EPA-600/4-77-041
October 1977
Environmental Monitoring Series
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research arid Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3 Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8 "Special" Reports
9 Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and instrumentation for the identification and quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/4-77-041
October 1977
REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION STUDY
Off-Highway Mobile Source Emission Inventory
By
Fred E. Littman
K.M. Isam
Rockwell International
Air Monitoring Center
11640 Administration Drive
Creve Coeur, MO 63141
Contract No. 68-02-2093
Task Order 108E
Project Officer
Charles C. Masser
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Water Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Six categories of mobile off-highway sources of pollution have been
analyzed, and emissions of HC, CO, NO,,, SO,, and Particulates have been cal-
culated with the aid of a computer for all the 1,989 grid squares comprising
the St. Louis AQCR. Equipment categories included were motorcycles, lawn and
garden equipment, industrial equipment, construction equipment, farm equipment
and outboard motorboats. Emissions contributed by each category were treated
separately.
ni
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES 3
2.1 ESTIMATION OF OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES IN USE 3
2.2 ASSUMPTIONS PERTAINING TO TYPICAL ENGINE SIZE, TYPE,
AND ANNUAL MILEAGE 4
2.3 OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EMISSION FACTORS 6
2.4 EMISSIONS PER COUNTY DUE TO OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES 6
2.5 GRID ELEMENT EMISSIONS 8
3.0 LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 10
4.0 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 15
5.0 INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 20
6.0 FARM EQUIPMENT 26
7.0 OUTBOARD MOTORBOATS 30
8.0 TEMPORAL APPORTIONMENT 36
9.0 SUMMARY 37
REFERENCES 39
V
-------
FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE 1 SAMPLE/FORTRAN PROGRAM 38
VI
-------
TABLES
PAGE
TABLE 1 MOTORCYCLE REGISTRATIONS, TOTAL MOTORCYCLES AND OFF-HIGHWAY
MOTORCYCLES PER COUNTY 4
TABLE 2 ANNUAL MILEAGE AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR MOTORCYCLES
AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL 5
TABLE 3 OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EMISSION FACTORS 7
TABLE 4 OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EMISSIONS PER COUNTY 7
TABLE 5 COUNTY POPULATIONS 9
TABLE 6 SAMPLE CALCULATION DATA, OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES 9
TABLE 7 EMISSION FACTORS FOR LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT 12
TABLE 8 EMISSIONS AND ONE-UNIT HOUSING STRUCTURES PER COUNTY 13
TABLE 9 DATA FOR SAMPLE LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
CALCULATION 14
TABLE 10 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY POPULATIONS, USAGE,
RATED HORSEPOWER, AND SERVICE LIFE 16
TABLE 11 ESTIMATED NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 16
TABLE 12 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS PER COUNTY 18
TABLE 13 CONSTRUCTION ACREAGE PER COUNTY 18
TABLE 14 DATA FOR SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
CALCULATION 19
TABLE 15 NATIONAL POPULATION, RATED POWER, AND ANNUAL USAGE OF
HEAVY-DUTY AND LIGHT-DUTY INDUSTRIAL ENGINES 20
TABLE 16 RECOMMENDED EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL ENGINES 21
TABLE 17 NATIONAL TOTALS OF EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL ENGINES 21
TABLE 18 INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT COUNTY APPORTIONMENT DATA 23
VI1
-------
PAGE
TABLE 19 INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS PER COUNTY 24
TABLE 20 INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT SAMPLE CALCULATION DATA 25
TABLE 21 FARM EQUIPMENT ANNUAL USAGE ESTIMATES 26
TABLE 22 RECOMMENDED EMISSION FACTORS FOR FARM EQUIPMENT 28
TABLE 23 FARM EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS PER COUNTY 28
TABLE 24 FARM ACREAGE PER COUNTY 29
TABLE 25 DATA FOR SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FARM EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
FROM A GRID ELEMENT 29
TABLE 26 OUTBOARD EMISSION FACTORS (KG/UNIT HR.) 33
TABLE 27 OUTBOARD REGISTRATIONS PER COUNTY 33
TABLE 28 STATE OUTBOARD EMISSIONS IN THE AQCR 34
TABLE 29 OUTBOARD EMISSIONS AND NAVIGABLE SURFACE WATER PER COUNTY 34
TABLE 30 DATA FOR SAMPLE CALCULATION OF GRID EMISSIONS 35
viii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the off-highway mobile source emission inventory was to
calculate emissions for the Metropolitan St. Louis Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR 070) of a variety of unregulated sources with a spatial resolution corre-
sponding to grid elements1. An EPA methodology for determining the criteria
pollutant emissions of such sources was used as a guide2. Six equipment
categories were dealt with: motorcycles, lawn and garden equipment, construc-
tion equipment, industrial equipment, farm equipment, and outboard motorboats.
Problems were encountered, some significant, in the application of the method-
ology. Departures from it were made where necessary for optimum utilization of
available data. Simplifying assumptions pertaining to area distribution of
equipment populations and usage were used to make calculations possible which
generally inadequate data would have otherwise prohibited.
The procedures involved in arriving at grid element emission values have
been described in detail, all deviations from the recommended methodology noted
and explained. This was not, and could not be (considering the quality of
existing data on the different machine types) a rigorous computation of off-
highway emissions. Instead, this inventory has been an attempt to determine the
order of magnitude of emissions at the grid level within the limitations imposed
by the nature of the subject.
-------
2.0 OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES
2.1 ESTIMATION OF OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES IN USE
Among the contributors to off-highway emissions are those motorcycles
specially designed for off-road use. This means the so-called "trail bikes",
"dirt bikes", and "mini-bikes", whose popularity has burgeoned in the last few
years. The primary problem with assessing the emissions impact of these vehicles
was that of accurately determining the number in use in a given area. There is
no registration requirement for off-highway motorcycles in either Illinois or
Missouri. Thus, it was assumed for this emission inventory that the number used
off the highway was equal to the number of unregistered motorcycles.
The estimate for unregistered motorcycles cited in Reference 2 is 15% of
the total motorcycle population of the St. Louis AQCR. An approximation of
total motorcycles per county was obtained by augmenting the number of county
registrations utilizing this percentage. Thus,
(1) Total County Motorcycles = County Registrations = County Registrations
Off-highway motorcycles in a county were calculated by taking 15% of total
county motorcycles, or
(2) Off-Highway Motorcycles Per County = .15 x Total County Motorcycles
-,,- County Registrations
•I0 .85
= .18 x County Registrations
The number of motorcycles registered per county was available from References
3 and 4 for Missouri and Illinois, respectively. This number together with the
calculated number of total and off-highway motorcycles per county appears in
Table 1.
It is recognized that some registered motorcycles were used both on and
off the highway. However the 15% estimate is of limited accuracy, and for this
reason dual-use cases were eliminated from consideration in the inventory.
-------
TABLE 1
MOTORCYCLE REGISTRATIONS,
TOTAL MOTORCYCLES AND OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES PER COUNTY
COUNTY
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
COUNTY I.D.
