xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IE Office
26 Federal Plaza
New York; N.Y. 10007
Air
Emission Growth
Factors for the
Niagara Frontier
EPA-450/2-78-010
JULY 1979
EP 450/2
78~Q">0
ll.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{/'lease read Inslruclivns on the r* nc before c
RE PORT NO
EPA-450/2-78-010
U TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emission Growth Factors for the Niagara Frontier
5. REPORT DATE
July 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
Erie and Niagara Counties Regiomi Planning Board
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board
3103 Sheridan Drive
Amherst, New York 14226
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2956
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II, Air Programs Branch
New York, New York 10007
. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
"> . 1 P6 OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING ACvfNCY CODE
16. ABSTRACT
As part of the New York State Implementation Plan revision for the Niagara
Frontier Air Quality Maintenance Area, the Erie and Niagara Counties Regional
Planning Board has provided growth factors for the years 1982 and 1990, using
1975 as the base year for area sources and facilities within Erie and Niagara
Counties which generate either sulphur dioxide or particulate matter.
Growth factors for 23 area sources were developed for 316 grid cells within the
Erie-Niagara Region. The grid cell matrix within the region which this report
builds upon was previously developed during a 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions
Inventory which quantified particulate matter and sulphur dioxide within the region.
Growth factors were also developed for 63 industrial facilities within the Erie-
Niagara Region. A description of each facility considered, and the methodology
employed in projecting growth for each facility is detailed. Further, the potential
for reliability of all growth factor projections within the report are discussed.
17 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Regional Planning
10 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS L. COSATI 1 Icld/Oroup
State of New York
Erie and Niagara Counties
Particulate matter and 13- B
sulphur dioxide emission
growth factors
19 SECURITY CLASS (Thts Report 1 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unc lassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (Tins page/ 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
luscrl Ilic 1 I'A report number as it appears on the cover and hnellx the subject covi-rape of tlic report, and he displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeal the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
l-.ach report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. IndKate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., dale of issue, dole of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
(iivc namc(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J, Robert Doc, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
?.alion.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organisational hircarchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use i he program clement number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under winch report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Lntcr information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of, Presented'at conference of,
'Io be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words ur ic\s) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
t.D 1)1 SC'RIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorised terms thai identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDlvNTIITI-.RS AND OPI'N-I-.NDLD I hRMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI I II LD GROUP - I icld and group assignments arc to be taken from the 1965 COS ATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents arc mullidisuplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignmcnt(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary 1'icld/Group assignments that will follow
the primary postmg(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote relcasabihty to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURfTY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) (Reverse)
ii
-------
EPA-450/2-78-010
EMISSION' GROWTH
FACTORS FOR THE
NIAGARA FRONTIER
EPA Contract No. 68-02-2956
Submitted to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York 10007
Deborah Brome
Project Officer
Air Programs Branch
Submitted by
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board
3103 Sheridan Drive
Amherst, New York
July 1979
iii
-------
This .air pollution report is issued by Region II Environmental
Protection Agency to assist state and local air pollution control 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 the Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board, 3103 Sheridan
Drive, Amherst, New York, 14226, in fulfillment of EPA Contract No.
68-02-2956. This report has been reviewed by Region II, 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 constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Region II Publication No. 450/2-78-010
IV
-------
ERIE AND NIAGARA COUNTIES REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD
Leo J. Nov/ak, Jr., Director
MEMBERSHIP LIST
Gerald F. Hall, Chair-nan
James V. Ryan, Vice-Chair man
Joseph N. Williams, Secretary
*Barrick, Paul D. Lane, Donald P.
Blackwell, Roger I. **Martel, Leo M.
*Broderick, David S. . Mathiasen, Glenn
Brown, Charles O. McFarland, Scott
*Caggiano, Louis E. Paxon, L. William
Greene, Susan R. Richardson, Marie V.
Griffin, Raymond P. Sharpe, John R.
*Kopczynski, Michael Smith, Donald J.
*Umiker, Edward W.
* Member, Natural Resources Committee
** Chairman, Natural Resources Committee
v
-------
ERIE AND NIAGARA COUNTIES REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD
AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP
NAME
Grace Baker
Barry Boyer
Dennis Brady
Bernard Carreno
Gale Derm
Lou Dudek
John Finster
Ernest Gedeon
Wallace Gibson
John Gimmelli
Charlene Greco
Barry Hecht
Harry Hovey
John Huber
Robert Hunt
Charles Lavey
Kevin Mahar
John Malinchock
Patrick Marren
Leo Martel
Francis Metz, Mayor
Douglas Morrell
Charles Mothersead
Naomi Nelson
Phyllis Newman
Wallace Ochterski
Donald J. Smith, Chairman
AGENCY
Niagara County V' ''in Bureau
Sierra Club
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation
Erie County Association of Governments
International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers - Local 1581
Niagara Frontier Transportation
Committee
Niagara County Health Department
Erie County Legislature
City of Niagara Falls
Erie County Industrial Development Agency
New York State Department of
T ransportation
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Tonawanda Industrial Expansion
Corporation
State University of New York at Buffalo
Niagara County Planning Board
Dormer Hanna Coke Corporation
Niagara County Environmental
Management Council
City of Buffalo
Niagara County Legislature
Village of Blasdell
Erie County Farm Bureau
Town of Amherst
City of Lockport
League of Women Voters
Town of West Seneca
VI
-------
ERIE AND NIAGARA COUNTIES REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD
AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP
(continued)
NAME
John Orr'
Lorraine Pickel
Thaddeus Pieczonka
James Rasey
Michael Reele
Don Roberson
James Ryan, Supervisor
John Snyder
John Snyder
Peter Taranowsky
Dr. Richard Tobin
Robert Uerz
Dr. Louis Vendetti
James Walsh
William Wittkowsky, Mayor
AGENCY
Niagara County Industrial Development
Agency
City of Tonavvanda
City of Lackawanna
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional
Planning Board
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
Niagara Falls Chamber of Commerce
Town of Tonawanda
Greater Buffalo Area Chamber of
Commerce
Niagara Frontier Air Pollution Control
Association
Erie County Department of Environment
and Planning
Erie County Environmental Management
Council
American Lung Association
Town of Cheektowaga
Town of Niagara
City of North Tonawanda
Vll
-------
FOREWORD
Man's health, within his natural and constructed environment, should be
protected trom the deleterious effects of high concentrations of air pollutants.
Equally important, however, is the realizotii 4hac this should be strived for
in the most practical and economic way.
This report contributes to the possibility of achieving the above goals by
providing technical information in the form of growth factors for various air
pollutant-generating sources, data which served as input into the New York
State Implementation Plan Revision of 1978, as mandated by the Federal
Clean Air Act amendments of 1977, as well as iuture local air quality main-
tenance planning efforts.
Vlll
-------
ABSTRACT
As part of the New York State Implementation Plan revision tor the
Niagara Frontier Air Quality Maintenance Area,, and for the purpose of
future air quality maintenance planning for the I agr. ra Frontier, the Erie
and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board has provided growth factors
for the years 1982 and 1990, using 1975 as the base year for area sources
and facilities within Erie and Niagara Counties which generate either sulplur
dioxide or particulate matter.
Growth factors for 23 area sources were developed for 316 grid cells
within the Erie-Niagara Region. The grid cell matrix within the region
which this report builds upon was developed during a 1975 Niagara Frontier
Emissions Inventory which quantified particulate matter and sulphur dioxide
within the region.
A discussion of growth factors generated for the 23 area sources con-
sidered the methodology employed and the reliability of projections are
presented in Chapter I of this report. The growth factors generated for all
the area sources by prid eel! are presented in Appendix A.
Growth factors were also developed for 63 industrial facilities within the
Erie-Niagara Region. Chapter II of this report describes each facility con-
sidered, and the methodology employed in projecting growth for the facility,
and the reliability of the projection.
The growth factors as developed and presented in this report, have been,
and will continue to be used by the New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation as data input for dispersion modelling, to simulate air
quality conditions within the region for the years 1982 and 1990, for the pur-
poses of future air quality maintenance planning efforts.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2956 by
the Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board under the sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a
period from August, 1978 to March, 1979, and work was completed as of
July, 1979.
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
FOREWORD . . . viii
ABSTRACT ix
TABLE OF-CONTENTS x
LIST OF FIGURES xvi
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1-1
CHAPTER II - AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS II-l
1. Residential Fuel II-8
2. Commercial/Institutional Fuel II-9
3. Industrial Fuel 11-10
4. On Site Incineration 11-11
5. Gasoline Fuel - Light Vehicle 11-12
b. Gasoline Fuel - Heavy Vehicle 11-13
7. Gasoline Fuel Off Highway -Small Gas Engines ..... 11-14
8. Gasoline Fuel Off Highway Farm Tractors 11-15
9. Diesel Fuel . Heavy Vehicle 11-16
10. Diesel Fuel Off Highway - Farm Tractors 11-17
1J. Diesel Fuel Off Highway - Construction Equipment . . . 11-18
12. Diesel Fuel - Railroad 11-19
13. Aircraft 11-20
14. Vessels 11-22
15. Dirt Roads Traveled 11-24
16. Dirt Airstrips 11-25
17. Construction Land Area - Construction Area 11-25
18. Construction Land Area- Cropland 11-26
19. Rock Handling and Storage 11-27
20. Slash Burning 11-28
21. Structural Fires 11-29
22. Reentrained Dust 11-30
23. Industrial Process Sources ,. 11-31
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (coot. )
PAGE NO.
CHAPTER III - FACILITY SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS III-l
1. Bethlehem Steel Corporation III-3
2. Clarence Hackett, Inc. III-4
3. Ashland Petroleum Company. '. III-5
4. Niagara Mohawk Huntiey Steam Station III-5
5. Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company III-6
6. FMC Corporation . . * III-7
7. J. H. Williams Company Ill-7
8. Tonawanda Coke Company III-8
9. Chevrolet - Tonawanda Motor Plant (River Rd. ) .... III-8
10. Chevrolet - Tonawanda Plant (Irene St.) III-8
11. Chevrolet Metal Casting Plant Ill-9
12. Chevrolet Forge Plant #3 111-10
13. Ford Motor Company ,. 111-10
14. Buffalo Color Corporation III-ll
15. The American Malting Company 111-12
16. Anaconda Company 111-13
17. Buffalo Evening News . 111-13
18. Buffalo Conservatory 111-14
19. Buffalo West Side Incinerator 111-14
20. Commodore Perry Homes & Extension 111-15
21. Donner-Tlanna Coke Company 111-15
22. Chevrolet Gear and Axyle 111-16
23. General Mills . . . . 111-17
24. Westvaco, H & D Container Division 111-17
25. Hanna Furnace Corporation 111-18
26. Allied Chemical Corporation 111-18
27. International Multifoods Company 111-19
28. Town of Tonawanda Incinerator 111-20
29. Marine Drive Apartment Complex 111-20
30. Mercy Hospital 111-21
31. Mobil Oil Corporation 111-21
32. Peavey Company 111-22
33. Republic Steel Corporation 111-23
34. Shenango Corporation . 111-24
35. Trico Products Corporation (Plant #2) 111-24
36. Trico Products Corporation (Plant #3) 111-24
37. Worthington CEI 111-25
38. State University of New York at Buffalo 111-26
39. Buffalo Public School #65 111-26
40. Upson Company 111-27
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont. )
PAGE NO.
CHAPTER II - FACILITY SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS (cont. )
41. Harrison Radiator Division (Plant #2) 111-27
42. Harrison Radiator Division (Plant #4) 111-27
43. Airco Speer Corporation 111-28
44. Pyron Company Ill-29
45. Union Carbide - National Division .....,, 111-30
46. Union Carbide - Acheson Division 111-30
47. Union Carbide - Republic Division 111-30
48. Electro-Minerals Division of Carborundum 111-30
49. Carborundum Globar 111-31
r"-0. General Abrasive Company 111-32
51. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company 111-32
52. Great Lakes Carbon Corporation ............... 111-33
53. Hooker Chemical Company 111-33
54. Hooker Chemicals and Plastics 111-33
55. DuPont Company 111-34
56. Linde Division of Union Carbide Corporation 111-35
57. Nabisco Company 111-36
58. Niagara Stone Division 111-36
59. Prestolite Battery Division 111-37
60. Nitec Paper Company 111-38
61. Bonded Abrasives Division of Carborundum 111-38
62. Durez Division -Hooker Chemical Company 111-39
63. R T Jones Lumber Company 111-40
APPENDIX A - AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS A-l
APPENDLX B - FACILITY GROWTH FACTORS B-l
APPENDIX C -STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRES C-l
REFERENCES R-l
XI1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
I Grid Cells by Municipality II-4
II Grid Cells by NFTC Traffic Analysis Zone II-6
A-l Summary of Area Source Growth lrac tors A-l
A-2 Residential Fuel Growth Factors A-3
A-3 Commercial Institutional Fuel Growth Factors .. . A-7
A-4 Industrial Fuel Growth Factors A-ll
A-5 On-Site Incineration Growth Factors A-14
A-6 Gas Fuel - Light Vehicle Growth Factors A-15
A-7 Gasoline Fuel Heavy Vehicle Growth Factors .. . A-19
A-8 Gasoline Fuel - Off Highway Small Gas Engines
Growth Factors . A-23
A-9 Gas Fuel - Off Highway (Farm Tractors) Growth
Factors A-Z7
A-10 Diesel Fuel Heavy Vehicles Growth Factors ... . A-29
A-11 Diesel Fuel - Off Highway (Farm Tractors)
Growth Factors A-33
A-I2 Diesel Fuel Off Highway (Construction Equipment)
Growth Factors A-35
A-13 Diesel Fuel - Railroads Growth Factors A-39
A-14 Aircraft Growth Factors A-41
A-15 Vessel Growth Factors A-42
xm
-------
LJ5T OF TABLES (cont.)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
A-16 Dirt Roads Travelled Growth Factors A-43
A-17 Dirt Airstrips Growth Factors A-47
A-18 Construction Land Area (Construction Area).....
