
7S
76
77
7H
M i
H2
h4
KS
Ho
H7
1
it.
i.
? 7 .
S.
St.
" .
1 .
1.
i.
'I.
i.
/ .
1 <> .
to.
IS.
7.
2rt.
1 1.
20.
o9.
lo.
51 .
td .
1 i.
ri.
".
2
20.
5t .
16.
t.
12.
2".
7.
tl.
1.
10.
11 .
2.
i5.
13.
10.
II.
30.
t.
1ft.
37.
7 .
31.
26.
t.
11.
12.
i
12.
2.
7.
f ,
6.
101.
17.
7b.
1.
7.
o.
o.
16.
7.
3,
K.
1 1 .
2,
8,
9,
------- |