4300
4280
6900
4680
2280
4160
1680
1440
5180
6460
0520
7920
REGISTRATIONS
15,567
7,263
5,071
6,129
3,019
3,263
1,673
721
552
999
506
300
TOTAL MOTORCYCLES
(including
unregistered)
18,314
8,545
5,966
7,211
3,552
3,839
1,968
848
649
1,175
595
353
OFF-HIGHWAY
MOTORCYCLES
(unregistered)
2,747
1,282
895
1,082
533
576
295
127
97
176
89
53
2.2 ASSUMPTIONS PERTAINING TO TYPICAL ENGINE SIZE, TYPE, AND ANNUAL MILEAGE
To facilitate the computation of emissions, a "typical" off-highway motor-
cycle was defined. The characterization required an average value, based on
representative sampling, for each of three parameters:
1) engine size (engine displacement in cubic centimeters)
2) engine type (2-stroke or 4-stroke and population distribution between
2-stroke and 4-stroke)
3) annual mileage
No quantitative information on these parameters was available which was
strictly applicable to off-highway motorcycles - only general statistics
describing the national motorcycle population as a whole. A combination of the
-------
general statistics and qualitative information pertaining specifically to "trail
bikes" provided the basis for the assumed parameter values. A departure from
the recommended methodology2 was required at this point as it provided only for
total motorcycle emissions, and no technique for isolating off-highway emissions
from the rest was discussed.
Statistical information utilized in assigning values is contained in
Table 22. The data contained in it refer to the national motorcycle population.
It was felt the most straightforward method to assign a single parametric value
was to determine the size range in which off-highway motorcycles belong, and
then use the values for annual mileage and distribution which correspond to the
particular range. By taking this approach extensive manipulation of data of
somewhat limited applicability was avoided.
TABLE 22
ANNUAL MILEAGE AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
FOR MOTORCYCLES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
ENGINE SIZE
90cc or less
90-191cc
191-290cc
over 290cc
ANNUAL MILEAGE
750
1400
2100
3000
RATIO OF 2-STROKE TO 4-STROKE
2-STROKE
11
19
8
13
4-STROKE
9
8
3
29
Motorcycles were grouped according to engine displacement5'6 as follows:
1) under lOOcc - almost exclusively mini-bikes
2) lOOcc - strictly dirt-bikes and trail bikes
3) 125cc - by far "the biggest class of all... considered somewhat small
for safe street riding... strictly for dirt and competition riding."
4) 175cc - "this class is primarily for the dual-purpose and dirt-riding
enthusiast". Second only to the 125cc category for off-highway use.
-------
5) 250cc - the weight factor rules out "the big... cycles displacing
over 250cc's, as well as the overweight 250s" for off-road use. An
extremely small number of motorcycles displacing 250cc and above are
used by an elite group of serious racing enthusiasts.
As this analysis of different motorcycle sizes revealed, the 90-190cc
range was the most appropriate range within which the "typical" off-highway
motorcycle would fall. From Table 2, then, the corresponding annual mileage
was assumed to be 1400; 2-stroke and 4-stroke motorcycles were assumed to be
distributed in a 19 : 8 ratio respectively.
2.3 OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EMISSION FACTORS
Recommended emission factors2 are shown in Table 3. Separate emission
factors for 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines were available. Since it was assumed
that the two different types of engines occurred in a 19 : 8 ratio, a composite
emission factor was computed by combining the two factors in a weighted average
(Table 3) as, for example:
(3) SOY Off-Highway Emission Factor, kg/mile =
X
(.040 x 10"3 kg/mile x 1
19 + 8
(.040 x 10 3 kg/mile x 19) + (.023 x 10"3 kg/mile x 8)
= .035 x 10"3 kg/mile SOY
2.4 EMISSIONS PER COUNTY DUE TO OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES
To calculate county emissions a modified version of the equation used in
the recommended methodology2 was used to compute off-highway emissions instead
of total motorcycle emissions. Thus,
(4) County Emissions, kg/yr = Off-Highway Motorcycles in County
x Emission Factor, kg/mile x 1400 miles/yr
where 1400 miles/year is the assumed average value for annual mileage. Off-
highway motorcycle emissions per county appear in Table 4. For example the
emissions of SOX in Franklin County have been calculated as:
-------
(5) County Emissions, kg/yr - 295 x (.035 x 10"3 kg/mile) x (1400 miles/yr)
=14.5 kg/yr
_->
where 295 is from Table 1 and .035 x 10 kg/mile is the factor for SOY from
A
Table 3.
TABLE 3
OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EMISSION FACTORS
ENGINE TYPE
2-Stroke
4-Stroke
Weighted Composite
(2-Stroke & 4-Stroke
combined in a 19:8
ratio)
KG/MILE OF EMISSIONS x 10"3
HC
24.0
4.0
18.0
CO
32.4
39.6
34.5
NO,
0.06
0.36
0.148
PART
0.33
0.04
0.244
sox
0.040
0.023
0.035
NOTE: These factors allow for evaporative hydrocarbon
emissions.
TABLE 4
OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EMISSIONS PER COUNTY
COUNTY
St. Louis County (4300)
St. Louis City (4280)
St. Clair (6900)
Madison (4680)
Jefferson (2280)
St. Charles (4160)
Franklin (1680)
Clinton (1440)
Monroe (5180)
Randolph (6460)
Bond (0520)
Washington (7920)
EMISSIONS, KG/YR x 103
HC
69.2
32.3
22.6
27.3
13.4
14.5
7.43
3.20
2.44
4.44
2.24
1.34
CO
133
61.9
43.2
52.3
25.7
27.8
14.2
6.13
4.69
8.50
4.30
2.56
NOX
.569
.266
.185
.224
.110
.119
.061
.026
.020
.037
.018
.011
PART
.938
.438
.306
.370
.182
.197
.101
.043
.033
.060
.030
.018
sox
.135
.063
.044
.053
.026
.028
.0145
.0062
.0057
.0086
.0044
.0026
-------
2.5 GRID ELEMENT EMISSIONS
Knowing county emissions, grid element emissions were calculated according
to the relation:
(6) Grid Element Emissions, kg/yr = County Emissions, kg/yr x
This relation expresses the direct proportionality assumed between motorcycle
emissions and population as recommended in Reference 2.
Two more assumptions are implicit in this approach; first, that unregistered
motorcycles are distributed uniformly over the counties, and second that their
usage is also uniformly distributed over the counties, in proportion to county
population. While assumption (1) may be realistic, assumption (2) is not, but
no better way is readily available.
For an illustration of the calculation of grid element emission, SO,,
emissions from grid #1 have been calculated from data in Table 6.
(7) Grid Element Emissions of SOY, kg/yr = 14.5 x
1059
60,459
(Grid #1 - off-highway motorcycles) = 0.254 kg/yr
A computer tabulation is available7, which lists all 1989 grid elements
in increasing numberical order, and across from each grid number is printed the
identification number of the county in which the grid falls, the grid element
population, housing units in the grid, and other useful statistics. Grid number,
county I.D. number, and grid populations were the items used from this printout
for the motorcycle emission inventory. Table 1 includes the SAROAD county
identification numbers, for the purpose of computer identification.
Due to the large number of grid elements and the five separate calculations
of emissions of the five primary pollutants required for each grid element or
square, it was found advantageous to write a computer program in FORTRAN that
would process the available data and yield grid element emissions from off-
highway motorcycles.
-------
TABLE 5
COUNTY POPULATIONS
COUNTY I.D. NO.