Growth Factors A-48
A-19 Construction Land Area (Cropland) Growth Factors A-52
A-20 Rock Handling and Storage Growth Factors A-54
A-21 Slash Burning Growth Factors A-55
A-22 Structural Fires Growth Factors A-56
A-23 Reentrained Dust Growth Factors A-60
A-24(a-s) Industrial Process Area Sources Growth Factors . A-64-75
A-24a SIC Group 20 - Food and Kindred Products A-64
A-24b SIC Group 22 - Textile Mill Products A-65
A-24c SIC Group 23 - Apparel and Other Textile Products A-65
A-24d SIC Group 24 - Lumber and Wood Products A-65
A-24e SIC Group 25 - Furniture and Fixtures A-66
A-24f SIC Group 26 - Paper and Allied Products A-66
A-24g SIC Group 27 - Printing and Publishing A-67
A-24h SIC Group 28 - Chemicals and Allied Products . . . A-68
A-24i SIC Group 29 - Petroleum Products A-68
A-24J SIC Group 30 - Rubber and Plastics Products . . . A-69
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
A-24k SIC Group 31 - Leather and Leather Products .... A-69
A-241 SIC Group 32 - Stone, Glass and Clay Products . . . A-70
A-24m SIC Group 33 - Primary Metal Industries A-71
A-24n SIC Group 34 - Fabricated Metal Products A-72
A-24o SIC Group 35 - Machinery, excluding Electric . . . A-73
A-24p SIC Group 36 - Electrical equipment and Supplies . A-74
A-24q SIC Group 37 - Industries - Transportation
Equipment A-74
A-24r SIC Group 38 - Instruments and Related A-75
A-24s SIC Group 39 -Miscellaneous Manufacturing .... A-75
B-l Summary of Facility Growth Factors B-l
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
Niagara Frontier Air Quality
Maintenance Area 1-3
Non-Attainment Areas within the
Niagara Frontier 1-4
Niagara Frontier AQMA Grid Cell
Matrix 1-5
xvi
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
On August 18, 1978, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) authorized the Erie and Niagara Count'"? T\<.»gional Planning Board
(ENCRPB) to proceed with developing growth factors for various area and
point source facilities which emit either particulate matter or sulphur
dioxide within the Erie-Niagara, New York Air Quality Maintenance Area
(AQMA).
The Niagara Frontier AQMA is comprised of Erie and Niagara Counties,
located at the westerly end of New York State, as shown in Figure 1. Cur-
rently, the Niagara Frontier AQMA has several sub areas within the region
which do not meet Federal Air Quality standards for particulate matter or
sulphur dioxide. These areas are delineated as shown in Figure 2.
As a result, New York State has been mandated by the Federal Govern-
ment to prepare Air Quality State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions for
the Niagara Frontier AQMA, which will bring the region into an air quality
attainment status. The results of this study, discussed subsequently, form
a basis for part of the STP revision,
During the course of this study, a review of the existing base year
(1975) point and area source emission inventory for the Niagara Frontier
AQMA was undertaken.
In the base year inventory, twenty-two (22) categories of area sources
that emit particulates and sulphur dioxide were allocated to 316 grid squares
ranging in size from 1 to 100 square kilometers. Figure 3 details the grid
system and its relationship to the AQMA. An additional 26 grid squares
were also located in the contiguous area of the Dominion of Canada.
Additionally, there were approximately 464 facilities that were consi-
dered in the point source inventory. Approximately 275 of the facilities
were identified as having emissions between one and a half to 25 tons per
year. The remaining facilities, approximately 189, were identified as
having emissions greater than 25 tons per year.
1-1
-------
Within the scope of this study, twenty-three (23) area sources were
evaluated for the potential of growth for the years 1982 and 1990, considering
1975 data as the base year.
Evaluation for the potential of growth was primarily based upon demo-
graphic data which was compatible with the area source under consideration.
Also within the scope of this study was consideration of 63 industrial
facilities, which were evaluated for growth for the years 1982 and 1990.
Again, the base year for growth reference was 1975.
The 63 industrial facilities selected for analysis were identified by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and
generally either have emissions greater than 50 tons per year, or are
located in or contiguous to an area of non-attainment.
As was previous ly mentioned, the results of this study, that is the
growth projections, form a basis for part of the SIP revision in the follow-
ing manner.
The growth factors developed herein, coupled with known emissions
from the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory are treated as input in
an air quality dispersion model to simulate air quality conditions in 1982
and 1990. Based upon the models output, various controls and/or strategies
may then be necesb'-.ry in order to achieve air quality standards for sulphur
dioxide or par tic u late matter.
Consequently, the results from this study are primarily being consi-
dered for the New York State Implementation Plan revisions of 1978 for the
Niagara Frontier AUMA.
The results from this study will further be used for air quality main-
tenance planning., that is, the planning for the addition of new facilities
within air quality sensitive areas throughout the Niagara Frontier AQMA.
1-2
-------
NIAGARA FRONTIER AQMA
N
024 Miles
I I I
SCALE
Figure 1 - Niagara Frontier Air
Quality Maintenance Area
PRIMARY NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS FOR
SO2/TSPAND UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
(See Figure 2 (or details!
coiotN I VHOUANO
1-3
-------
N
I I I
2 Miles
SCALE
Figure 2 - Non Attainment Areas within
the Niagara Frontier
A
B
£J
Primary Non-Attainment Areas
Primary Non-Attainment Areas
Primary Unclassified Areas.
for
1-4
-------
170
180
190
200
210
4800
4790
4780
4770
4760
4750
4740
4730
4720
4710
ulm / kilometer
_ \.
EE
NIAGARA,'
FALLS '
J-
I TONAWANDA
I
N
0 5
Miles |
Kilometers I
0 10
LEGEND
BUfFALO
LACKAWANNA |
LOCKPORT
T
MORTH I
ONAWANDAl
Area Source Grid
-"County Boundary
0s-
DErTW
4800
4790
4780
4770
4760
4750
4740
4730
4720
4710
160
170
180
190
200
210
FIGURE 3. Niagara Frontier AOMA Grid Cell Matrix
1-5
-------
CHAPTER II
AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS
Area sources are generally perceived as "domestic" types of air pollu-
tion with emissions resulting from space heating, transportation, incinera-
tion and so on. These kinds of emissions are -J if!.'.ult to pinpoint so they
are usually analyzed over some geographic area sach as a census tract,
municipality or county. Each area source represents the total of all minute
quantities of air pollutants that are discharged over a particular geographic
area. While each source may emit only a small quantity of air pollutants,
because of the great number of sources, their collective impact may be
very significant.
Because of their ubiquitous nature, area sources which were analyzed
in the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, were considered over
the entire bi-county area. In determining emissions for the various area
sources, various geographic and demographic data was previously utilized.
In most cases, this data was accurate to the county level.
Because smaller geographic areas were necessary to provide accurate
output during dispersion modeling, it became necessary to disaggregate the
bi-county area into smaller geographical units, referred to as grid cells.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, the Erie-Niagara
Region was divided into 316 grid cells, as previously detailed in Figure 3.
These grid cells ranged in size from one to 100 square kilometers. The
more urbanized or industrialized portions of the region were divided into
smaller grids, -while the balance of the area, where the quantity of
emissions per unit area was considered less, was assigned grids covering
a larger territory.
These grids as developed were an artificial delineation of the region;
they did not correspond to either municipal boundaries or any other type
of geographical unit from which data was used to project emissions. As a
result, data which was considered during the 1975 Emissions Inventory,
was usually disaggregated from the county, Niagara Frontier Transporta-
tion Committee (NFTC) Traffic Analysis Zone or municipality level down
to the grid cell level.
During the course of this study, and in the process of building upon the
1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, growth factors were developed
for 23 area sources,
II-1
-------
In the development of growth factors for the area sources, this study
considered various existing and projected demographic data. Various
demographic data, usually projected through the year 1990, when compared
with existing (1975) data, formed the basis for what was considered to be a
growth projection.
As was previously mentioned, much of the projected demographic data
is in a format where the smallest geographical unit is usually the county,
municipality or traffic analysis zone. Since these geographical boundaries
do not necessarily coincide with the grid cell dyrtein developed during the
1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, grovvth factors generated as a
result of comparing existing and projected data at the municipal or NFTC
traffic analysis zone level, were by necessity disaggregated uniformly to
the grid cell level.
This concept can best be illustrated by considering an area source in
which the most compatible demographic data available is presented to the
municipality level. In this case, growth projections obtained as a result
of comparing existing with projected data within the municipality would
then be disaggregated uniformly to the grid cell level. The relationship
between the municipal geographical boundaries and the grid cell matrix
is detailed in Table 1.
Similarly, considering an area source in which the most compatible
data available is presented to the NFTC Traffic Analysis Zone level would
then lead to disaggregating uniformly to the grid cell level. The relation-
ship between the NFTC Traffic Analysis Zone and the grid cell matrix is
detailed in Table 2.
What follows in the balance of this chapter is individual descriptions
for each of the 23 area sources, of:
o a description of the methodology used in the 1975 emissions
inventory to allocate emissions to each grid,
o a description of the data and methodology utilized in this
study to develop growth factors, and
o an estimate of the reliability of the growth factor projections
so derived.
These estimates of the reliability of the growth projections consisted
of one of the following four descriptors: "reliable", "reasonably reliable",
"questionable" and "unreliable".
II-2
-------
For a growth projection to be considered "reliable" required the
following:
o actual trend projections for 1982 and 1990, based on historical
data
o data that was directly applicable or related to the area
source in question, and
o data within a geographical area smaller than the county
level.
The term "reasonably reliable" was used for those projections made
where only two of the above conditions were met. Further, growth factors
were considered "questionable" when one condition was met, and "unre-
liable" when none of the above conditions existed.
When any of the above conditions were not present, major assumptions
were made, and are described in the individual narratives for each area
source.
U- 3
-------
TABLE 1 - GRID CELLS BY MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPALITY
ERIE COUNTY
Buffalo (C)
Lackawanna (C)
Tonawanda (C)
ALden
Alden (V)
Amherst
Williamsville (V)
Aurora
E. Aurora (V)
Boston
Brant
Farnham (V)
Cheektowaga
Depew (V) (pt)
Sloan (V)
Clarence
Golden
Collins
Gowanda (V) (pt)
Concord
Springville (V)
Eden
Elma
GRID CELL
103, 212-293
294-8, 302-3,
305
75, 76
153
79-80, 88-91,
94-101
156,157
179, 180
187, 190
104-22, 124-6,
137-8, 145-6
81, 84, 87
181
198
184, 185, 199,
100
174, 176
150, 151, 155,
158
MUNICIPALITY
Evans
Angola (V)
Grand Island
Hamburg
Hamburg (V)
Blasdell (V)
Holland
Lancaster
Lancaster (V)
Depew (V)
Marilla
Newstead
Akron (V)
North Collins
North Collins (V)
Orchard Park
Orchard Park (V)
Sardinia
Tonawanda
Kenmore (V)
Wales
W. Seneca
GRID CELL
73, 188, 189
62-3, 69, 71-72,
74
161-2, 164, 175,
177, 196-7, 304
182
85-6, 139-144,
147-9, 152
154
82, 83
186
159, 160, 163,
178
183, 201, 202
70, 92, 93, 102,
203-11
123, 127-36
299-301
II-4
-------
Table 1 - Grid Cells by Municipality (cont. )
MUNICIPALITY
GRID CELL
MUNICIPALITY
GRID CELL
NIAGARA COUNTY
Lockport (C)
Niagara Falls (C)
N. Tonawanda (C)
Cambria
Hart land
Middleport (V)
Lewiston
Lewiston (V)
Lockport
Ncwfane
Niagara
Pendleton
Porter
Youngstown (V)
Royalton
Somerset
Barker (V)
16, 18-22,
24-27
39-42, 44,
46-7, 165-71,
173, 49-52, 61,
192-3, 195,
306-315
64-68
28, 29
10
33-38, 43
12-15, 17, 23
2, 3, 9
45, 48, 172
77, 78
6, 7
11
1
Wheatfield
Wilson
Wilson (V)
30, 32, 53-60
4, 5, 8
II-5
-------
Table 2 - GRID CELLS BY NFTC TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE
NFTC
TAZ
00
10
11
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
31
32
33
34
35
LOCATION
Buffalo
Buff a lo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Grand Island
Tonawanda
(Tn. )
Amherst
Cheektowaga
West Seneca
Lackawanna
GRID CELLS
261-3
233, 246-9
235, 244-5,
250-1
260, 264-5,
274-7
213-9, 227-32,
234
212, 220-6
236-43, 252-4
255-9, 266-73
280-3, 287-90
278-9, 284-6,
291-3
63, 70, 72
92-3, 102,
205-11
90-1, 94-5,
100-1, 103
104, 109-14,
119-22, 124
123, 129-34,
299-301
294-8, 302-3,
305
NFTC
TAZ
40
41
LOCATION
Grand Is land
Tonawanda &
N. Tona. (C)
42 . \rnherst
i
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
GRID CELLS
62, 69, 71
59, 64-8, 74-6
203-4
80
Amherst J79
Amherst
Cheektowaga
West Seneca
Orchard Park
Orchard Park
Hamburg
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Wheatfield
Pendleton
Clarence
88-9, 96-9
105-8, 115-8,
125-6, 137-8,
145-6
127-8, 135-6
159-60
163
161, 196-7, 304
40-2, 44, 46,
50, 165-9,
192-3, 306,
310-12
47, 49, 51-2,
61, 170-1, 173
195, 307-9,
313-15
30, 32, 53-60
77-8
81, 87
II-6
-------
Table 2 - Grid Cells by NFTC Traffic Analysis Zone (cont. )
NFTC
TAZ
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
72
73
74
75
LOCATION
Lancaster
Elma
*
Aurora
Orchard Park
Hamburg
Lockport
Clarence
Lancaster
Elma
Aurora
Niagara
Lewiston
Porter
Wilson,
Cambria
Newfane
Somerset,
Hartland,
Royalton
Newstead,
Alden
Marilla,
Wales
GRID CELLS
86, 138-44,
147-9
150, 158
157
178
162, 164, 175
177
12-27
84
85, 152
151, 155
156
6, 7, 31, 32-9,
43, 45, 48,
172
4-5, 8
28-9
2-3, 9
1, 10-11
82-3, 153
154
NFTC
TAZ
76
77
78
79
LOCATION
Golden
Holland
Sardinia
Boston,
Concord
Eden,
N. Collins,,
Collins
Evans,
Brant
GRID CELLS
181-3, 201-2
179-80, 184-5,
199-200
174, 176, 186,
198
73, 187-91,
194
II-7
-------
RESIDENTIAL FUEL
The residential fue! category refers to the combustion of fuels for such
residential uses as space heating, water heating and cooking. All residen-
tial dwellings from single family residences to apartment complexes make
up this category.
In the preparation of the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emission Inventory, it
was reported that a fuel survey was conducted to determine the quantity of
fuel utilized in the Erie-Niagara Region. This data was then calibrated
with 1970 Census tract values for dwelling am p r structure and National
Weather Service heating degree day information io determine emissions
from this area source.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for residential fuel, it
was, for the purposes of this study, determined that population data would
closely approximate the growth or decline associated with this area source.
Population data from the ENCRPB 208 Water Quality Management
Program^, which provides information on existing and projected population
through the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region was considered the most
applicable, current and reliable data available.
Although the data contained within the ENCRPB's 208 Population
Report is presented to the municipality level, that is, town, village or
city, it was not necessary to disaggregate this data to the grid cell level
since 1" = 2 mile population dot maps were available.
The population dot maps indicate population centers and densities, and
when using dot maps to compare present data, assumed to be 1975 in this
case, with projected data for 1980 and 1990, one can readily determine the
areas where growth or decline is indicated.
By superimposing a 1" = 2 mile Erie-Niagara Grid cell map, Figure 3,
over the respective population dot maps, a determination as to the present
population as well as change in population per grid cell for the years 1980
and 1990 was noted.
Since population data for 1982 was not available, a straight line inter-
polation of 1980 and 1990 data was used.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Quality Management Program, Report 5,
Population - Present and Future, October, 1978
II-8
-------
Growth factors for this area source range from 0.25 to 2.62 for 1982,
and from 0 to 5. 00 for 3990.
Based upon the detail and age of the data utilized, together with the
geographical fit of the data ho the grid cell matrix, the growth factors by
grid cell presented in Appendix A for residential fuel are considered
reliable.
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL FUEL
The commercial/institutional fuel category refers to the combustion
of fuels for such purposes as space and water heating, cooking, and so on.
Commercial establishments such as retail and wholesale stores, govern-
mental buildings, hospitals, schools, churches and restaurants made up
this category.
From the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, it was deter-
mined that essentially all emissions related to this source occurred as a
result of the combustion of natural gas or heating oil. It was also con-
cluded that there was no commercial/institutional area source coal or
residual oil usage within the Erie-Niagara Region.
During the 1975 emissions inventory, wholesale, retail and service
employment for the year 1972, obtained from the NFTC, was used to
allocate fuel usag~ by grids.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the commercial/
institutional fuel category, it was, for the purposes of this study, deter-
mined that land use data, that is, retail/commercial and public/semipublic
land use would most closely approximate the growth or decline associated
with this area source.
Land use data from the ENCRPB 208 Water Quality Management
Prograrrr, which provides data on existing and projected land use through
the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region, was considered the most
applicable, current and reliable data to utilize.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Quality Management Program, Report 6,
Land Use - Present and Future, October, 1978
II-9
-------
Since the data contained wibhin the ENCRPB's 208 Land Use Report is
presented to the municipality level, that is, city, town or village, it was
necessary to first determine the growth or decline in commercial and
public/semipublic land use and then disaggregate from the municipality
level to the grid cell level, as detailed in Table 1.
Growth factors for this area, source range from 1.00 to 1.33 for 1982,
and from 1. 00 to 1. 73 for 1990.
Based upon the detail and age of the daf=> "ti!i7,cd, together with the
applicability of the data to the area source, t'u grovvth factors presented
by grid cell in Appendix A for commercial/institutional fuel are considered
reliable.
INDUSTRIAL FUEL
The industrial fuel category refers to the combustion of fuels by all
manufacturing industries for uses such as space heating and other in-plant
operations.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, a light industrial
fuel usage survey was conducted within the Erie-Niagara Region. Allocation
of the fuels was then made using 1972 manufacturing employment data pro-
vided by the NFTC by traffic analysis zone, and were disaggregated to the
grid cell level uniformly.
Since the number of industrial facilities (63) considered during the
present study is somewhat less than the number of point sources (264) con-
sidered during the 1975 Emissions Inventory, the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation requested that growth projections be
provided for the larger industrial fuel area source category, rather than
the light industrial fuel area source category considered in the 1975 study.
To provide growth factors for the years 1982 and 1990 for industrial
fuel, it was determined, for the purposes of this study, that manufacturing
employment data would approximate the growth or decline associated with
this area source.
Manufacturing employment data from the ENCRPB's Economic
Development Study*, which provides existing and projected manufacturing
1 ENCRPB, "Economic Development in the Erie-Niagara Region",
June 1975
11-10
-------
employment data by place of work through the year 2000 for the Erie-
Niagara Region, was consider*-'-! the most applicable, current and reliable
data available.
Since the data contained within the Economic Development Study is
presented to the municipality level, that is, city, town or subregion, it
was first necessary to determine the growth or decline in manufacturing
employment by place of work within the respective municipality, and then
disaggregate uniformly to the grid cell levels as detailed in Table 1.
Growth factors for this area source, win presented by grid cell
in Appendix A, range from 1. 00 to 1. 32 for the /ear 1982, and from 1. 00 to
1.67 for the year 1990.
Based upon the detail and age of the data utilized, together with the
applicability of the data to the area source, the growth factors developed
for the industrial fuel category are considered reasonably reliable.
ON SITE INCINERATION
The on site incineration category refers to the combustion of waste
material in small incinerators such as those used at grocery and depart-
ment stores, hospitals, schools and banks, which would not be considered
as a point source of emission.
In the development of the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory,
it was assumed that ali such sources within this category, were included
within their point source inventory survey.
In the course of projecting growth for the on site incineration category,
it was noted that all new incinerators are subject to NYSDEC Permit to
Construct and Certificate to Operate requirements.
Because of a lack of relevant data, and because the NYSDEC controls
whatever growth may occur in this category, it was assumed that little if
any growth will be experienced for this category, and that a growth factor
of 1.0 for both 1982 and 1990, as indicated in Appendix A, is warranted.
Since emissions from this area source are considered insignificant,
the lack of a detailed analysis was considered justified.
Nevertheless, the projections for this area source are considered
questionable.
II-11
-------
GASOLINE FUEL - LIGHT VEHICLE
The gasoline fuel ;5^1<: vehicle category refers to the combustion of
gasoline fuel for automobile.-! and light duty trucks.
A review of the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory indicates
that gasoline consumption for that study was calculated by considering data
on vehicle miles traveled (YMT), by traffic analysis zones, as provided by
the New York State Deportment of Transportation (NYSDOT), with an
assumed gasoline consumption of 13. 6 mi!o - a lion.
In the course of projecting growth for the V^-TS 1982 and 1990 for the
gasoline fuel - light vehicle category, for this study, it was determined that
existing and projected vehicle miles traveled data would most closely
approximate the growth or decline associated with this area source.
This type of information, that is, existing (1975) and projected VMT
data to the year 198*7 by Traffic Analysis Zones, was provided by the
Niagara Frontier Transportation Committee. An interpolation and extra-
polation of this data provided Vehicle Miles Traveled by traffic analysis
zone for the years 1982 and 1990 respectively.
Since the EFA has mandated corporate average vehicle fleet efficiencies
up to 27. 5 miles per gallon for the year 1985, then to hold at that level, it is
apparent that rot"'sumption and likewise combustion of gasoline would
decrease in the foreseeable future.
Further information supplied by the NYSDOT, which considers auto-
motive energy forecasts and efficiencies, indicated that the fleet efficiencies
for the years 1982 and 1990 would be 18. 95 and 26.26 mpg respectively.
For the purposes of this report, fuel efficiencies of 14.7, 18.3 and 25.5
miles per gallon for the years 1975, 1982 and 1990 respectively were utilized.
Knowing the existing and projected vehicle traffic within the previously
mentioned Traffic Analysis Zones, and considering the above mentioned
automotive efficiencies, gasoline consumption per zone was computed for
the years 1975, 1982 and 1990.
Growth projections were then generated by comparing the 1982 and
1990 fuel consumptions with those obtained for 1975, by Traffic Analysis
Zone.
Preliminary Research Report 133, NYSDOT, Dec. 1977
11-12
-------
These growth factors were liien disaggregated from the Traffic
Analysis Zone to the grid cell ;e/el as detailed in Table 2.
Growth factors for this area source range from 0.69 to 2.61 for the
year 1982, and from 0.49 t<-> :> 37 for the year 1990.
Based upon the detail of the data utilized, coupled with applicability
of the data to the area source, the growth factors by grid cell presented
in Appendix A for gasoline fuel - light vehicle category are considered to
be reliable within the metropolican areas and fn'-st ring towns of the region.
GASOLINE FUEL - HEAVY VEHICLE
The gasoline fuel - heavy vehicle category refers to the combustion of
gasoline fuel for heavy duty trucks and buses.
A review of the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory indicates
that gasoline consumption was calculated by considering NYSDOT vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) data within traffic analysis zones, with an assumed
gasoline consumption of 8.4 miles per gallon.
In terms of projecting growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the gaso-
line fuel - heavy vehicle category, for the current study, it was determined
that existing and projected vehicle miles traveled data would most closely
approximate the growth or decline associated with this area source.
This type of information, that is, existing (1975) and projected VMT
data to the year 1985 by Traffic Analysis Zones, was provided by the NFTC
and was used to analyze the gasoline fuel - light vehicle category, as
previously reported.
Likewise for this area source, this same data was again utilized, after
considering that the split between light and heavy vehicles would remain
relatively constant through the year 1990 over each Traffic Analysis Zone.
By interpolation and extrapolation of this data, vehicle miles traveled by
traffic analysis zone for the years 1982 and 1990 was then determined.
Growth projections were then generated by comparing the 1982 and
1990 projected vehicle mileage with those obtained for 1975, by Traffic
Analysis Zone.
These growth factors were then disaggregated from the Traffic
Analysis Zone to the grid cell level as detailed in Table 2.
U-13
-------
Growth factors for this area source range from 0.93 to 3.25 for the
year 1982, and from 0. 86 to 5, 84 for the year 1990.
Based upon the detail of the data utilized, coupled with the applicability
of the data to the area ~-iu-ce, the growth factors presented by grid cell in
Appendix A for the gasoline tuel - heavy vehicle category are considered to
be reasonably reliable within the metropolitan areas and first ring towns
of the region.
GASOLINE FUEL OFF HIGHWAY - X.../\i,L, GAS ENGINES
This category refers to the combustion of gasoline by lawn mowers,
garden tractors, snowmobiles, minibikes, etc.
In the 1975 Niagarti Frontier Emissions Inventory, fuel usage for this
area source was estimated by using New York State Economic Development
Board (NYSEDB) county population projections for 1975 considering a fuel
usage of 13 gallons per person per year. 1973 NFTC population by traffic
analysis zone was then used to determine the area source grid allocation.
With regards to projecting growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for
gasoline fuel -small gas engines, for the current study, it was determined
that population data would approximate the growth or decline associated with
this area source.
Population data from the ENCRPB 208 Water Uuality Management Pro-
gram1, which provides information on existing and projected population
through the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region was considered the most
applicable, current and reliable data available.
As previously reported, the data contained within the ENCRPB's 208
population report is presented to the municipality level, that is, town,
village or city. However, it was not necessary to disaggregate this data
to the grid cell level since 1" = 2 mile population dot maps were available.
By superimposing the 1" = 2 mile Erie-Niagara grid cell map,
Figure 3 over the respective population dot maps, a determination as to
the present population as well as change in population per grid cell for the
years 1980 and 1990 was noted.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Quality Management Program, Report 5,
Population - Present and Future, October, 1978
11-14
-------
Since population data for 1982 was not available, a straight line inter-
polation of 1980 and 1990 data was used.
Growth factors for this area source range from 0.25 to 2.62 for 1982,
and from 0 to 5. 00 for 1990.
Based upon the detail and age of the data utilized, together with the
geographical fit of the data to the grid-cell matrix, the growth factors pre-
sented by grid cell in Appendix A for the gasoline fuel - off highway - small
gas engines category are considered reasonably reliable.
GASOLINE FUEL OFF HIGHWAY - FARM TRACTORS
The gasoline fuel off highway - farm tractor category refers to the com-
bustion of gasoline by farm equipment for agricultural purposes.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, data from the
New York State Department of Agriculture and Marketing was obtained, and
detailed 1973 fuel usage for agriculture purposes. This formed the basis
for the allocation factors utili2,ed and assigned to this area source.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the gasoline fuel off
highway farm tractory category for this study, it was determined that
employment data would most closely approximate the growth or decline
associated with this area source.
Agricultural employment data from the ENCRPB 208 Water Uuality
Management Program*, which provides data on existing and projected
employment through the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region, was con-
sidered the most current, reliable and applicable data to utilize.
Since agricultural employment within the region is projected to be con-
stant through the year 1990, the associated growth factors for the gasoline
fuel off highway - farm tractor category are projected to remain the same.
Consequently, a growth factor of 1.0 for both 1982 and 1990 is projected
for those grid cells which were identified as having agricultural activity in
the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Uuality Management Program, Report 5
Population/Socio-Economic Analysis Present and Future, October 1978
11-15
-------
Based upon the data utilized, coupled with the applicability of the data
to the area source, the growth factors presented by grid cell in Appendix
A for the gasoline fuel off highway - farm tractors category are considered
reasonably reliable.
DIESEL FUEL - HEAVY VEHICLE
The diesel fuel - heavy vehicle category refers to the combustion of
diesel fuel for heavy duty trucks and buses.
A review of the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory indicates
that diesel fuel consumption was calculated during the course of that study
by considering NYSDOT vehicle miles traveled within traffic analysis zones,
with an assumed diesel fuel consumption of 5.1 miles per gallon.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the diesel fuel - heavy
vehicle category for this study, it was determined that existing and projected
vehicle miles traveled data would most closely approximate the growth or
decline associated with this area source.
This type of information, that is, existing (1975) and projected VMT
data to the year 1985 by Traffic Analysis Zones was provided by the Niagara
Frontier Transportation Committee, and as previously reported was used
to analyze the gasoline fuel - light vehicle category.
Likewise for this area source, the same data was again utilized, after
considering that first the split between light and heavy vehicles would remain
relatively constant, and secondly, that the split amoungst heavy vehicle
gasoline and diesel vehicles would not change appreciably.
By interpolation and extrapolation of this data, vehicle miles traveled
by traffic analysis zone for the years 1982 and 1990 was then determined.
Growth projections were then generated by comparing the 1982 and 1990
projected vehicle mileage with those obtained for 1975, by Traffic Analysis
Zone. These growth factors were then disaggregated from the Traffic
Analysis Zone to the grid cell level as detailed in Table 2.
Growth factors for this area source range from 0.93 to 3.25 for the
year 1982, and from 0.86 to 5.84 for the year 1990.
II-16
-------
Based upon the detail of the data utilized coupled with the applicability
of the data to the area source, the growth factors presented by grid cell in
Appendix A for the diesel fuel - heavy vehicle are considered to be reason-
ably reliable within the metropolitan areas and first ring towns of the region.
DIESEL FUEL OFF HIGHWAY - FARM TRACTORS
The diesel fuel off highway - farm tractor category refers to the com-
bustion of diesel fuel by farm equipment for agricultural purposes.
In compiling the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, data from
the New York State Department of Agriculture and Marketing was obtained
and detailed 1973 fuel usage for agriculture purposes. This formed the
basis for the allocation factors utilized and assigned to this area source.
In projecting growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the diesel fuel
highway farm tractor category for the present study, it was determined that
employment data would most closely approximate the growth or decline
associated with this area source.
Agricultural employment data from the ENCRPB 208 Water Quality
Management Program, which provides data on existing and projected
employment through the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region, was con-
sidered the most current, reliable and applicable data to utilize.
Since agricultural employment within the region is projected to be
constant through the year 1990, the associated growth factors for the diesel
fuel off highway - farm tractors category are projected to remain the same.
Consequently, the growth factor of 1. 0 for both 1982 and 1990 is pro-
jected for those grid cells which were identified as having agricultural
activity in the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory.