4300
4280
6900
4680
2280
4160
1680
1440
5180
6460
0520
7920
COUNTY NAME
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
POPULATION
996,515
578,493
309,777
230,290
102,223
101,713
60,459
29,538
21,193
32,289
14,014
13,852
TABLE 6
SAMPLE CALCULATION DATA
OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES
VARIABLE
Grid Element Number
Pollutant
County
County Emissions
(Off-Highway)
County Population
Grid Element Population
VALUE
1
sox
Franklin (1680)
14.5 kg/yr
60,459
1059
SOURCE OF VALUE
Specified
Specified
Reference 7
Table 4
Table 5
Reference 7
-------
3.0 LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
The lawn and garden category includes several types of equipment, in par-
ticular riding mowers, walking mowers, garden tractors, and motor tillers.
Snowthrowers have not been included in the inventory for two reasons. First,
they represent only a very small percentage of lawn and garden equipment, and
second, they are rarely used more than two or three times per year in the
St. Louis AQCR.
As for the four types of equipment which were considered, the walking mower
is by far the most common, comprising approximately 75% of total equipment units,
with riding mowers the next highest at only 9%.8 Garden tractors and motor till-
ers account for even less, approximately 5% of total units in each case.8 Two
types of engines occur as a rule, either 2-stroke or 4-stroke, and they make up
6% and 94% of small utility engines respectively.8 So-called "typical" horse-
power ratings for them are based on population estimates of walking mowers,
garden tractors, etc., coupled with a knowledge of the engine types found most
frequently to occur in a particular application. Thus, the 2-stroke is rated on
the average at 3.0 horsepower, and the 4-stroke at 3.5 horsepower.2
To be sure, there are still certain difficulties involved in trying to de-
termine the number of small utility engines in use and precisely how and where
those engines are being used. No registration data exists and there is no truly
adequate sales or production information available. Furthermore, no reliable
distribution statistics as to type and size of engines in use have been compiled.
In spite of these obstacles, estimates have been made which provide sufficient
groundwork for an emissions inventory with grid element resolution. But it must
be added that with present limited information, emission figures at the grid
level are only approximations, meant solely to give an idea of the order of
magnitude of emissions per grid resulting from the off-highway mobile sources
under consideration.
More encouraging are the emission factors which have been derived for small
utility engines. A variety of engines of the type used in lawn and garden equip-
ment have been tested in the laboratory and their emissions measured accurately
-------
under different loads.2 Some such engines have even been tested, albeit on a
limited basis, while oeprating under normal work-loads in the field, exhausts
being collected in bags or constant-volume samplers during the grass-cutting
or other characteristic operation. So, as might be expected, the emission fac-
tors for such mobile sources are quite reliable as long as operating conditions
are taken into account. As is natural, simulated operations and actual field
operations can be at variance with one another, and the human factor will always
yield different operating patterns. Hence, while emission factors may be good,
it is in the application of them that caution must be exercised. Recommended
emission factors for lawn and garden equipment are in Table 72.
A few assumptions were made in deriving and applying the factors in Table
7 which bear mentioning here. They pertain to the seasonal nature and variation
with climate of equipment usage. In Reference 2, it was assumed that national
mean operating days per year amounted to 213, and the average usage time for the
nation as a whole was 50 hours per year. The average number of freeze-free days
(or equivalently mean operating days) per year in the St. Louis area is 190 +_ 40;
so 190 was used as a county mean.9 (The 190 day figure is more recent than the
205 day figure used in the recommended methodology.2) It was assumed that there
were 2.7 million 2-stroke engines and 50.2 million 4-stroke engines,2 and using
the emission factors in Table 7 in conjunction with the 50 hour usage figure
national emissions (kg/yr) were calculated for each of the primary pollutants.
Emissions were apportioned to the twelve AQCR 070 counties on the basis of
housing units per county. The total number of one-unit housing structures in
the nation was assumed to be 46.8 million.
This brings up an important point about the significance of housing struc-
tures in the inventory. A direct relationship was assumed between one-unit
housing structures in a given area and the number of small utility engines in
use in that area, on the strength of the excellent agreement between the two
found in the U.S. Census publications. Since housing units and engines can be
assumed to be directly proportional, a knowledge of housing structures per grid
makes possible grid-element apportionment of emissions on this basis.
10
-------
TABLE 7
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT
UNITS
G/HR
KG/YR
ENGINE TYPE
2-STROKE
4-STROKE
2-STROKE
4-STROKE
EMISSION FACTORS
HC
300
37
15
1.8
CO
660
380
33
19
NOY
2.1
4.2
0.01
0.21
PART
9.4
0.6
0.47
0.03
sox
0.8
0.5
0.04
0.02
NOTE: These factors allow for evaporative hydrocarbon emissions.
Of course, this is oversimplifying the matter somewhat, since a certain
number of lawnmowers, tillers, etc., are used in commercial application. There
are additional small utility engines arising from households with two or more
pieces of lawn and garden equipment. Whether these "extra" engines are offset
by the households which have only electric equipment is uncertain. To obtain
a more accurate inventory, it would have been necessary to locate each commercial
organization and obtain information on the utilization of ground maintenance
equipment. A survey of households with more than one piece of lawn and garden
machinery would have been necessary, too. Finally, an inventory of households
with electric lawn mowers, edgers, and the like would have had to be made.
Since this was felt to be very impractical, it was decided the best course to
follow was assumption of a one-to-one correspondence between one-unit housing
structures and small utility engines.
The value of the one-to-one relation becomes apparent in the equation used
to calculate lawn and garden equipment emissions at the county level:
(8) County Emissions, kg/yr = National Emissions, kg/yr
County One-Unit Housing Structures
National One-Unit Housing Structures
County Mean Operating Days
x 213
where county mean operating days = 190 for the St. Louis AQCR.9
11
-------
The national emissions total was calculated utilizing the emission factors
in Table 7 which are in kg/yr. As previously mentioned it was assumed that 2.7
million 2-stroke engines and 50.2 million 4-stroke engines were used nationally.
Thus for CO emissions, for example,
(9) National Emissions of CO = 2-stroke emissions + 4-stroke emissions
= (33 kg/yr x 2.7 x 106) + (19 kg/yr x 50.2 x 106)
= 1.043 x 109 kg/yr
Then to calculate county emissions of CO, from Madison County for instance, we
have after substituting the proper values into equation 8:
(10) County Emissions, kg/yr = 1.043 x 109 kg/yr x 65>533 r x 19°
46.8 x 10l
213
= 1.303 x 10° kg/yr of CO
3
In Table 8 emissions for all AQCR 070 counties are shown (in units of 10 kg/yr
TABLE 8
EMISSIONS AND ONE-UNIT HOUSING STRUCTURES PER COUNTY
COUNTY
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Frank! in
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
I.D.
NO.
4300
4280
6900
4680
2280
4160
1680
1440
5180
6460
0520
7920
ONE UNIT
HOUSING
STRUCTURES
235,202
81,784
68,769
65,533
27,593
21,631
15,882
7,788
5,383
8,624
4,490
4,848
EMISSIONS 103 kg/yr
HC
586
204
171
163
68.8
53.9
39.6
19.4
13.4
21.5
11.2
12.1
CO
4675
1625
1367
1303
549
430
316
155
107
171
89.3
96.4
NOX
47.4
16.5
13.9
13.2
5.6
4.36
3.20
1.57
1.08
1.74
.90
.98
PART
12.4
4.33
3.64
3.47
1.46
1.14
.84
.41
.28
.46
.24
.26
sox
4.99
1.73
1.46
1.37
.58
.46
.34
.17
.11
.18
.95
.102
12
-------
Once emissions per county are known, emissions per grid square follow
from the relation
(1,) Grid El«nt Msslons. kg/yr -
Grid one-unit structures were available from Reference 7. County one-unit
structures, found in Reference 2, have been included in Table 8.