Based upon the data utilized, coupled with the applicability of the data
to the area source, the growth factors presented by grid cell in Appendix A
for the diesel fuel off highway - farm tractors category are considered
reasonably reliable.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Quality Management Program, Report 5
Population/Socio-Economic Analysis - Present and Future,
October 1978
11-17
-------
DIESEL FUEL OFF HIGHWAY - CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
This category applies to the combustion of diesel fuel by construction
equipment, compressors, generators, etc.
In the course of the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, con-
struction equipment fuel usage was obtained by considering data from the
1975 Mineral Industrial Survey and the" New York State Department of
Agriculture fuel survey. After disaggregating fuel usage to Erie and
Niagara Counties, 1972 Niagara Frontier Transportation Committee con-
struction employment by Traffic Analysis Zom' data was used to determine
the area source grid allocation values for this category.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 in the present study for
the diesel fuel off highway - construction equipment category, it was deter-
mined that construction employment data would closely approximate the
growth or decline associated with this area source.
Construction employment data from the ENCRPB's Economic Develop-
ment Study\ which provides existing and projected construction employment
data by place of work through the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region,
was considered the most applicable, current and reliable data available.
Since the data contained within the Economic Development Study is pre-
sented to the municipality level, that is, city, town, or sub-region, it was
first necessary to determine the growth or decline in construction employ-
ment by place of work within the respective municipality, and then disaggre-
gate uniformly to the grid cell level, as detailed in Table 1.
Growth factors for this area source range from 0.67 to 3.25 for the
year 1982, and from 0.67 to 3.25 for the year 1990.
Based upon the detail and age of the data utilized, together with the
applicability of the data to the area source, the growth factors presented by
grid cell in Appendix A for the diesel fuel off highway - construction equip-
ment category are considered reasonably reliable.
ENCRPB - Economic Development in the Erie-Niagara Region,
June 1975
11-18
-------
DIESEL FUEL - RAILROAD
This category refers to area source emissions from railroad switch-
yard operations and long haul transportation activities.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, fuel usage data
from two of the Railroad companies operating in the region was obtained.
Fuel usage from two additional companies was estimated by considering the
average daily activity of the company, assuming a fuel consumption of 9
gallons/train mile. Allocation factors for this area source were then dis-
tributed to the grid cells in which major switci yards and main transporta-
tion lines are located.
For the present study, it was determined that correspondence with each
railroad company would probably provide a reasonable indication of the
trend in their respective activities, and thus form the basis for projecting
growth for this category for the years 1982 and 1990.
The major railroad companies operating in the region were contacted
and asked to provide data on the number of train miles traveled or number
of trains on particular lines for the most recent year. Conrail, Amtrak,
Norfolk and Western and the Delaware and Hudson responded. The New
York State Department of Transportation was then contacted to provide
recent train mile information for the balance of the railroad companies
that operate within the region.
This data was used to project fuel consumption, using the same meth-
odology employed in the 1975 Emissions Inventory, and was then compared
with the fuel consumption figures from the 1975 document.
The resulting growth factors were then assigned uniformly to all grid
cells which were identified as having railroad activity during the 1975
Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, with further consideration being
given to the consolidation of rail facilities in the region since 1975.
Growth factors for this area source, which are presented in Appendix
A, are 0. 95 for 1982 and 0. 96 for 1990.
Based upon the data available, the analysis performed and the fact that
a recent consolidation of rail facilities has occurred, the growth factors
developed for this area source are considered reasonably reliable.
11-19
-------
AIRCRAFT
The aircraft category represents fuel consumption for commercial,
military and civilian airciaft during landings and takeoffs, as well as
ground operations such as idling and taxiing.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, information
from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Activity publi-
cation for 1975 provided operational data for airports with FAA regulated
control towers. Additional data on Landing and takeoff activity for the
majority of remaining airports in the two-court/ area was provided by the
NYSDOT.
For the purposes of this study, source aata was broken down into three
components; commercial, military, and civil aircraft. Each of these com-
ponents is discussed below:
Commercial Aircraft
Commercial aircraft in the two-county region operate primarily from
the Greater Buffalo International Airport and, to a lesser degree, from the
Niagara Falls International Airport.
During an interview with a representative of the Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority (NFTA), it was Learned that the agency is cur-
rently preparing an airport master plan. However, it was noted that the
best available data is contained in a study that was commissioned by the
NFTA during the mid-seventies. This study provided historical data for
1975 in addition to forecasts of annual operations at live year intervals up
to and including 1995.
Official forecasts for commercial aviation at Niagara Falls Inter-
national Airport were unavailable; however, through an interview with the
airport manager, it was learned that the bulk of the airport's traffic was
limited to charter service. Although changing trends in charter flights
did present some negative effects on current airport operations, it was
anticipated that overall charter activity would increase moderately in the
future.
Based on the technical data available and interviews with government
and airport officials, growth factors of 1.23 for 1982 and 1.60 for 1990 are
considered to be reliable for Greater Buffalo International Airport while
projections for Niagara Falls International Airport of 1.10 for 1982 and
1.20 for 1990 are considered reasonably reliable.
11-20
-------
Military Aircraft
Military aircraft activity is Limited primarily to the region's two major
commercial airports; Greater Buffalo International and Niagara Falls Inter-
national.
In determining growth xactors for this area source, interviews with an
FAA official, military base commander, and airport manager indicated that
no substantial changes in the level of operations were anticipated in the
foreseeable future.
Based on information obtained from the sources cited above, both air-
ports were assigned growth factors of 1.0 as shown in Appendix A. These
projected growth factors may be considered to be reliable,
Civil Aircraft
Several sources were used to determine growth factors. For civilian
aircraft activity at Greater Buffalo International Airport, the Regional
Airport Study, Part Three A: Feasiblity of Using Existing Airports was
used to forecast general aviation activity to the year 1995. Document
FAA-AVP-77-17, Terminal Area Forecast published by the Federal Avia-
tion Administration was used as source material to determine civil aviation
activity at the Niagara Falls International Airport. In addition to these
sources, telephone interviews with NFTA officials and federal aviation
representatives were undertaken. Based on information obtained from the
sources cited, growth factors of 1. 55 for the year 1982, and 2.18 for the
year 1990 were developed for Niagara Falls International Airport, and 1.16
and 1.13 for those same years at Greater Buffalo International Airport.
To project the growth for this category considering the private air-
strips within the region, it was determined that communication with the
airstrip owners or managers would provide a good indication of the general
trend of civil aircraft activity.
Each of the private airstrips within the Erie-Niagara Region were con-
tacted, first by telephone where possible, and then by correspondence,
requesting that they complete and return a standard questionnaire as shown
in Appendix C.
Following review of those questionnaires returned, growth projections
were developed by averaging the land ing/take off activity the owners/
managers of the airstrips anticipate.
11-21
-------
Since the intention of the questionnaire was to provide an indication of
the general trend in civil aircraft activity within the region, the growth
projections developed as a result of the canvassing effort were assigned
uniformly to all grids in which the private airstrips were located.
As a result, the growth projections for the balance of the civil aircraft
category, being 1.83 for the year 1982, and 2.67 for the year 1990, as pre-
sented in Appendix A, are considered questionable.
VESSELS
Commercial Vessels
The commercial vessel category refers to the combustion of diesel and
residual oils for waterborne transportation purposes along the waterfront
areas within the region.
In the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, data for calculating
fuel usage by vessels was obtained from Waterborne Commerce of the
United States, a yearly publication of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, which tabulates cargo tonnages of various ports in the United
States. A review of previous issues of this document provided tonnage data
for the Port of Buffalo, as well as specific, geographically delineated sub-
sections of it.
Examination of the 1977 issue showed that parts of the Port of Buffalo
which had been used previously (i.e., the Tonawanda Harbor) for commer-
cial vessel activity, were no longer being utilized. For the purposes of
this study, it was assumed that the Tonawanda Harbor portion of the Port
of Buffalo would continue to be idle through the year 1990. Conversely, the
two sections of the port still in use in 1977 (the Buffalo Harbor and the
Black Rock Channel) were assumed to continue to bear traffic in 1990 and
the years intervening.
Projected traffic for the Port of Buffalo was obtained through consul-
tation with representatives of the economics section of the Buffalo District
United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Data provided included a projection of total cargo tonnage for the Port
of Buffalo at decade intervals from 1980 to 2040. The 1990 cargo tonnage
estimate was then used in developing growth projections for this area
source, and an estimate for 1982 activities was obtained by interpolation
of the 1980 and 1990 projections. These 1982 and 1990 tonnage figures, as
11-22
-------
compared to the base year tonnage, became the basis for projecting
growth factors.
Growth factors for the commercial vessel portion of this area source
range from 0.89 to 1.17 for the > ear 1982, and from 1.00 to 2. 00 for the
year 1990.
Based on the source and type of data utilized, the growth factors pre-
sented in Appendix A for commercial vessels, are considered to be
reasonably reliable.
Recreational Vessels
This category refers to the combustion of diesel and gasoline fuels for
the purpose of propelling small recreational vessels.
During the 197!s Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, New York State
Office of Parks and Recreation data on the number of recreational vessels
used in Erie and Niagara Counties was utilized to estimate fuel usage.
Recreational vessel fuel usage was then allocated to grid cells adjacent to
the shoreline in accordance with the length of the shoreline.
With regards to projecting growth factors for recreational vessels for
this study, data from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles was
considered to be rno^t applicable. Specifically, information regarding the
number of motor boats registered in New York State by size class from
1962 to 1977, and the number of motor boats registered in New York State
by county of principle usage from 1975 to 1977 was obtained.
Trends were developed using the above mentioned data, and adjust-
ments were made to account for the various sizes of the motor boats under
consideration.
This in effect provided a weighted average for the various sized
vessels, which, when summed together for the year under consideration,
provided the basis for projecting growth factors.
Growth factors for this area source were then assigned uniformly to
those grid cells which were previously identified in the 1975 Niagara
Frontier Emissions Inventory, since the regional type of analysis which was
performed, did not provide for sufficient detail at the grid cell level.
The growth factor for the recreational vessel category is 1.26 for the
year 1982, 1. 58 for the year 1990, and are tabulated by grid cells in
Appendix A.
11-23
-------
Based upon the data utilized, and the analysis that was necessary,
growth factors for the recreational vessel category are considered
questionable.
DIRT ROADS TRAVELED
The dirt roads traveled category represents the generation of particu-
late matte-r as a result of transit over unpaved dirt and crushed stone
roadways.
The 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory reported that the
NYSDOT data services bureau provided a computer Lusting of town, village
and city unpaved roads in the local Highway System Inventory. The NYSDOT
Regional Maintenance Engineer was then consulted on the approximate vol-
ume and speed of vehicles using unpaved roadways within the Erie-Niagara
Region. This information, coupled with the location of the unpaved roads,
provided the basis for allocating this area source to the grid cell matrix.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the dirt roads
traveled category,for the current study, it was determined that a review of
past as well as present data from the NYSDOT Local Highway System Inven-
tory would provide the best background for approximating the growth or
decline associated with this area source.
A review of Mie Local Highway System Inventory, which details infor-
mation on the material construction and length of essentially all roadways
within Erie and Niagara Counties by political jurisdiction, (i.e., city, town,
or village) provided the basic data necessary to project growth for this
category.
The Length of all unpaved roadways within each municipality was deter-
mined for the years 1970, 1975 and 1977, and trend patterns were developed
by extrapolation of data to the years 1982 and 1990.
By assuming that the characteristics of drivers will not change appre-
ciably through the year 1990, growth projections were generated by com-
paring the extrapolated trend data of unpaved roads by municipality for the
years 1982 and 1990, with that observed for 1975.
Growth factors for this area source range from 0 to 1.65 for the year
1982, and from 0 to 2.39 for the year 1990.
Based upon the data available, and the extrapolation necessary, the
growth factors presented by grid cell in Appendix A are considered
unreliable.
11-24
-------
DIRT AIRSTRIPS
This category refers t,> dust generated from landings and take offs of
aircraft on dirt airstrip and f.axiways.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, operational data
was obtained from the NYSDOT, which provided information on the number
of landings and take offs for the majority of the dirt airstrips in the Erie-
Niagara Region for the year 1975.
To project growth for the years 1982 and I ';0 ;or the dirt airstrips
category for the present study, it was determined that communication with
the airstrip owners or managers would provide a good indication of the
general trend of civil aircraft activity. From this, it was hoped that a
reasonable projection of dirt airstrip activity could be made.
Each of the 38 dirt airstrips within the Erie-Niagara Region were con-
tacted, first by telephone where possible, and then by correspondence,
requesting that they complete and return a standard questionnaire as shown
in Appendix C.
The questionnaire responses were reviewed, and growth projections
were developed by averaging the Landing and takeoff activity that the owners
and/or managers of the airstrips anticipated.
Since the intention of the questionnaire was to provide an indication of
the general trend in civil aircraft activity within the region, the growth
projections developed as a result of the canvassing effort were assigned
uniformly to all grids in which dirt airstrips were located.
As a result, growth projections for the dirt airstrip category, which
are 1.83 for the year 1982, and 2.67 for the year 1990, as presented in
Appendix A, are considered questionable.
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA - CONSTRUCTION AREA
This category refers to the generation of dust from construction
related activities.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, data relating to
construction employment, construction acreage and construction dollar
value was obtained. Allocated values of construction acreage were then
disaggregated from 1972 NFTC construction employment by Trau'ic Analy-
sis Zones to the grid cell level.
11-25
-------
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the construction land
area - construction area category for this study, it was determined that
construction employment data would closely approximate the growth or
decline associated with this area source.
Construction employment data from the ENCRPB's Economic Develop-
ment Study*-, which provides existing and projected construction employment
data by place of work through the year' 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region,
was considered the most applicable, current and reliable data available.
Since the data contained within the Economic ''erelopment Study is pre-
sented to the municipality level, that is, city, town, or subregion, it was
first necessary to determine the growth or decline in construction employ-
ment by place of work within the respective municipality, and then disag-
gregate uniformly to the grid cell level, as detailed in Table 1.
Growth factors for this area source, which are presented by grid cells
in Appendix A, range from 0.67 to 3.25 for the year 1982, and from 0.67
to 3.2b for the year 1990.
Based upon the detail and age of the data utilized, together with the
applicability of the data to the area source, the growth factors developed
for the construction land area - construction area category are considered
reasonably reliable.
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA - CROPLAND
The construction land area - cropland category pertains to the dust
generated from agricultural activities.
Data utilized in the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory for this
area source was derived from the 1974 Census of Agriculture, which pro-
vided tilled cropland acreage. Allocation factors for this area source were
then established by considering emission factors for agricultural tilling.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the present study, it
was determined that land use data would most closely approximate the
growth or decline associated with the construction land area - cropland
category.
ENCRPB - Economic Development in the Erie-Niagara Region,
June, 1975
11-26
-------
Agricultural land use data from the ENCRPB 208 Water Quality
Management Program*, which provides data on existing and projected land
use through the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region, was considered
the most current, reliabh* ana applicable data to utilize.
Since active agricultural land use within the region is projected to be
constant through the year 1990, the associated growth factors for the con-
struction land area - cropland category are projected to remain the same.
Consequently, a growth factor of 1. 0 for both 1982 and 1990 is pro-
jected for those grid cells which were identified << s having agricultural
activity in the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory.
Based upon the data utilized, coupled with the applicability of the data
to the area source, the growth factors presented by grid cell in Appendix
A for construction land area - cropland are considered reliable.
ROCK HANDLING AND STORAGE
The rock handling and storage category represents the dust emissions
from storing and handling crushed stone or gravel.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, information
was obtained from t!ic Mined Land Reclamation Permit program of the
NYSDEC, which included tons of materials processed from the point source
inventory, and provided the basis for assigning allocation factors for this
area source to the respective grid cells.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the rock handling and
storage category in the course of the present study, it was determined that
NYSDEC mined land reclamation data, coupled with either adjacent pro-
jected construction land area, or specific data obtained from the point
source inventory would most closely define the growth or decline associated
with this area source.
During the course of this study, contact was made with the seven major
limestone quarrys within the region, requesting data on the quantity of
material processed over a range of years. This information was provided
by two of the quarrying operations, and was used to project growth factors.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Quality Management Program, Report 6
Land Use - Present and Future, October 1978
11-27
-------
For the small stone and gravel facilities, and the balance of the large
limestone quarrys, a review of the NYSDEC Mined Land Reclamation
Permits, and the projected construction land in areas contiguous to the
facility provided the basis for projecting growth factors.
It was reasoned that quarrying and stone and gravel operations are
closely associated with the construction industry, and any projected con-
struction activity contiguous to the facility would suggest activity at the
facility.
Growth factors for this area source range !"; ,j>;i 0 to 2.1 for the year
1982, and from 0 to 2.2 for the year 1990.
Based upon the data utilized, and the indirect applicability of the data
to the area source, the growth factors presented by grid cell in Appendix
A for the rock handling and storage category are considered questionable.
SLASH BURNING
The slash burning category refers to the agricultural burning activities
that occur in Niagara County. During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions
Inventory, data was extracted from NYSDEC burning permits. A review of
the permits then provided the basis for estimating the quantity of material
burned, as well as the location of each fire. This provided the basis for
assigning the quantity of material burned within a specific grid cell.
To project growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for the slash burning
category for the purposes of the present study, it was determined that land
use data would most closely approximate the growth or decline associated
with this area source.
Agricultural land use data from the ENCRPB 208 v^ater Quality
Management Program*, which provides data on existing and projected land
use through the year 2000 for the Erie-Niagara Region, was considered the
most current, reliable and applicable data to utilize.
Since active agricultural land use within the region is projected to be
constant through the year 1990, the associated growth factors for the slash
burning category are projected to remain the same.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Quality Management Program, Report 6
Land Use - Present and Future, October 1978
11-28
-------
Consequently, the growth factor of 1. 0 for both 1982 and 1990 is pro-
jected for this area source.
Based upon the data otiib-.ed, coupled wUh the applicability of the data
to the area source, the trrowth factors presented by grid cell in Appendix
A for the slash burning category are considered reliable.
STRUCTURAL FIRES
The structural fire category pertains to is;votis resulting from
building fires.
In the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory, 1975 NYSEDB
county populations, and the nationwide average of 4 fires per 1000 popula-
tion provided the base data utilized to project emissions for this area
source. This information was then allocated to grid cells utilizing the
1973 NFTC Traffic Analysis Zone population data.
In projecting growth for the years 1982 and 1990 for structural fires in
this study, it was determined that population data would closely approxi-
mate the growth or decline associated with this area source.
Population data from the ENCRPB 208 Water Quality Management Pro-
gram , which provides information on existing and projected population
through the year ?,000 for the Erie-Niagara Region was considered the most
applicable, current and reliable data available.
As previously reported, 1" = 2 mile population dot maps were utilized
to determine areas of growth or decline.
By superimposing the 1" = 2 mile Erie-Niagara grid cell map over the
respective population dot maps, a determination as to the present popula-
tion as well as change in population per grid cell for the years 1980 and
1990 was noted.
Since population data for 1982 was not available, a straight line inter-
polation of 1980 and 1990 data was used.
ENCRPB - 208 Water Quality Management Program, Report 5,
Population - Present and Future, October 1978
11-29
-------
Growth factors for this area source range from 0.25 to 2.62 for 1982,
and from 0 to 5. 00 for 1990
Based upon the detail
-------
INDUSTRIAL, PROCESS SOURCES
The industrial process category refers to the combustion of fuel or the
generation of particulates ab a result of processes undertaken within a
manufacturing facility to produce "i. particular item or product.
This category includes ail small point sources that are act accounted
for and treated as discreet point sources in Air Quality Dispersion model-
ing efforts.
During the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions la entory, 264 point
sources having emissions greater than 25 tons per year were considered.
Within the scope of this study, due to time constraints, 63 industrial faci-
lities were considered and evaluated with regards to growth. These 63
facilities account for approximately 180 point sources with emissions
greater than 25 tons per year.
As a result, some of the facilities which were considered as discreet
point sources during the 1975 Emissions Inventory, are now being accounted
for under the industrial process category.
To account for the range in diverse manufacturing processes that are
found within the Erie-Niagara Region, this category was further refined by
considering the specific type of industry group. As a result, our analysis
of this category led us to consider the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) System for the manufacturing category, SIC groups 20, and 22 through
39 inclusive, within the 316 grid cells that comprise the region.
Data which was utilized for this category included the following:
1. New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) employment
projections by industry type for the Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) for the year
1985, which was furnished by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources,
2. Employment and geographical location of specific industries,
from the Industrial Directory of the Buffalo Area Chamber
of Commerce (1976-77) and the Niagara Falls Chamber of
Commerce, and
3. Information obtained from meetings with and/or questionnaires
received from a select group of facilities which contained point
sources emitting large amounts of pollutants, and considered
during this study as a 'facility'.
11-31
-------
The methodology used to derive the individual growth factors for each
separate SIC group included the following:
1. The industrial facilities from the industrial directories were
screened for their total employment and those listing fifty or
more employees were disaggregated into separate lists, one
for each general SIC group.
2. The facilities on each such list were then geographically
located and assigned to a particular rid, along with their
respective employment data.
3. The NYSDOL employment projections by industry type for
the Buffalo-Niagara Falls SMSA was interpolated for the
year 1982, and extrapolated to the year 1990, and provided
the general trend guidelines for each SIC group.
4. For those SIC groups where information had been obtained
during personal interviews with facilities where growth
factors had been projected for the facility, a comparison of
the projected growth of the facility and the general trend
indicated by NYSDOL employment projections was made.
5. The facilities within the specific SIC group which were not
interviewed or corresponded with, were then provided
adjusted growth factors to balance the trend indicated by
the NYSDOL employment projections.
6. If for a particular SIC group, there was no facility that had
been interviewed or corresponded with, the growth projections
for the facilities were then assigned uniformly, again to insure
that the NYSDOL employment projection trends would hold.
The end result of this analysis was a 19 by 316 matrix (i.e., 19 SIC
groups and 316 grid cells) represented by a series of tables, one for each
industry group, as presented in Appendix A.
Each number in the tables represents the growth factor for that parti-
cular industry group for a particular grid. For some grids, as can be
seen, no number is given, which indicates that no facilities belonging to
that SIC group were found to be located in that grid.
Based upon the methodology employed, and considering that approxi-
mately 1300 industrial facilities were reviewed, the growth factors pro-
jected for this area source are believed to be reasonably reliable.
11-32
-------
CHAPTER III
FACILITY SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS
For the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emission Inventory, a comprehensive
update and identification of all point sources wi.^ch "mit more than 25 tons
per year of particulates or sulfur dioxide was completed. In that study,
264 point sources having emissions greater than 25 tons per year were
identified.
For Hie current study, he New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation identified 63 facilities which that agency believed warranted
further consideration. The criteria for this selection process was that the
facility be either within or contiguous to our area of non-attainment, or
generate emissions of greater than 50 tons per year of either of the two
pollutants.
It should be stated that during the 1975 study, specific point sources
(i.e., stacks) were tabulated, while during the course of this study, growth
factors for facilities (in most cases industrial plants which could include
many stacks) were developed. As a result, the 63 facilities that were con-
sidered during this study, do not necessarily correspond to the same number
of point sources.
The facilities were analyzed for growth through the year 1990, using
1975 as a base year to develop growth factors. A standard questionnaire
used to solicit pertinent data for these projections is presented in Appendix
C.
What follows in this chapter is a brief discussion of each facility consi-
dered in the study, a description of what was considered to be significant in
projecting growth lor each, and an estimate of the reliability of the growth
factors that were generated.
The estimates of the reliability of the growth factors consist of one of
the following three descriptors: "reasonably accurate", "questionable",
and "unreliable". A discussion on each of the descriptors follows:
1. "Reasonably accurate" was used when describing firm growth
factors based on what was considered sufficient information.
III-l
-------
Confidence in the growth projection is expressed in this statement.
2. "Questionable" is used when describing growth factors based on only
partially sufficient information. This descriptor indicates that the
projections are open to debate within a longer range than those con-
sidered "reasonably accurate".
3. "Unreliable" is essentially a no-confidence statement based on very
sparse or conflicting data.
Each of the facilities have been located geo<^r£l hically using the Univer-
sal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system, the same system used
in the 1975 Niagara Frontier Emissions Inventory.
The growth factors for each facility are shown in Appendix B.
Ill-2
-------
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
The Bethlehem Steel -Corporation is located within the western portion of
the City of Lackawanna Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates
745.8 -748.5 N, and 184.8 185.8 E. Coke oven batteries, blastfurnaces,
a scrap melter, lime kilns, sinter machines and basic oxygen furnaces form
the primary steel operations. Slab and billet mills, bar mills, hot and cold
strip mills and a galvanizing mill produce the primary products made at the
Lackawanna facility. These products are utilized by various heavy con-
struction industries, as well as other large scale steel users.
Because the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, and because of the quantity of emissions gener-
ated, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a personal interview
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility.
While interviewing the facility, several factors listed below were consi-
dered significant. They included:
1. There has been a decline in production since 1970, with permanent
cutbacks in operations as of August 1977 involving the layoff of
3, 500 employees.
2. They are operating 3 shifts, 365 days per year.
3. Present wastewater treatment is considered expensive; and costs
are expected to increase when an additional treatment facility, now
under construction, is brought into service.
4. There are plans to install a basic oxygen furnace process computer,
and
5. Where practical, there is an ongoing energy conservation program.
In projecting growth iactors for this facility, the following were consi-
dered as most significant:
1. Company representatives indicated that the SIP could have an
adverse impact if unneeded control strategies are adopted.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency's more stringent Water
Quality Standards, and future National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) Permit requirements are cited as possibly
having a tremendous impact on future growth and production.
Ill-3
-------
3. According to the company, taxes in Lackawanna are 2-8 times
higher than in their other major steel producing plants.
4. Both transportation costs and regulations have affected production
since the market is some distance from the plant. Transport on the
New York State Thru-way has created serious problems with respect
to the type of trailers used and the large tonnage shipped.
5. The representative indicated that this facility will achieve its pro-
duction capabilities for the year 1978.
6. Production data, used for years 1975 through 1978 indicate an over-
all increase projected for the future.
Based on the data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors
of 1. 04 for 1982 and 1. 09 for 1990 are considered to be reasonably accurate.
CLARENCE HACKETT INC.
Clarence Hackett, Inc. is located within the City of Lackawanna at UTM
coordinates 746. 3N and 184.3 E. The company reclaims the ferrous metallic
portion from slag and resells it back to Bethlehem Steel, as well as perform-
ing various other services for the company.
Although the facility was Located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu
of a personal interview. This decision was based upon the quantity of
emissions generated at the facility.
The questionnaire returned by Clarence Hackett indicated that they are
solely dependent on the operation of Bethlehem Steel since they are the only
steel mill in Erie and Niagara County serviced by this company.
Based on the information contained in the questionnaire prepared by
both this facility and Bethlehem Steel, the projected growth iactor of 1. 04
for 1982 and 1. 09 for 1990 are considered questionable.
III-4
-------
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY
The Ashland Petroleum Company is a refinery producing gasoline, oil,
ashphalt and other petroleum based products for distribution throughout
western New York and Canadian outlets. The plant is located with the Town
of Tonawanda at UTM coordinates 767. 6 N and 180.1 E.
Since the facility was located in an area which is currently unclassified
by air quality standards, and because of the quantity of emissions generated,
it was decided that a standard questionnaire anr) a personal interview would
be utilized to solicit pertinent information rega/. Ung the facility.
During an interview with a company official, it was learned that the
facility's current production and employment are stable. Although the com-
pany owns vacant property which could be used for expansion, no plans to do
so were projected. It was also noted that increased operating costs are
directly passed on to the consumer in the product price, thus maintaining a
stable profit structure.
In projecting growth factors ior this facility, continued stable production
appeared to be the most significant item.
Based on the personal interview and the completed questionnaire, the
projected growth factors of 1.05 for 1982 and 1.10 for 1990 are considered
questionable.
NIAGARA MOHAWK HUNTLEY STEAM STATION
The Niagara Mohawk Steam Station is located within the Town of Tona-
wanda at UTM coordinates 767. 9 N and 179. 3 E. The station generates
electrical power utilizing pulverized coal as its fuel. Over the past eight
years, this plant has generated an average of 4. 07 x 10" MWH on a yearly
basis.
Because the facility was located in an area which is currently unclassi-
fied by air quality standards, and because of the quantity of emissions
generated, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a personal
interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the
facility.
During the interview, it was learned that the company is run on a con-
tinuous three-shift per day, seven days per week schedule. Also significant
was them striving to obtain only low content sulphur coal for use in power
generation.
Ill-5
-------
In projecting growth tactor^, the io I Low ing information was considered
as most significant:
1. Projected coal consumption from Federal Power Commission form
67 entitled "Steam Electric Plant Air and Water Control Data ior
the Year Ended December 31, 1977", which was utilized to obtain
yearly coal consumption, provided the following:
a; 1975 coal consumption totaled 1. 742 million tons per year.
b. 1982 coal consumption was pro jet; tec1 to be 2, 000 million tons
per year.
c. 1990 coal consumption, extrapolated from 1987 projections is
projected to be 1, 920 million tons per year.
Based on data provided by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.15 for 1982 and 1.10 for 1990 are considered to be reasonably accurate.
DUNLOP TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY
The Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company is located within the Town of
Tonawanda at UTM coordinates 764. 9 N and 180.4 E. The company manu-
factures replacement vehicle tires with distribution to the general public
through wholesale and retail stores.
Although the facility was located in an area which is currently unclassi-
fied by air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview, since the quantity of emissions is an order of
magnitude less than other facilities within this area.
The questionnaire returned by Dunlop indicated that no recent pollution
control equipment has been installed and that the effects of water pollution
controls in the plant are minimal at this time. Taxes, however, have im-
pacted on the operation of the plant.