TABLE 9
DATA FOR SAMPLE LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT
EMISSIONS CALCULATION
VARIABLE
Pollutant
Grid Element
Grid Element One-Unit
Structures
County
County One-Unit Structures
County Emissions
VALUE
CO
281
68
Madison (4680)
65,533
1303 x 106 kg/yr
SOURCE
Specified
Specified
Reference 7
Table 8 (or Ref. 7)
Table 8
Table 8
To better illustrate the procedure, emissions of CO from grid element #281
will be calculated here. The necessary data has been assembled in Table 9 for
convenience.
(12) Grid Element Emissions, kg/yr of CO =
Grid #281
6
(1.303 x 10 kg/yr)
= 1.35 x 10 kg/yr
Lawn and garden equipment emissions from all grids have been calculated with the
aid of a Fortran program.
13
-------
4.0 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
Construction equipment types considered in the inventory are listed
in Table 10, along with estimated populations, usage, and rated horsepower.
Since few data are available on either sales or population of the various
machines estimates were heavily relied upon. Some machines, like tracklaying
tractors, wheel loaders, and scrapers are better represented in the literature
than others. The major sources of data on construction equipment are general-
ized national figures on units shipped per year, annual usage, total horse-
power in use, load factors, and duty cycles10. Specific population data by
machine type and manufacturer, or engine type are not available2.
Composite emission factors for the ten construction categories were
developed, assuming a distribution for each category composed of test engines
in the same combination10. These factors were meant to reflect not only the
composition of population by size and type of engine, but the typical duty or
operating cycles as well. Taken together with the estimates in Table 10 of
machinery population, etc., the factors were used to calculate national emis-
sions of construction equipment10. The results are shown in Table 11.
In arriving at the numbers in Table 11, three assumptions supplemented
the estimates in Table 10. First, construction equipment life (in years),
found by dividing service life (in hours) by usage (in hours/year), could be
used along with typical annual shipments to estimate the number of units in
service, or population. Second, emissions from construction engines could be
estimated by combining the results of a number of laboratory tests. Third,
engine operating cycles could be deduced from manufacturers' operating data
to a reasonable approximation. The tests took evaporative hydrocarbon emis-
sions into account.
National emissions were apportioned to the states of Illinois and Missouri
by construction volume (in dollars) according to the relation:
(13) State Emissions, kg/yr = (National Emissions, kg/yr)
(State Construction Volume)
(National Construction Volume)
14
-------
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY POPULATIONS, USAGE,
RATED HORSEPOWER, AND SERVICE LIFE10
Equipment Type
Tracklaying Tractors
Tracklaying Loaders
Motor Graders
Scrapers
Off- highway Trucks
Wheel Loaders
Wheel Tractors
Rollers
Wheel Dozers
General Purpose
Population
197,000
86,000
95,300
27,000
20,800
134,000
437,000
81,600
2,700
100,000
Usage, hr/yr
1050
1100
830
2000
2000
1140
740
740
2000
1000
Horsepower
120
65
90
475
400
130
75
75
300
120
Service Life, hr
10,000
10,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
—
TABLE 11
ESTIMATED NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS10
EMISSIONS IN KG/YR x 10C
Fuel
Diesel
Gasoline
Total
HC
72
56
128
CO
220
1100
1320
NOX
820
36
856
PART
63
2.2
65.2
sox
65
1.6
66.6
Dollar volume of construction was available only at the national and state
levels so could not be used for a more refined distribution of emissions. Con-
struction acreage was known for the St. Louis AQCR counties. State construction
was not known, making it impossible to determine the county percentages of
state construction. Consequently emissions were allocated to the counties by
oopulation. This represented the least desirable method but is the only viable
15
-------
alternative since state and county populations were both known quantities.
Population can be considered to be a sufficiently reliable indicator of ongoing
construction, there being an approximately proportional relationship between the
two. State emissions were then apportioned to the counties by the relation.
(14) County Emissions, kg/yr = State Emissions, kg/yr x C°^ly iffi"!^^
otace population
Emissions contributed by construction equipment to each of the twelve
counties under consideration are shown in Table 12. Homebuilding and other
light construction emissions were taken to be negligible compared to contracted
construction jobs in the county apportionment computations. Also, construction
expenditures in heavy construction, and highway and bridge construction were
weighted by a factor of 3 relative to building construction.
Using the values for county emissions set forth in Table 12, grid element
emissions were calculated. Although the methodology by Hare2 suggests appor-
tionment of county emissions to the grid elements by population, a different
approach was taken for the present inventory. Recently, a computer tabulation
has become available,11 which assigns to each of the grid elements a value for
construction acreage. This makes it possible to use it rather than population
to allocate emissions to the individual grid elements as follows:
(15) Grid Ele™,t Emissions, kg/yr -
x (County Emissions, kg/yr)
It was assumed that the areas experiencing construction had remained more
or less the same since the time when construction acreage allotments were made.
Construction acreage per county may be found in Table 13.
As an example of the calculation, emissions of NO^ from Grid Number 61
have been calculated. Pertinent data for the calculation are in Table 14.
(16) Grid Element Emissions, kg/yr = acres) x (4>gl x 1Q5 kg/yr)
= 4.94 x 10 kg/yr
As with the other off-highway categories calculation for the 1989 AQCR grid
squares was accomplished through the aid of a Fortran program.
16
-------
TABLE 14
DATA FOR SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
EMISSIONS CALCULATION
VARIABLE
VALUE
SOURCE
Pollutant
Grid Element
Grid Element Construction
Acreage
County
County Construction
Acreage
NOX
61
155
St. Charles (4160)
1416
Specified
Specified
Ref. 11
Ref. 11
Table 13
17
-------
TABLE i:
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS PER COUNTY'
COUNTY
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Frankl in
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
I.D. NO.
4300
4280
6900
4680
2280
4160
1680
1440
5180
6460
0520
7920
EMISSIONS, 103 kg/yr
HC
689
451
175
154
76.3
67.5
40.1
17.4
11.6
19.2
8.60
8.46
CO
7,100
4,650
1,810
1,580
787
696
413
180
120
198
88.7
87.3
NO,
4,610
3,010
1,170
1,030
510
451
268
116
77.6
128
57.5
56.6
PART
351
230
89.3
78.2
38.9
34.4
20.4
8.87
5.91
9.78
4.38
4.31
sox
358
234
91.2
79.9
39.7
35.1
20.8
9.06
6.03
9.99
4.48
4.40
TABLE 13
CONSTRUCTION ACREAGE PER COUNTY11
COUNTY
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
I.D. NO.