In projecting growth factors for this facility, fuel consumption figures
for the years 1974 through 1977 were considered as significant.
Based on data supplied by the facility, the projected growth factors of
1.05 for 1982 and 1.12 for 1990 are considered questionable.
Ill-6
-------
FMC CORPORATION
The FMC Corporation, Industrial Chemical Division is located within
the Town of TonawarKl.x at UTM coordinates 765.1 N and 179. 8 E. The com-
pany manufactures peroxygen chemicals which it sells to the detergent,
plastics and metal etching industries.
Although the facility was located in an area which is currently unclassi-
fied by air- quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview.
The questionnaire returned by FMC indicated that the company is not
producing at capacity and production has declined since 1970, although it has
been relatively stable since 1973.
In projecting growth factors, their stable production since 1973, as well
as the effects of taxes, environmental and safety regulations, as included in
the questionnaire, were significant factors to be considered.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.0 for 1982 and 1.0 for 1990 are considered to be unreliable.
J. H. WILLIAMS COMPANY
The J. H. Williams Company is located within the Town of Tonawanda
at UTM coordinates 764. 0 N and 181. 5 E. The company is engaged in the
forging, heat-treating, machining and polishing of steel hand tools which
are sold to various distributors for retail sale under different name brands.
Although the facility was located in an area which is currently unclassi-
fied by air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview.
The questionnaire returned by J. H. Williams indicated that, while most
environmental, Occupational Safety and Health Act (OS H AX and safety regula-
tions are not impacting on the plant taxes, the cost of labor, inflation, and
energy costs are. The fact that any future expansion of this company would
be assumed by their Columbus, Georgia facility was also considered
significant.
Ill-7
-------
A large portion of their product line now being manufactured in the new
plant in Georgia, and the impact of additional costs imposed by the Buffalo
Sewer Authority are considered significant in projecting growth factors.
Based on data supplied by this lacility, the projected growth lactors of
1.0 for 1982 and .91 for 1990 are considered to be questionable.
TON AW AN DA COKE COMPANY
The Tonawanda Coke Company is a producer of foundry coke, located
within the Town of Tonawanda at UTM coordinates 766. 3 N and 179. 8 E.
The Company's product is used mainly by the Chevrolet Tonawanda and
various other U.S. and Canadian foundries.
Because the tacility was located in an area which currently does riot
meet air quality standards, and because of the quantity of emissions gener-
ated, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a personal interview
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding this facility.
While interviewing the facility, it was learned that the plant was
recently purchased, and the company is newly formed. The representative
indicated that environmental factors are critical to the operation of this
plant although not prohibitive at this time. Also significant was the indica-
tion by the representative that the Chevrolet foundry has become heavily
dependent on this facility for its coke.
In projecting growth iactors, the continued operation of the Chevrolet
foundry, and the ability to ship coke to Canadian customers were the most
significant factors.
Based on data supplied by this facility, a projected growth factor of
1.01 for 1982 and 1.00 for 1990 can be considered to be reasonable accurate.
CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION PLANTS
The Chevrolet Motor Division Plants (i.e., Plants #1 and #4) are
located within the Town of Tonawanda at UTM coordinates 764. 3 N and
180.9 E, and 764.3 N and 180.8 E, respectively. The facilities are engaged
in the machining and assembly of automobile engines lor various General
Motors products.
Ill-8
-------
Because the facilities are located in an area which currently is unclassi-
fied by air quality standards, ai.U because of the quantity of emissions gener-
ated, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a personal interview
would be utilized to sol rit pertinent information regarding their operations.
While interviewing the facilities, it was learned that the company has an
ongoing energy conservation program, an Occupational Safety and Health Act
safety regulation program, and are willing to modify process lines for energy
cost savings if it can be done in an acceptable amount of time. That there
are no tax or other environmental problems l.o l.inder the plant's operations
and expansion as a possibility were also considered significant.
The questionnaire lacked any production or employment information and
none was discussed while interviewing since the company considered this
information too confidential. In projecting growth factors, reliance was
placed on data as indicated by other auto parts manufacturers, as well as
the general outlook for the future.
Based on information provided by the company and corroborating data
from other auto parts manufacturers, the projected growth factors of 1.40
for 1982 and 1.45 for 1990 are considered reasonably accurate.
CHEVROLET METAL CASTING PLANT
The Chevrolet Metal Casting Plant (i.e. , Plant #2) is a major gray iron
casting foundry Located within the Town of Tonawanda at UTM coordinates
764.1 N and 180. 9 E. The company's primary product consists of cast
engine blocks, steering linkages, brake drums and raw gear assemblies.
These products are shipped to various Chevrolet Motot Division assembly
plants as well as the Delco Parts Division.
Since this facility was located in an area which is currently unclassified
by air quality standards, and because of the quantity of emissions generated,
it was decided that a standard questionnaire followed up with a personal
interview would be used to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility.
From the information gathered from these sources, it was learned that
the Chevrolet Motor Division is planning to introduce a new line of energy-
saving engines within the near future. It was also noted that the geographical
location of the plant, which is relatively new, is ideal for obtaining coke and
other raw materials necessary for foundry operations.
Ill-9
-------
The most significant item in or ejecting growth iactors appeared to be the
introduction of the company's «.>; ^y-saving engine for a new type of automo-
bile to be marketed soon. H- v, ever, it was noted that any growth of the
facility would be dependent upon !,e variables of the automobile industry.
Based on the informatior , '>'< id;-:; by the company, the projected growth
factors of 1.40 for ]98Z ana I. --:r. 'or 1^90 can be considered to be reasonably
accurate.
CHEVROLET FORGE PLANT #3
The Chevrolet Forge (i.e., Plant #3), a producci of automotive compo-
nents, is located within the Town of Tonawanda at UTM coordinates 764. 2 N
and 180.8 E. The company's products are used by various General Motors
Divisions in the production of auto parts.
Because the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and
a personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regard-
ing the facility. However, due to She difficulty Chevrolet had with their
Detroit facility in obtaining permission for an interview and releasing infor-
mation on the questionnaire, information from other Chevrolet Divisions
and auto parts manufacturers already interviewed were used.
Since all divisions of Chevrolet are dependant upon each other, it was
assumed that growth iactors would not vary significantly between divisions.
Based on data supplied by other auto parts manufacturers, the projected
growth factors of 1.40 for 1982 and 1.45 for 1990 are considered to be rea-
sonably accurate.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
The Ford Motor Company is a metal stamping plant located within the
Village of Blasdell at UTM coordinates 744.1 and 185.6 E. The stampings
produced at this plant are shipped to the company's various assembly divi-
sions throughout the country.
Since the facility was located adjacent to an area which currently does
not meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
followed by a personal interview would be used to solicit pertinent informa-
IiI-10
-------
tion regarding this facility. ALthoi;t-h representatives of the company
dec Lined to be interviewed, they did complete and return the questionnaire.
The only significant fact that appeared on the questionnaire was that
the company is considering expanding its parking lot to accommodate more
employees, It was also noted that, for the past 8 years, the company has
shown a moderate increase in employment; however, production ligures
were not available. The plant, which is comparatively new, is considered
at maximum size for efficient operation.
Based on the company's moderate employment growth within the past
decade, the projected growth factors of 1.40 for 1982 and 1.45 for 1990 were
considered to be reasonably accurate.
BUFFALO COLOR CORPORATION
The Buffalo Color Corporation is a dye manufacturer located within the
City of Buffalo at UTM Coordinates 757.5 N and 185.5 E. The company pro-
duces dyes and organic chemicals for various industries. It is the only
indigo blue dye plant in the nation, selling to blue denim manufacturers, but
its customers also include the iood, fabric, cosmetic and plastics industries.
Because the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and
a personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regard-
ing the facility.
While interviewing Buffalo Color, several factors appeared significant.
They included the following:
1. The company has only one facility.
2. It is the only producer of indigo dye for blue jeans.
3. The company was formed from the dye division of Allied Chemical.
4. They have sufficient land lor development, and are in the process
of demolishing old buildings tor future growth.
5. They are concentrating on profitable produce lines and dropping
less profitable ones, so that total production may be down, but
the profitability of the company has increased.
Ill-11
-------
In projecting growth factors, the company's concentration on profitable
lines, enjoying a good share of their market, and optimistic indications by
the company representative that the company will grow were considered
significant factors.
Based on information provided by the company representatives, the
projected growth factors of 1. 50 for 1982 and 1.61 for 1990 are considered to
be reasonably accurate.
THE AMERICAN MALTING COMPANY
The American Malting Company is a producer of brewers malt and is
located within the City of Buffalo at UTM coordinates 752. 5 N and 184. 3 E.
The company's product is used primarily by brewers throughout the
country.
Although this facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be used to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu
of a personal interview. This decision was based upon the quantity of
emissions generated at the facility.
It was noted on the returned questionnaire that there had been no new
investments in processing equipment by the company since the mid-sixties;
however, a substantial expenditure for pollution control equipment was made
during the past year. The questionnaire also cited tax disadvantages as a
negative factor when compared to those in other states.
In projecting growth factors, the most significant items included a fluc-
tuating trend in production and employment which at this time appears to be
declining and anticipated high water pollution control costs which will occur
when the facility connects to public sewers.
Based on data supplied by this company, the projected growth tactors of
0.91 for 1982 and 0.85 for 1990 are considered questionable.
111-12
-------
ANACONDA COMPANY
The Anaconda Company, a manufacturer of copper and brass products,
is located within the City of Buffalo at UTM coordinates 76Z. 3 N and 182.4 E.
The company's prodiu s ore <.sod primarily by the automotive industry in the
manufacture of radiate,.-G,
Although the facility was located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a per-
sonal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding
the facility. This decision was based upon *,b- <:uantity of emissions gener-
ated at the lacility.
Representatives of the company expressed optimistic projections for the
copper and brass industry, with a 100% increase in growth forecast by 1990.
It was noted that the company recently acquired additional property and is
currently undergoing a $10 million expansion program. Although company
officials appeared enthusiastic about the company's future, some concern
was expressed over electrical rates in this energy intensive industry.
In projecting growth factors Lor this facility, current installation of a
new furnace with a second scheduled for completion by 1983 was considered
the most significant item.
Based on information provided by company officials during an interview
the projected grov/Ui sartors of 1.45 for 1982 and 2.00 for 1990 were consi-
dered to be reasonably accurate.
BUFFALO EVENING NEWS
The Buffalo Evening News is a daily newspaper located within the City of
Buffalo at UTM coordinates 754.3 N and 183.5 E. The company is engaged
in the printing and distribution of a daily newspaper for the general public.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview. This decision was based upon the quantity of
emissions generated at the facility.
Ill-13
-------
The questionnaire returned by Buffalo Evening News indicated that they
recently added a Sunday morrung edition to its circulation, this increasing
production. Representatives of the paper indicated that they were optimistic
regarding continued growth in circulation.
In projecting growth factors, expanded production was considered a sig-
nificant factor, although no data was available to substantiate this expansion.
However, detailed statistics concerning iuel consumption were provided.
Based on data supplied by this facility, ib; , >; cted growth factors of
1.25 for 1982 and 1.40 for 1990 are considered to oe reasonably accurate.
BUFFALO CONSERVATORY
The Buffalo South Park Conservatory, located within the City of Buffalo
at UTM coordinates 748. 6 N and 187. 3 E, services as the city's botanical
gardens which house a variety of tropical and sub tropic flora.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, and because of the quantity of emissions gener-
ated, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be utilized to solicit
pertinent information regarding the facility in Lieu of a personal interview.
In projecting growth factors for this facility, it was noted that heating
oil consumption has remained constant over the past 5 years.
Based on the above data, the projected growth factors of 1. 00 for 1982
and 1.00 for 1990 were considered to be reasonably accurate.
BUFFALO WEST SIDE INCINERATOR
The Buffalo Municipal Interceptor plant is located within the City of
Buffalo at UTM coordinates 759.6 N and 181.5 E. The incinerator has been
used by the City of Buffalo to dispose of approximately 100, 000 tons of solid
waste per year.
Since the facility was located in an area which currently meets air quality
standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be utilized to
solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu of a personal inter-
view.
HI-14
-------
With regards to projecting growth factors for this facility, it was noted
that the city closed this facility and that it is now being used as a transfer
station. Consequently, the projected growth factors of 0 for 1982 and 0 for
1990 were considered reasonably accurate.
COMMODORE PERRY'HOMES & EXTENSION
The Commodore Perry Homes & Exte.t,;ion is located within the City of
Buffalo at UTM coordinates 753.7 N and 184.--. '., The facility is an apart-
ment house complex and high rises having 1244 units, with occupancy domi-
nated by the elderly.
Although the facility was Located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding fhe facility in
lieu of a personal interview, since the quantity of emissions is an order of
magnitude less than other facilities.
Although the questionnaire was not returned, a telephone conversation
with a representative indicated that there are no plans for expansion or
additions since no land is available. It was noted, however, that since the
elderly occupants prefer high rise living, the apartments are being grad-
ually renovated to provide more units. Although there are more home units
vacant now than in 1975, planned modernization and rehabilitation should
increase occupancy. In projecting growth, fuel consumption based on
occupied units was considered significant.
Based on the telephone conversation data provided, the projected growth
factors of 1.05 for 1982 and 1.10 for 1990 were considered questionable.
DONNER-HANNA COKE COMPANY
The Donner-Hanna Coke Company is located within the City of Buffalo at
UTM coordinates 751.6 N and 186.4 E. The company produces blast furnace
and foundry coke, with plans to sell sulphuric acid from its coal desulphuri-
zation process. The largest outlet for the company's products are the iron
and steel industries, specifically Hanna Furnace and Republic Steel.
Because the facility was located in an area which currently does not meet
air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a
UI-15
-------
personal interview would be utilised to solicit pertinent information regard-
ing the facility.
During the interview,, several factors appeared to be most significant.
They included the follow,ng:
1. The coke manufacturing machinery is a very costly investment and
it is very difficult to obtain financing of new coke ovens.
2. Environmental factors are restrictive ;n. 'he coke industry, and the
company has expended considerable crpiiai. to comply with environ-
mental regulations.
In projecting growth factors, the company's investment in new capital
construction tor the desulpherization plant, its dependancy on Donner-Hanna
Coke, and foreign competition were all considered significant factors.
Based on data supplied by the facility, the projected growth factors of
1.08 for 1982 and 1.15 ior 1990 can be considered reasonably accurate.
CHEVROLET GEAR AND AXYLE
The Chevrolet Gear and Axyle plant is located within the City of Buffalo
at UTM coordinates 758,6 N and 188.2 E. The company is a major producer
of automotive rear axles and steering linkage assemblies ior various General
Motor assembly plants throughout the country.
Although the facility was Located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a personal
interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the
facility. This decision was based on the quantity of emissions generated at
the facility.