4300
4280
6900
4680
2280
4160
1680
1440
5180
6460
0520
7920
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACREAGE
4,789
292
1,718
1,535
1,178
1,416
431
302
196
339
175
93
18
-------
5.0 INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Fork lifts, motorized utility carts, small tractors and wheel loaders,
quarrying machinery, portable generators, and any other fuel consuming mobile
equipment used at industrial plants or in the performance of industrial oper-
ations, all fall within the scope of the industrial equipment category. In
general their engines may be divided into two broad categories - small utility
engines similar to those used in lawn and garden, or heavy-duty engines.
Determination of engine population and size distributions has been accom-
plished by studying shipment and production statistics for small utility and
heavy-duty industrial engines10. Obtaining accurate estimates involved separa-
tion of locomotive engines and so-called "miscellaneous four-stroke small utility
engines" from the available statistics. Pertinent estimates for heavy-duty
engines may be found in Table 15. Service life of light-duty industrial gasoline
engines was assumed to be 600 hours and annual usage 100 hours on the average10.
TABLE 1510
NATIONAL POPULATION, RATED POWER, AND ANNUAL USAGE OF
HEAVY-DUTY AND LIGHT-DUTY INDUSTRIAL ENGINES
HORSEPOWER
Diesel 125
Gasoline (Heavy-duty) 55
Gasoline (Light-duty) 3.86
USAGE, HR/YR
600
300
100
POPULATION
417,000
990,000
5,800,000
There are no really typical duty cycles (fractions of operating time spent
in various rpm or speed ranges) for industrial engines since applications are
so diverse. For heavy-duty gasoline and diesel engines a "general purpose
industrial" cycle has been proposed10 using special weighting factors corre-
sponding to more than twenty different operating modes. Composite emission
factors were devised to represent the variety of models on the market. They
were based on the weighted emissions of twelve test engines. No attempt at a
rigorous correlation with population was made due to the general lack of
specificity characteristic of available statistics10.
19
-------
Light-duty engine emission factors were developed along similar lines.
Recommended emission factors for the industrial category are presented in Table
16. National emissions from industrial engines have been computed using the
information in Tables 15 and 16. Resulting annual totals are in Table 17.
TABLE 16
RECOMMENDED EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL ENGINES2
ENGINE TYPE
Heavy-Duty Diesel
Heavy-Duty Gasoline
Light-Duty Gasoline
UNITS
g/hp. hr.
g/hp. hr.
9/hr.
EMISSION FACTORS
HC
1.12
6.68
29.2
CO
3.03
199
386
NOX
14.0
5.16
7.68
PART
1.00
0.327
0.68
sox
0.931
0.268
0.60
NOTE: Allowance for evaporative hydrocarbon emissions was incorporated
into these factors.
TABLE 1710
NATIONAL TOTALS OF EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL ENGINES
ENGINE TYPE
Heavy-Duty Diesel
Heavy-Duty Gasoline
Light-Duty Gasol ine
TOTALS
EMISSIONS, 106 kg/yr
HC
35.0
109.1
16.9
161.0
CO
94.8
3,251
133
3,478.8
NOX
437.9
84.3
4.5
526.7
PART
31.3
5.34
.39
37.03
sox
29.1
4.37
.35
33.82
20
-------
A method has been developed2 to apportion national emission estimates
directly to counties using the relation
(17) County Emissions, kg/yr = (National Emissions, kg/yr)
(County Total of A + B + C)
x (National Total of A + B +C)
where A = value added by manufacturing establishments
B = sales of wholesale trade establishments, and
C = value of shipments and receipts of mineral industries
Quantities A, B, and C are considered to be reliable indicators of industrial
activity. Their sum is proportional (directly, to a good approximation) to
industrial equipment usage. Values for A, B, and C obtained from Reference 12
are in Table 18, and emissions per county computed with these values may be
found in Table 19.
The final step was the apportionment of county emissions to all the
grid elements. Because industrial equipment would, by definition, only be
found at industrial plants, a listing of those grid squares containing such
plants along with the number of plants contained in each provided the basis
for apportioning emissions.
Using References 13, 14, and 15 a listing of all the industrial plants
in AQCR 070 was compiled including the grid elements or squares in which these
194 plants were located. Total grid squares with industrial plants in them
numbered 150. The number of industrial plants (190) represents the most
complete tabulation available in the most recent Regional Air Pollution Study
(RAPS) emission inventory. Admittedly, some industrial plants have not been
accounted for. Nonetheless, apportionment of emissions to grid elements on
the strength of this data was felt to produce the most accurate results.
21
-------
TABLE 18
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT COUNTY APPORTIONMENT DATA
County
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (1972)
A (= value added)
$
1,285.8
1,793.5
267.3
645.2
66.4
44.8
56.0
17.1
0.9
30.3
13.2
2.3
B (= wholesale sales)
$
3,065.356
4,518.156
519.297
229.629
17.333
33.644
25.699
17.391
12.829
14.394
14.583
15.643
C (= minerals)
$
9.8
0.7
0.0
2.8
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.4
0.0
2.8
U.S. TOTALS, $ 261,983.8
459,475.967
25,848.7
22
-------
TABLE 19
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS PER COUNTY
County
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
EMISSIONS, TO3 kg/yr
HC
940
1,360
169
188
16.9
18.0
4.53
7.44
2.96
13.6
5.99
4.48
CO
20,316
29,396
3,653
4,070
365
390
119
161
64
294
129
96.7
NOX
1,950
4,451
553
616
55.3
59.0
18.1
24.3
9.7
44.5
19.6
14.6
PART
216
313
38.9
43
3.89
4.14
1.27
1.71
.68
31.3
1.37
1.03
sox
198
286
35.5
39.6
3.55
3.79
1.16
1.56
.62
2.85
1.26
.94
23
-------
County emissions were apportioned by the equation
(18) Grid Element Emissions, kg/yr = (County Emissions, kg/yr)
(Grid Industrial Plants)
x (County Industrial Plants)
As an illustration, the emissions of SOY from grid #1008 have been calculated.
A
Essential data are presented in Table 20.
(19) Grid Element Emissions, kg/yr of SOX = (286 x 103 kg/yr) x -|p
grid #1008
= 1.85 x 1(T kg/yr
Emissions from all grid elements were calculated with the aid of a computer.
There are certain limitations on the accuracy of this and other industrial
emissions calculations. Most severe is the necessity of starting with national
totals and making successive apportionments from them. National totals are good
estimates only and must be considered in that light. This point source listing
has been updated with the latest RAPS emission inventory data.
TABLE 20
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT SAMPLE CALCULATION DATA
VARIABLE
VALUE
SOURCE
Pollutant
Grid Element
Grid Industrial Plants
County
County Industrial Plants
County Emissions
sox
1008
St. Louis City (4280)
31
286 x 103
Specified
Specified
Plant Listing
Reference 7
RAPS emission inventories
Table 19
24
-------
6.0 FARM EQUIPMENT
Among the equipment types used on farms which were taken into consider-
ation in this inventory were farm tractors, garden tractors used on farms,
and self-propelled combines, forage harvesters, and balers. In addition,
irrigation pump engines ("miscellaneous heavy-duty"), and the auxiliary
engines ("miscellaneous light-duty") used on some of the larger machinery
were considered. Extensive information on both the production and population
of such equipment was available, a great deal on tractors in particular.
However, a breakdown in terms of size and types of engines used in the current
population did not exist, requiring that estimates be made.
Much effort has been expended in the development of emission factors for
farm machinery by C. T. Hare10 and others. A detailed population and usage
analysis of farm tractors and other related equipment preceded emission factor
computation. Annual usage rates were estimated from either survey data
(available for tractors) or consideration of the fact that the usage of special-
purpose farm machinery was dictated by the crop acreage for which it was needed.
Annual usage estimates of the various equipment types are presented in Table 21,
along with typical horsepower ratings and load factors.
TABLE 21
FARM EQUIPMENT ANNUAL USAGE ESTIMATES10
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
Diesel Tractor
Gasoline Tractor
Self-propelled Combine
Pull Combine
Balers
Forage Harvesters
Miscellaneous Heavy-duty
Miscellaneous Light-duty
ESTIMATE ANNUAL
USAGE, (HRS)
490
291
73
52
24
120
50
50
HORSEPOWER
80.2
40.9
110.0
25.0
40.0
140.0
30.0
3.5
LOAD
FACTOR
0.57
0.57
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.40
25
-------
Test engines on which much data had been gathered were assumed to represent
each field application. For each engine a typical duty or operating cycle
(estimated from manufacturers operating data and field operation data) was
assumed, composite load factors were derived, and finally emission factors
were computed. Resulting emission factors in kg/hr are in Table 22.
To calculate emissions from farm equipment, the following relationship
was used for this inventory:
(20) County Emissions, kg/yr = Z (Equipment Population)
x (Annual Usage) x (Emission Factor kg/yr)
where the summation was taken over the equipment type used. Specific data
on equipment populations per county were available from Reference 16. This
data in conjunction with annual usage, emission factors (kg/yr) from Tables
21 and 22, made it possible to arrive at emissions per county (presented in
Table 23.
In apportioning county emissions to grid elements, the following rela-
tion was used:
(21) Grid Element, kg/yr = (County Emissions, kg/yr)
(
(
Farm Acreage in Grid)
County Farm Acreage)
County farm acreage is presented in Table 24. Acreage per grid element
is available from Reference 11. As explained therein, farm acreage was allo
cated to grid squares by means of land use maps and aerial photographs.
To exemplify the grid-apportionment procedure, the emissions of CO from
Grid #1 have been calculated. All necessary data are gathered in Table 25.
(22) Grid Element Emissions, kg/yr of CO = 2.08 x 106 kg/yr x
= 8.3 x 104 kg/yr
As with all other categories under consideration, emissions of the five cri-
teria pollutants have been calculated with the aid of a computer.
26
-------
TABLE 22
RECOMMENDED EMISSION FACTORS FOR FARM EQUIPMENT2
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
Diesel Tractor
Gasoline Tractor
Self-propelled Combine
Pull Combine
Balers
Forage Harvesters
Miscellaneous Heavy-duty
Miscellaneous Light-duty
EMISSION FACTORS, KG/HR
HC
0.078
0.208
0.300
0.116
0.183
0.122
0.082
0.029
CO
0.154
3.34
6.37
2.83
4.53
0.297
1.73
0.363
NOX
0.429
0.155
0.408
0.068
0.108
0.657
0.112
0.007
PART
0.059
0.009
0.054
0.005
0.008
0.110
0.015
0.001
sox
0.040
0.006
0.034
0.004
0.006
0.067
0.009
0.001
Allowance made for evaporative hydrocarbon emission.
TABLE 23
FARM EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS PER COUNTY2
COUNTY
EMISSION, 103 KG/YR
St. Louis County
C 4- li-Mi-ic P-i-f-w
b U. LOU i S Ll ty
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
HC
68.3
225
268
75.8
160
180
179
134
175
118
181
CO
803
2,690
3,190
885
1,900
2,080
2,110
1,600
2,080
1,410
2,180
NOX
114
376
448
127
268
305
309
224
296
199
306
PART
13.3
44.6
53.0
15.0
31.7
36.1
37.3
26.5
35.2
23.7
36.6
S0x
8.8
29.4
35.0
9.9
20.9
23.8
24.5
35.0
23.2
15.6
24.1
-------
TABLE 24
FARM ACREAGE PER COUNTY11
COUNTY
FARM ACREAGE
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
37,542
-0-
213,772
188,815
29,712
12,147
79,490
192,865
111,714
165,034
130,252
212,114
TABLE 25
DATA FOR SAMPLE CALCULATION OF
FARM EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS FROM A GRID ELEMENT
VARIABLE
VALUE
SOURCE
Pollutant
Grid Element
Farm Acreage in Grid
County
County Farm Acreage
County Emissions
CO
1
3172
Franklin (1680)
79,490
2.08 x 106 kg/yr
Specified
Specified
Reference 11
Ref. 11 or Ref. 5
Table 24
Table 23
28
-------
7.0 OUTBOARD MOTORBOATS
This part of the off-highway inventory included boats powered by outboard
engines and used on the St. Louis AQCR waterways. For the sake of brevity the
boats were termed "outboards". Emission factors for the engines used in the
boating applications were developed from the study of a limited number of test
engines in the laboratory1!
Simulation of outboard engine performance was hindered somewhat by the
complexity of the real-life operating conditions. Engine exhaust outlets are
normally below water, but if the boat is bobbing on the water surface, expecially
if the water is rough, it is possible for some exhaust to be released in sporadic
bursts directly into the atmosphere. While bubbling through water a certain por-
tion of the exhaust pollutants are removed and therefore do not reach the atmos-
phere. The extent of the scrubbing process is highly dependent on water turbu-
lence, and in a more subtle way on the chemical composition of the water itself.
Crude simulation of this bubbling process has been attempted by researchers and
measurements made to determine the extent of pollutant removal. Their test re-
sults played an important role in emission factor development. Direct emission
to the atmosphere of pollutants has not been allowed for in the emission factors
recommended in the Reference 2 methodology and used in this inventory. The emis-
sion factors are presented in Table 26. They represent the best-researched fac-
tors available. Note that the factor for particulates is zero; all particulates
are removed in the water.
To determine emissions from a given area it was necessary to use emission
factors in conjunction with usage and population data. Population data was in
the form of boat registrations. For Missouri, Reference 3 provided separate
figures for motorboats and boat motors per county. These two figures were added
with the assumption that the total would be a reasonable representation of total
outboards per county. This was done for two reasons: First, when motorboats are
sold they invariably come with an engine, thus boat and motor would be registered
as one unit. Since outboards are the most abundant of motorboats, this is a good
partial count of them. Second, although a certain number of outboard engines
registered individually may be sitting idle in storage sheds, perhaps only
29
-------
infrequently used, there are very likely an equal number of unregistered out-
boards in use during the boating season. Therefore boat motor registration
could very well represent additional outboards, and were added to motorboat
registrations with this in mind.
For Illinois the only registration statistics kept are in terms of "cer-
tified watercraft per county". It was assumed that this number equalled out-
boards per county. Any watercraft which were not outboards (e.g. inboard motor-
boats) would be offset by those outboards which were unregistered. The end
result would be an approximation of the actual number in use. Boat totals for
the twelve AQCR 070 counties are in Table 27.
The remaining factor considered before area emissions could be analyzed
was outboard usage. Those boats registered in a county are not necessarily
used in that county. In fact, many boats registered in the St. Louis AQCR are
not only used outside the counties they were registered in, but outside the
AQCR as well. As a consequence, the calculated emissions are likely to be on
the higher side. Because the majority of Missouri residents use their boats
primarily in Missouri, and Illinois residents in the state of Illinois, it was
decided to first calculate emission totals of the criteria pollutants contributed
by all motorboats registered in all counties within AQCR 070 in each state.