Although the company officials expressed confidence in the plant's future
during an interview, there appeared to be some uncertainty over the future of
the automobile industry as a whole. The company, it was noted, has enjoyed
stable employment throughout the past and has expanded its rear axle pro-
duction. However, it was brought out during the interview that plant expan-
sion is unlikely because of a lack of available land.
In. projecting growth factors for this facility, the trend toward front
wheel drive axles would undoubtedly have an impact on rear axle production.
111-16
-------
Based on information provided during a personal interview with company
officials and the completed questionnaire, the projected growth factors of
1.15 for 1982 and 1.25 for 1990 are considered to be reasonably accurate.
GENERAL MILLS
General Mills, Inc. is a flour mill and grain elevator located in the City
of Buffalo at UTM coordinates 753.7 N and 183, ! E\ The company is engaged
in the production of various grain products for consumption by the general
public.
Because the tacility was located in an area which currently is unclassi-
fied by air quality standards, and because of the quantity of emissions gener-
ated at the tacility, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a per-
sonal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding
the tacility. However, the company declined to participate in an interview
or return the questionnaire.
In projecting growth for this company, projected data on the amount of
grains moving through the Port of Buffalo on vessels, as obtained from the
Economics Section of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo
District, was utilized.
Based on the limited information available, the projected growth factors
of 1. 5 lor 1982 and i. 6 tor 1990 are considered questionable.
WESTVACO, H & D CONTAINER DIVISION
The Westvaco H & D Container Division is Located within the City of
Buffalo at UTM coordinates 754.8 N and 187.2 E. The company is engaged
in the manufacture of corrugated shipping containers which are used by most
industries who ship their product in boxes.
Because the tacility was located in an area which currently meets stan-
dards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be utilized to solicit
pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu of a personal interview.
The questionnaire returned by the H & D Container Division indicated that
there is a possibility of adding a third shift, and of acquiring additional pro-
perty. Also, they have an energy conservation program, lowering their con-
sumption by 30% since 1972.
111-17
-------
In projecting growth factors, a recent increase in production after sev-
eral years of fluctuation, and the optimism concerning additional shifts,
property and energy were considered significant factors.
Based on data supplier! by this company, the projected growth factors
of 1.10 for 1982 and 1.17 for 1S90 .'re considered questionable.
HANNA FURNACE COK POR
The Hanna Furnace Corporation is located within the City of Buffalo at
UTM coordinates 749. 7 N and 184. 9 E. The company produces pig iron
ingots for various foundaries and hot pig iron lor Shcuango Steel, located
adjacent to the facility.
Because the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and
a personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information re-
garding the facility.
During the interview, Hanna Furnace indicated that foreign competition
is seriously effecting its operation, as well as the steel industry in general.
The company, which is owned by National Steel, controls one-half interest
in Donner-Hanna Coke, which supplies all coke for Hanna Furnace and
Republic Steel.
In projecting growth factors, foreign competition and the possibility of
acquiring additional business from a rnidwestern competitor who is going
out of business were considered significant factors.
Based on data supplied by the facility, the projected growth factors of
.80 for 1982 and .62 for 1990 are considered to be questionable.
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION
The Allied Chemical Corporation, a major producer of inorganic
chemicals and oxalic acid, is located within the City of Buffalo at UTM
coordinates 766.3 N and 179.8 E. The company's products are used pri-
marily by the iron and steel industries.
Since the facility was located in an area which currently does not meet
air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a
111-18
-------
personal interview would be utili xd to solicit pertinent information regard-
ing the facility.
During a subsequent interview with a company spokesman, it was learned
that the Allied Chemical plant it t'>e oniy facility in the United States produc-
ing oxalic acid. It was also notfd that during the past several years, two
subsidiary facilities were dropped from their operations. These facilities
included the Dye division (now Buffalo Color) and the Semet Solvay division
(now Tonawanda Coke). The spokesman declared that the Buffalo plant is
not competitive with similar plants because o, ' < ost of doing business
locally, taxes and workmen's compensation ecu'. ,i,,oiii.. Other factors
such as Canadian imports and competition from a Inc.- ' okc producer
coupled with a declining areawide market tended to f~ nie the profitability of
the Buffalo operations.
Based on the information provided by the company spokesman, the pro-
jected growth factors of 0.90 for 1982 and 0,80 for 1990 are considered
questionable.
INTERNATIONAL, MULTIFOODS COMPANY
The Internationa! Multifoods Company is a. flour mill and grain elevator
located within the ' > -f Buffalo at UTM coordinates 752,5 N and 184.4 E.
The company is eng<\ £./:<.! m Hie production of flours from various grains for
the baking industry.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview. This decision was based upon the quantity of
emissions generated afc the facility.
The questionnaire returned by International Multifoods indicated that
they have enjoyed stable production and employment since 1970 and are plan-
ning capital investments in equipment. Also significant was the complaint
by representatives that taxes, labor, power, and transportation costs are
all impacting heavily on the plant.
In projecting growth factors, the company's stable production and em-
ployment over the last seven years was considered a significant factor.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the growth factors of 1.0 for
1982 and 1.0 for 1990 are considered questionable.
111-19
-------
TOWN OF TONAWANDA INCINERATOR
The Town of Tonawandr, -vii-erator is located within the Town of
Tonawanda at UTM coor.j ;«,,f -<, 7^7. 5 N :nd 181.8 E. The facility provides
incineration and sanitary iandtiH se -v,. es for the Town of Tonawanda and
the Village of Kenmore,
Although the facility was Located in an area which is currently unclassi-
fied by air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent informa.io; rer;i rding the facility since
the quantity of emissions is an order of magnrr*. a,- less lisa-; that for other
facilities in this area.
The questionnaire returned by the facility indicated only a "marginal"
possibility of acquiring any additional property to increase the operation,
with no problems anticipated in any specific areas. The questionnaire
returned provided lithle information on possible future plans for the facility.
Because the activities at the facility are dependent upon the quantities
of solid waste generated, population projections for the Town of Tonawanda
and the Village of Kenmore were used in predicting activity at this facility.
Based upon popo'o.ucn pr-.-'jC L.ons from the ENCRPB 208 Water Quality
Management Program1- grov'^h. jactors of 1.03 for 1982 and 1.05 for 1990 are
indicated. These ;- , ,
-------
The questionnaire returned by the complex indicated that the complex
is usually 100% occupied with fie present occupancy rate expected to con-
tinue, and that there are n.-, ../l^ns for expanding the size of the complex.
Since the occupancy :->U- ;cu the apartments does not fluctuate, con-
sumption of #6 fuel oil, HI 4 Lu'iit ore emissions, are dependent only on
weather conditions.
Based, on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.00 for 1982 and 1.00 for 1990 are considered to b^ reasonably accurate.
MERCY HOSPITAL
Mercy Hospital is a health facility located within the City of Buffalo at
UTM coordinates 251.6 N and 188.4 E. The hospital is a general admissions
facility serving the public.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal int^r^icw. Tins decision was based upon the quantity of
emissions generated at Lh"-1 facility.
The quo.stionnau re!ur<;ed by Mercy Hospital indicated that they are
presently installing uadilJ; ;u.J boiler equipment, and have, in the last six
months, reduced #6 oil consumption, using only natural gas for the last six
months. They also indicated that growth for this facility is regulated by
New York State.
In projecting growth factors, considered significant was the fact that,
although doubling their boiler equipment, they expect only a 10 - 20% in-
crease in fuel consumption.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.15 for 1982 and 1.15 for 3990 are considered to be questionable.
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
The Mobil Oil Corporation, located within the City of Buffalo at UTM
coordinates 252.8 N and 187.2 E, is a major refiner of Canadian crude oil.
The refined petroleum is used as fuel oil and gasoline fuel.
Ill-21
-------
This facility is located in an area which currently does not meet air
quality standards, and as such, -i: was decided that a standard questionnaire
and a personal interview v.-ouH be utilized to solicit pertinent information
regarding the facility. Company representatives, however, refused to grant
a personal interview, but did ar/rce to complete and return the standard
questionnaire.
It was noted in the questionnaire that Mobil Oil Refinery is one of two
refineries-located in New York State; the other being Ashland Oil Refinery
in Tonawanda. The company representative ,v M 'iAt substantial capital
investments were made in the past for water pi t ..-n ^b;> lenient facilities
and that future costs were expected to be considerab'f- /or handling process
waste waters once the Buffalo Sewer Authority secondary sewage treatment
facility is on line.
Stable employment and present plant capacity geared to meet current
and long range product demands appeared to be the most significant items
in projecting grovfh factors for this facility.
Based on the information provided in the questionnaire, the projected
growth factors of 1.05 for 1982 and 1.05 for 1990 are considered questionable.
PEAVY COMPANY
The Peavey Company is a grain elevator and flour mill located in the
City of Buffalo at UTM coordinates 752.4 N and 184.1 E. The company is
engaged in the production of various grain products.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently is unclassi-
fied by air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview. This decision was based upon the quantity of
emissions generated at the facility. However, the company declined to
participate and returned the uncompleted questionnaire.
In projecting growth for this company, projected data on the amount of
grains moving through the Port of Buffalo on vessels, as obtained from the
Economics Section of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo
District, was utilized.
Based on the limited information available, the projected growth factors
of 1.5 for 1982 and 1.6 for 1990 are considered questionable.
Ill-22
-------
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
The Republic Steel Corporation is a steel mill located within the City of
Buffalo at UTM coordin: ;.ef. 75?,, 5 N arid 186.1 E. The facility produces car-
bon alloy steel bars which it hells to the automotive, heavy machine equip-
ment and related transportation industries.
Because the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a. standard questionnaire
and a personal interview would be utilized to -r.'i'-if pertinent n formation
regarding the facility.
During the course of interviewing Republic, several factor--; appeared to
be most significant. They included the following:
1. Due to the abandoned Right-of-Way dividing the proper; y} ihe plant
has a problem of materials handling.
2. The representatives indicated that raw materials will be difficult
to bring in by ship in the future.
3. An abandoned row of conrail tracks divides the property which
Republic is trying to purchase,
4. The company has recently expanded and updated their operations.
5. It is the only plant in the United States to peiletize slag and sell it
at a profit.
In projecting growth factors, the company's plan to purchase land and
modernize the plant, as well as constantly updating and improving the facility
were considered significant. It was noted, however, that the steel market
is moving west, giving Republic more competition since shipping is more
expensive for eastern plants.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1. 02 for 1982 and 1.06 for 1990 can be considered to be reasonably accurate.
Ill-2 3
-------
SHENANGO CORPORATION
The Shenango Corpora tic i is located within the City of Buffalo at UTM
coordinates 741.8 N and 181.8 E, The company is engaged in the manufac-
ture of ingot molds for 1he casting industry.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview. This decision was based upon the quantity of
emissions generated at the facility.
The questionnaire returned by Shenango indicated !h-v.. ii / ,- >vo recently
installed more efficient burners to aid in energy conserv.-tt Ion \vi-",- :be possi-
bility of new investments to change and improve meuiods of nanu; T^
In projecting growth factors, there were several significant ;dciors to
consider. They included the following:
1. They are currently producing at 3 shifts per day, 6 to 7 days per
week.
2. The units of primary process over the last 7 years indicate an
increase in production.
3. The representative indicated that future forecasts call for a
reduction ux the demand of molds.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.01 for 1982 and 1.02 for 1990 can be considered to be reasonably accurate.
TRICO PRODUCTS CORPORATION
(Plants #2 and #3)
Plants #2 and #3 of the Trico Products Corporation are located within
the City of Buffalo at UTM coordinates 750.6 N and 185.6 E; and 753.2 N
and 186.7 E respectively. Trico Products is one of the largest producers
of automotive wiper arms and blades, linkage systems and washing solvents,
The primary market for the company's products is the automotive io.dust.ry,
in addition to a large consumer market for replacement parts-
Because the facility was located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be
III-24
-------
utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility. After receiv-
ing the questionnaire, a representative of the company requested a personal
interview at his facility to >. larify questions contained within the questionnaire,
During the course of the interview, it was learned that production and
employment at Trico Products Corporation are currently at maximum. How-
ever, it was noted by the company representative that production and employ-
ment are directly related to the fluctuating trend of automobile production.
It was also'noted by the company representative that competition from other
manufacturers has made it imperative for t > M- > my to devc 'op new pro-
duct lines for future stability. The represent-. "-' aucl.V <';->: currently Trico
Products has the most modern, up-to-date manufacturing equip:nent within
the industry.
Maximum production and employment in addition to anticipated capital
investments for potential new product lines appeared to be the most signifi-
cant items in projecting growth factors.
Based on information provided by the company representative, the pro-
jected growth of 1. 37 for 1982 and 1. 37 for 1990 can be considered to be
reasonably accurate.
WORTHINGTON CEI
The Worthirigton CEI Corporation, a major manufacturer of cast iron
and brass compressors, is located within the City of Buffalo at UTM coor-
dinates 753.2 N and 188.2 E8 The company's customers include gas, oil,
and chemical industries as well as the government.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in
lieu of a personal interview since the quantity of emissions from the facility
is in order of magnitude less than other facilities in the area.
At the request of a company representative, a follow-up interview was
arranged to clarify questions contained within the questionnaire. It was
noted during the interview that the compressor market is currently in a
decline and that cutbacks in production are being considered. The only
optimistic note sounded was that business may increase if natural gas is
deregulated.
Ill-2 5
-------
A declining market, pending lay-offs and little hope for expansion were
the most significant items in projecting growth factors.
Based on the info ruction furnished during the interview, the projected
growth factors of 0.94 /or 1 98Z and 0.94 for 1990 were considered to be
reasonably accurate.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YQRf; AT BUFFALO
The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNYAB) is an educational
facility located within the City of Buffalo at UTM coordinates 762.5 N and
188.5 E. This particular facility is the heating plant for
-------
Since most questions were not applicable to this type of facility, little
significant data was contained in the questionnaire.
Fuel consumption did not relate to the number of children in attendance
since a constant temperature is maintained throughout the facility regardless
of attendance. Although expansion plans were unavailable, the declining
population in the area would make expansion unlikely.
Based-on the available data, the projected growth factor of 1.0 for 1982
and 1.0 for 1990 can be considered to be rearf IT My accurate.
UPSON COMPANY
The Upson Company is located within the City of Lockport at UTM coor-
dinates 785.7 N and 198.5 E. The company manufactures and sells fiber-
board products to various building industries.
Since the facility was Located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be
utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu of a
personal interview.
The questionnaire returned by the Upson Company indicated that the
company has recently installed new equipment and are considering one
additional shift. Taxes, however, are cited as a factor in restricting fur-
ther growth at this point.
In projecting growth factors, the most significant factor was that the
company has scheduled no new product lines or investments for the next
several years.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.05 for 1982 and 1.10 for 1990 are considered questionable.