State emissions were calculated by the following relation:
(23) Motorboat Emissions in AQCR by state
= (State Motorboat Registrations in AQCR)
x (Emission Factors, kg/unit yr.)
Using the data in Tables 26 and 27 in (23) yielded the values for state
emissions which comprise Table 28.
The next step was to allocate state emissions to the 12 counties in the
St. Louis Region. Emissions were apportioned according to the amount of nav-
igable water area in each county. This method was chosen because navigable sur-
face waters determined boat usage in a county. Recreational suitability of the
water also plays a role; however no statistics were available on the popularity
30
-------
of the different waterways. Apportionment to counties was accomplished via the
relation.
(24) County Emissions, kg/yr = AQCR/State Emissions
County Surface Water
x AQCR/State Surface Water
where "AQCR/State Emissions" and "AQCR/State Surface Water" totals were for the
St. Louis AQCR in each state, and "Surface Water" means navigable surface water
area. Outboard emissions per county appear in Table 29 along with the surface
water data used to calculate them.
As the final step, emissions at the grid level were calculated (with the
aid of a computer) using the relation
(25) Grid Element Emissions, kg/yr = County Emissions, kg/yr
Grid Surface Water
County Surface Water
Again it was assumed that boat usage was directly proportional to navigable
water area. To illustrate the calculation, the emission of HC from grid #1019
were calculated. Necessary data are collected in Table 30.
(26) Grid Element Emissions of HC, kg/yr = (2.964 x 106 kg/yr)
x (1 km2)
(90.7 km2)
= 3.26 x 104 kg/yr
Surface water area per grid square was determined by drawing the waterways
onto the grid system and estimating as accurately as possible the percentage
of a grid covered by water. Specific waterways considered to have sufficient
boating activity for inventory purposes were:
a. Mississippi River d. Alton Lake
b. Missouri River e. Carlysle Lake
c. Meramec River f- Lake St. Louis
31
-------
HC
0.769
NOTE:
TABLE 26
OUTBOARD EMISSION FACTORS (KG/UNIT HR.)
CO
2.28
NOX
.0045
sox
.0044
PART
0
HC
53.83
Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions have not been measured and are
not reflected by these factors.
KG PER UNIT-YEAR (ASSUMING 70 HRS/YR OVER OPERATION)
CO
159.6
NOX
.315
sox
.308
TABLE 27
OUTBOARD REGISTRATIONS PER COUNTY
MISSOURI3
COUNTY
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
TOTAL
REGISTERED
OUTBOARDS
62,768
16,013
11,607
10,779
5,837
107,004
ILLINOIS18
COUNTY
Bond
Clinton
Madison
Monroe
Randolph
St. Clair
Washington
TOTAL
REGISTERED
OUTBOARDS
506
1,166
8,489
685
1,523
7,923
483
20,775
32
-------
TABLE 28
STATE OUTBOARD EMISSIONS IN THE AQCR
(K6/YR x 106)
Missouri
Illinois
HC
5.759
1.112
CO
17.07
3.315
NOX
.0337
.00654
sox
.0329
.00639
TABLE 29
OUTBOARD EMISSIONS AND NAVIGABLE SURFACE WATER PER COUNTY
COUNTY
St. Louis County
St. Louis City
St. Clair
Madison
Jefferson
St. Charles
Franklin
Clinton
Monroe
Randolph
Bond
Washington
SURFACE WATER2
KM2
45.6
9.8
5.7
32.8
8.8
90.7
21.5
99.5
23.6
31.6
7.8
1.6
EMISSIONS, 103 KG/YR
HC
1,490.0
321.8
31.54
179.2
288.0
2,964.0
703.1
550.5
130.5
174.9
43.0
8.602
CO
4,418
953.8
310.1
594.2
853
8,786
2,083
1,632
386.8
518.6
127.5
25.5
NOX
8.723
1.883
.1846
1.049
1.685
17.34
4.114
3.222
.7634
1.024
.2517
.0503
sox
8.528
1.841
.1805
1.025
1.648
16.96
4.022
3.149
.7464
1.001
.2461
.0492
33
-------
TABLE 30
DATA FOR SAMPLE CALCULATION OF GRID EMISSIONS
VARIABLE
VALUE
SOURCE
Pollutant
Grid Element
County
County Emissions
County Surface Water
Grid Surface Water
HC
1019
St. Charles (4160)
2.964 x 106 kg/yr
90.7 km2
1 km2
Specified
Specified
Reference 5
Table 29
Table 29
Map with grid overlay
34
-------
8.0 TEMPORAL APPORTIONMENT
Annual emission totals of the several off-highway mobile source types
had to be temporally distributed over the year to reflect diurnal and seasonal
variation of usage. To accomplish this end each equipment category was assigned
an annual operating pattern which was felt to most closely approximate real-
life use during a calendar year. The operating patterns assumed were as
follows:
1. Off-highway motorcycles
2. Lawn and garden equipment
3. Construction equipment
4. Industrial equipment
5. Farm equipment
6. Outborad motors
March through October 9 AM - 7 PM
April through September 9 AM - 7 PM
March through October 6 AM - 6 PM
Year round 8 AM - 6 PM
March through October 5 AM - 7 PM
April through September 9 AM - 7 PM
All the days in the month were included, no distinction being made for
weekends. Total yearly operating hours were found by multiplying together
operating hours per day, operating days per month, and operating months per
year. Then the annual emissions total was divided by yearly operating hours
to give emissions per hour.
35
-------
9.0 SUMMARY
Emissions of criteria pollutants for each of the six types of off-highway
sources have been calculated for each grid square in the St. Louis AQCR. The
methodology has been described, with any departure from the methodology reported
in EPA-450/3-75-002 justified. Most of the data which formed the basis of the
inventory was two years old, and many assumptions on equipment populations and
usage were made where data were not available.
A Fortran program has been prepared in order to compute emissions from the
nearly 2,000 grid squares for each of the six equipment types. Sample calculations
for each category showed that the magnitude of emissions from off-highway mobile
sources is by no means insignificant at the grid element level (see sample in
Figure 1).
36.
-------
M-CYCL : OFF HIWAY MOTORCYCLES
LWN&GDN LAWN & GARDEN EQUIPMENT
FRM EQ FARM EQUIPMENT
CONSTR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
IND EQ INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
OUTBD OUTBOARD MOTORS
UNITS KG/YR
3RIB ?QLT
i HC
CO
MCX
FAR r
SOX
2 HC
rn
NOX
rrtK'T
sex
3 HC
CO
NQX
PART
3GX
4 HC
CO
fUX
r'.Vr, f
SOX
"V H*~
C3
.NUX
? -,R r
3 OX
o nC
CO
N'uX
:AK'r
sex
7 HC
CO
NOX
PAF.T
ccx
3 HC
CO
NOX
PAK r
30X
M-CYCL
8.6717+01
1 .6aQl+02
7.0311-01
1.1718+00
2.5390-01
8.4603+01
1. 6197+02
6. 3597-01
1 .1433-rOO
2.4771-01
1.3729+02
2.6232+02
1.1131+00
1.8JSC+OG
4.0197-01
2.3740+01
4.9277+01
2. 0870-01
3.4 733-01
7.'UJ64-02
A. 9774+01
1 .3353+02
5.6573-Oi
9.4239-01
2.0429-01
3.4323+01
6.5718+01
2. 7833-01
-1.6389-01
1.0051-01
3. 4328 i-Ol
6. 5713+01
2.7333-01
4.6389-01
1.0051-01
3.4328+01
6.5718f01
2.7833-01
4.6389-01
1.0051-01
LUNSGDN
4.7226+02
3.6794+03
3.5140+01
9.7593+00
2.4679+00
4.5435+02
3.5437-1-03
3.6734+01
9.3995+CO
2.3769+00
7.1818+02
5.59531-03
5.8000+01
1.4841+01
3.7530+00
1.3275+02
1.0343+03
1.0721+01
2.7434+00
6.9373-01
4.0044+02
3.1173+03
3.2340+01
8.2751+00
2.0926+00
1.7410+02
1.3564+03
1.4061+01
3.5979+00
9.C931-01
1.7410+02
1.3564+03
1.4061+01
3.5779+00
9.0981-01
1.7410+02
1.3564+03
1 .4061+01
3.5979+00
9.0981-01
FRM £Q
7.1641-02
8.3016+04
1.2173+04
1 .4408+03
9.4990+02
7.1841+03
8.3016+04
1.2173+04
1.4408+03
9.4970+02
7.1841+03
8.3016+04
1.2173+04
1 .4408+03
9.4990+02
1 .7960+03
2.0754+04
3.0433+03
3.602C+02
2.3747+02
1.7960+03
2.0754+04
3.0433-1-03
3.6020+C2
2.3747+02
1.7960+03
2.0754+04
3.0433+03
3.6020+02
2.3747+02
1.7960+03
2.0754+04
3.0433+03
3.6020*02
2.3747+02
1.7960+03
2.0754+04
3.0433+03
3.6020+02
2.3747+02
CONSTR
1.3690-1-03
1.4099+04
9.1491+03
6.9642+02
7.1008+02
1 .4248+03
1.46751-04
9.5225+03
7.2483+02
7.3906+02
1.4528+03
1.4962+04
9.7092+03
7.3906+02
7.5355+02
2.1419+02
2.2060+03
1.4315+03
1.C896+02
1.11101-02
4.2838+02
4.4120+03
2.8630+03
2.1793+02
2.2220+02
4.2338+02
4.4120+03
2.8630+03
2.1793+02
2.2220+02
4.2338+02
4.4120+03
2.8630+03
2.1793+02
2.2220+02
4.2838+02
4.4120+03
2.3630+03
2.1793+02
2.2220+02
I Nil EG
CT.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000. .
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.8312+02
7.4375+03
1.1312+03
7.9375+01
7.2500+01
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000 "
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CLTBD
c.cooo
o.ocoo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.croo
0.0000
O.GOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
5.3770+03
1.5930+04
3.1462+01
0.0000
3.0759+01
0.0000
0.0000 •
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
TOTAL
9.1120+03
1.0096+05
2.1361+04
2.1482+03
1.6627+03
9.1484+03
1.0140+05
2.1733+04
2.1762+03
1.6916+C3
9.7754+03
1.1127+05
2.3073+04
2.2759+03
1.7801+03
7.5457+03
3.9974+04
4.5171+03
4.7226+02
3.8010+02
2.6946+03
2.3419+04
5.9391+03
5.3735+02
4.&197+02
. 2.4323+03
2.6588+04
5.9206+03
5.8219+02
4,6069+02
2.4328+03
2.658S+04
5.9206+03
5.S219+02
4.6069+02
2.4323+03
2.6538+04
5.9206+03
5.8219+02
4.6069+02
FIGURE 1
SAMPLE/FORTRAN PROGRAM
37
-------
REFERENCES
1. Haws, Richard C., & Paddock, Richard E., The Regional Air Pollution
Study (RAPS) Grid System, Research Triangle Institute EPA-450/3-76-021,
Dec. 1975.
2. Hare, Charles T., Methodology for Estimating Emissions From Off-Highway
Mobile Sources for the RAPS Program EPA 450/3-75-002, October 1974.
3. Missouri Department of Revenue Vehicles Per County as of 12/31/75.
4. Illinois Department of Revenue 1974 Motorcycle Population Per County.
5. Clampett, Robert, The Motorcycle Handbook. Fawcett Publications, Inc.
Greenwich, Connecticut - 1975.
6. Richmond, Douglas, Your Trail Bike. H. P. Books, Tuscon, Arizona - 1972.
7. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. Residential and Commercial
Area Source Emission Inventory Methodology for the Regional Air Pollution
Study EPA-450/3-75-078 September 1975.
8. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer, Exhaust Emissions From Uncontrolled
Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines - Part 4
Small Air-Cooled Spark Ignition Utility Engines, Environmental Protection
Agency Contract EHS 70-108, May 1973.
9. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary With Comparative Data -
St. Louis, Missouri. U. S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service. 1973.
10. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions From Uncontrolled
Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines -
Part 5 Heavy-Duty Farm, Construction, and Industrial Engines.
Environmental Protection Agency Contract EHS 70-108 October 1973.
11. Cowherd, Chatten, and Guenther, Christine. Development of a Methodology
and Emission Inventory For Fugitive Dust For The Regional Air Pollution
Study EPA-450/3-76-006 January 1976.
-------
12. City and County Data Book, 1972.
13. National Emission Data System Point Source Listing. Missouri and
Illinois Printout. EPA 1973.
14. Missouri Emission Inventory Printout 1973.
15. Illinois EPA Emission Inventory 1974.
16. 1969 Census of Agriculture, Volume I - Area Reports. U. S. Department
of Commerce 1972.
17. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions From Uncontrolled
Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines -
Part 2 Outborad Motors. EPA Contract EHS 70-108 January 1973.
18. Illinois Department of Conservation. Total Valid Watercraft Per County
1975.
39
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/4-77-041
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION1 NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION STUDY
5. REPORT DATE
October 1977
Off-Highway Mobile Source Emission Inventory
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
Fred E. Littman
K.M. Isam
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Rockwell International
Air Monitoring Center
11640 Administration Drive
Creve Coeur, MO 63141
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA603 AA-07 (FY-77)
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2093
Task Order 108E
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory - RTF, NC
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/09
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
An emission inventory of mobile off-highway sources of air pollution has been
determined for the Regional Air Pollution Study (RAPS) in St. Louis, Missouri.
Emissions of HC, CO, NO , SO and particulate matter have been calculated with the
aid of a computer for tne 1,989 grid squares comprising the St. Louis Air Quality
Control Region. Source categories included motorcycles, lawn and garden equipment,
industrial equipment, construction equipment, farm equipment and outboard motorboats.
Emissions contributed by each category were treated separately. Simplifying
assumptions pertaining to area distribution of source populations and usage were
used to make calculations possible which generally inadequate data would have
otherwise prohibited. The procedures involved in arriving at grid element
emission values are described in detail.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
*Air pollution
*Exhaust emissions
*Mobile equipment
*Environmental surveys
St. Louis, MO
13B
2 IB
15E
05J
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
48
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
40
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- |