HARRISON RADIATOR DIVISION
The Harrison Radiator Division of General Motors, plants #2 and #4,
are producers of radiators, air conditioners and other automotive equipment,
and are located within the City of Lockport at UTM coordinates 785.7 N and
196.4 E, and 785.0 N and 196.8 E, respectively.
111-27
-------
Although the facility was located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decic «; that a standard questionnaire and a per-
sonal interview would be utilises to solicit pertinent information regarding
the facility since emissi_> t fron: this facility are considered substantial.
However, representatrv Iro i the facility declined to participate in an
interview or return the question.; JLJ.V % In a telephone conversation with
company representatives, they maintained that they would not offer any
projections concerning their growth.
Since no substantial data was available, this study utilized other sources
of information in projecting growth factors /or -ability. These sources
were optimistic on Harrison's future, indicating Jivr ffarrison had been con-
tacting local labor unions, inquiring as to the availability of manpower and
building materials for possible future expansions. There is, however, no
documentation to either confirm or deny this information.
Further correspondence with workers at the facility provided informa-
tion that Harrison is currently developing solar panels for the U.S. Depart-
ment of .Energy, and if successfully marketed, could impact strongly upon
the operations at the facility.
Based upon, the sketchy data and information supplied by the sources
other than the facility, crowbh factors of 2. 0 for 1982 and 1. 0 for 1990 are
considered questionable.
AIR GO SPEER CORPORATION
The Airco Speer Corporation, a producer of carbon and graphite elec-
trodes and anodes, is located within the City of Niagara Falls at UTM coor-
dinates 779.5 N and 174.1 E, Production from this facility accounts for a
substantial portion of the market, which is utilized by both steel and
foundry industries where components for electric furnaces are required.
Although the facility was located adjacent to an area which currently
does not meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard ques-
tionnaire and a personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent infor-
mation regarding the facility since emissions from this facility were consi-
dered substantial.
While interviewing this facility, several factors listed below appeared
to be most significant. They included:
1. Environmental regulations have created operational problems.
Ill-2 8
-------
2. Low electric rates prevail at this facility, in an energy intensive
industry.
3. Constant growth has occurred since 1970, with the exception of the
1975 recession vear, And
4. The facility currently supplies a substantial share of the market.
In projecting growth factors, the Low power rates available, and the
ownership of undeveloped property, which th'.1 ^o^nv expressed a desire
to use for expansion, were considered signif.u:.< ..
Based on the interview and questionnaire data supplied by this facility,
the projected growth factors of 1.25 for 1982 and 1. J5 for 1990 are considered
to be reasonably accurate.
PYRON COMPANY
The Pyron Company (formerly AMAX), a producer of iron powder from
iron scale, is located within the City of Niagara Falls at UTM coordinates
779.7 N and 174.5 E, The scale is obtained from Pennsylvania based steel
mills and the final product is utilized by auto manufacturers for various
auto parts which it can produce with less machining than when casted.
Since the facility was located adjacent to an area which currently does
not meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
and a personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information
regarding the facility since the emissions from this facility are considered
substantial.
While interviewing the facility, it was learned that they have experienced
relatively stable production over the past 7 years, with 1975 totaling only 84%
of their current capability. The company is being run 3 shifts per day and
expansion is a possibility. Also significant was that a potential for a new
product Line exists.
In projecting growth factors, the company's ability to increase produc-
tion 19% without capital expenditures, and their current 8% increase over
1975 production figures were considered most important.
Based on the interview and data supplied by this company, the growth
factors of 1.07 for 1982 and 1.15 for 1990 can be considered to be reasonably
accurate.
in-2 9
-------
UNION CARBIDE - NATIONAL, ACHiCSON & REPUBLIC DIVISIONS
The National and Acr. on Divisions of Union Carbide are located within
the City of Niagara Falls pj MTM coordinar.es 781.9 N and 171.1 E and at
777.6 N and 171.2 E i,.spf:rt,.vc ;,,-; il- - Republic Division is located within the
Town of Niagara at UTM coor.i--H!<-S 781.8 N and 171.8 E. All three facili-
ties are involved in the rnou;,i.',eturo of carbon products.
Although the three facilities arc- located in areas which currently meet
air quality standards, it was decided that J-irda "d questionnaire and a
personal interview would be utilized to sen;, .inertI information regard-
ing the facility. However, the company declined to participate in an inter-
view or complete the questionnaire; consequently, ajiy projections concern-
ing growth factors would be speculative. It was learned subsequently from
a company representative that the facility plans to remain at static although
stabilized level of operations.
Based upon the limited information available, the projected growth
factors of 1.00 for 1982 and 1.00 for 1990 are considered questionable.
ELECTRO- MINER,\LS DIV. OF CARBORUNDUM
The Electro-Minerals Division of Carborundum is located in the City of
Niagara Falls at II I'M coordinates 777.3 N and 171.6 E. The company fur-
naces silicon carbide, ahi'i'Uivin oxide and boron carbide, processing these
materials into grains and powders for the bonded abrasives industry. The
Company also produces various ceramic specialty products, some of which
are used by the military.
Because the iacility was located adjacent to an area which currently
does not meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard ques-
tionnaire and a personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent
information regarding the facility, since the emissions for this facility are
considered substantial.
While interviewing this facility, the company representative indicated
that:
1. The Electro Minerals division of Carborundum is the largest
producer of the above products in the free world.
2. The plant is currently producing at its capacity, however, it is
utilizing only 85% of its total power allotment.
Ill-30
-------
3. The potential for new products exists.
4. Products produced -t tnis facility are labor intensive.
5. A modification and ,. o-r nl-iation of the plant is possible, thereby
reducing labor costs, b," jining more economical.
As well as the above iufovrnatlou, " in projecting growth factors, the
representatives past and projected growth rate of 1% per year in production
was considered significant,
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth of 1.06 for
1982 and 1.12 for 1990 are considered to be reasonable accurate.
CARBORUNDUM GLOBAR
The Carborundum Globar plant, a manufacturer of pilotless ignition
systems for appliances and electrical components, is Located within the City
of Niagara Falls at UTIx'i coordinates 781.8 N and 171.7 E. The company's
products are used by manufacturers of appliances and electrical components.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, i! was decided that a standard questionnaire and a per-
sonal iuiorview -.vor d be us<"i i-i solicit pertinent information regarding the
facility since eiruo'-^ns for uu, (r.oiH'oy were considered substantial.
During the course of the interview with company representatives, it was
learned that the Globar plant has expanded considerably during the past
several years. The reasons for this expansion were cited as an increased
demand for pilotless ignition systems coupled with the inflated dollar which
has made foreign produced electrical products less competitive than those
produced locally.
It was noted by representatives of the company that the market for elec-
trical components is expanding rapidly and that Globar's technology is
geared to take advantage of this expansion.
Based on the company's optimistic projections for continued expansion,
the projected growth factors of 1.40 for 1982 and 2.00 for 1990 were consi-
dered to be reasonably accurate.
Ill- 31
-------
GENERAL ABRASIVE COMPANY
The General Abrasive Company, a producer of abrasive grains, is
located within the City of Niagara Falls at UTM coordinates 782.0 N and
171.5 E. The company's product is used primarily as a base by manufac-
turers of sandpaper, abrasive \vheels and discs and other abrasive type
components.
Since the facility was located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be
used to solicit pertinent information regarding i ' .icility.
Although the company declined to answer the questionnaire, a subse-
quent telephone conversation with a company representative revealed that the
f ir.ri had recently been purchased by Dresser Industries. It was also learned
that the company is enjoying growth, in a mature market, of 1% to 2% a year.
According to the company representative, this trend was expected to con-
tinue into 1990.
A moderate growth pattern appeared to be the most significant item in
projecting growth factors for this facility.
Based on the information provided by the company representative, the
projected growth factors of 1,06 L'or 1982 and 1.12 for 1990 can be considered
to be reasonably accurate.
GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, located within the City of
Niagara Falls at UTM coordinates 777.8 N and 174.4 E, is engaged in the
polymerization of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) resins and the manufacturer of
rubber chemical accelerators and staining antioxidants. These products are
used by various industries throughout the country.
«
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not
meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire
would be used to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu
of a personal interview since the quantity of emissions is an order of magni-
tude less than other facilities in the non-attainment area.
Information supplied in the questionnaire noted that a 50% reduction in
production was required in their PVC plant during 1975 to meet Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations. Since that time, however, capital
III-3 2
-------
expenditures have been made to bring the plant to OSHA compliance.
The most significajsl »otr> m projecting growth factors appears to be the
completion this year of x; ~ -ded PVC facilities to recover production capa-
bility lost during 197^ Ojrnpan/ officials feel confident that this increase
in production will agcL.ij< put fheir products in a competitive position.
Based on the information furnished by the company, the projected
growth factors of 1.0 for 1982 and 1.05 for 1990 are considered questionable.
Gii EAT LAKES CARBON COR I-OS AT TON
The Great Lakes Carbon Corporation is located within the City of Niagara
Fal's at UTM coordinates 778.3 N and 175.1 E. The Company manufactures
carbon and graphito products, including electrodes for stainless steel pro-
ducing furnaces.
Because ih^ facility was located adjacent to an. area which currently
does not meet ai- quality standards, it was decided that a standard ques-
tionnaire and a personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent infor-
mation regarding the iacility since emissions from this facility are consi-
dered substantial,
i'vrmg the ' ie\v with company representatives, it was learned that
HIP ost of Worl - - -,'c Compensation,, high New York State taxes and esca-
lating operating and labor costs have impacted on this plant. Attempts are
now also being made toward energy conservation.
In projecting growth factors, it was noted that although production has
fluctuated over the last 8 years, there is an overall steady increase in
productivity.
Based on data supplied by the facility, the projected growth factors of
1. ZO for 1982 and 1.40 for 1990 are considered to be questionable*
HOOKER CHEMICAL COMPANY
The Hooker Chemical Company is located within the City of Niagara
Falls at UTM coordinates 173.6 N and 777.4 E. The Company manufactures
industrial chemicals such as chlorine, phosphate, halogenated toluene, and
inorganic phosphorus compounds for the organic chemical using industries.
Ill-3 3
-------
Because the facility was located in an area which currently does not meet
air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a per-
sonal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding
the facility.
While interviewing Hooker Chemical, they indicated that they are pre-
sently constructing a refuse recycling plant to convert from coal, and have
an ongoing energy conservation program. Also significant was the fact that
they are heavily energy intensive and the low power rates are a prime factor
in their remaining in the area.
In projecting growth factors, their capital investment in the recycling
plant and their dependency on cheap power provided by the area were consi-
dered the most significant factors.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.1 for 1982 and 1.1 for 1990 can be considered questionable.
DU PONT COMPANY
The DuPont Company is an industrial chemical manufacturer located in
the City of Niagara Falls at UTM coordinates 777. 3 N and 173.0 E. The
company sells its products to other departments of DuPont, and to the plas-
tics industry.
Although the facility was located in an area which currently does not meet
air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be
utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu of a per-
sonal interview. This decision was based upon the quantity of emissions
generated at the facility.
The questionnaire returned by DuPont indicated that the company has
cited escalating disposal and transportation costs, water pollution control
equipment, and taxes as significant in lowering profitability. Representa-
tives of the company suggest that the introduction of additional products would
incur additional environmental burdens, impacting unfavorably on the plant.
In projecting growth factors, declining employment over the last eight
years was considered a significant factor, although no production data was
available to substantiate a declining trend. However, a letter sent with the
questionnaire in September 1978 states that neither expansion nor reduction
is anticipated over the next twelve years.
Ill-3 4
-------
Based on conflicting and questionable data provided by the company, the
growth factors of 1,0 for 1982 and 1.0 for 1990 are considered unreliable.
LINDE DIVISION OF UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
The Linde Division of Union Carbide Corporation, located within the
City of Niagara Falls at UTM coordinates 778.7 N and 173.8 E, is a major
producer of sub-arc welding flux. The company's product is used primarily
for heavy industrial welding by structural steei t .--.jjanies and railroad car
manufacturer s.
Since the facility was located in an area which currently does not meet
air quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a
personal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regard-
ing the facility.
An interview with a company official disclosed that cheap power costs
for their electrically intensive industry was one of the positive factors in
operating the facility at a profit. However, it was pointed out that any signi-
ficant increase in the cost of electrical power could make the operations of
the plant uneconomical.
Transportation costs were cited as another problem area since the major
markets for the company's product were in the south and southwest. It was
also noted that although land was available for expansion, the company had
no plans to expand their facility. The company official added that if a new
plant were to be built, it would probably be in the midwest, closer to their
major markets.
Static growth prospects coupled with possible expansion outside of New
York State appeared Lo be the most significant items in projecting growth
factors for this facility.
Based on the interview and completed questionnaire, the projected
growth factors of 0.95 for 1982 and 0.93 for 1990 are considered question-
able.
Ill-3 5
-------
NABISCO COMPANY
The Nabisco Company us a baking Jtacility located with the City of
Niagara Falls at UTM coordinates 777.8 N and 170.3 E. The Company is
engaged in the baking of va rious wheat products which are distributed
throughout the United States,
Because the facility was located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be
utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu of a
personal interview.
The questionnaire returned by the representative of the New Jersey
office indicated that there will be limited expansion without pretreatment of
its wastewater since the local Sewage Treatment Plant is not capable of
handling an increased discharge. They also cited taxes and environmental
restraints as possible factors that could hinder the operation of the plant.
In projecting growth factors, increased employment and production
over the last eight years was considered a significant factor. Occupational
Safety and Health Act regulations and environmental restraints mentioned
as timely factors in considering expansion have not impacted on the plant's
increased production.
Based on data supplied by this facility, the projected growth factors of
1.80 for 1982 and 2.80 for 1990 can be considered to be reasonably accurate.
NIAGARA STONE DIVISION
The Niagara Stone Division is a quarry and rock handling facility located
in the Town of Niagara at UTM coordinates 782. 0 N and 196. 8 E. The pro-
duct is utilized by the building and construction industries for use in founda-
tions, roadways, dam building, etc.
Because the facility was located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that written communication would be
utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu of a
personal interview.
Correspondence returned by Niagara Stone indicated only average tonn-
age produced for years 1970 - 1977. A followup telephone conversation with
the company representative provided a yearly breakdown. Although the data
fluctuates, there is a steady increase noted overall.
Ill-36
-------
In projecting growth factors, the overall increase in production was con-
sidered to be the most significant factor.
Based on data supplied by this facility, a projected growth factor of 1.2
for 1982 and 1.42 for 1990 are considered to be reasonably accurate.
PRESTOLITE BATTERY DIVISION
The Prestolite Battery Division is a prin. ^ >,! onanufacturer of battery
containers and covers and is Located within the City of Niagara Falls at
UTM coordinates 781.5 N and 170.6 E. The largest outlet for the company's
product is the Internal Battery Division of Prestoiite, which in turn distri-
butes batteries to the automotive and light truck industry as well as major
department stores under various brand names.
Since this facility was loccited in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire would be
utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the facility in lieu of a
personal interview,
Based on information furnished in the questionnaire and a subsequent
telephone conversation with a company representative, production at the
Prestolite Battery Division is expected to increase substantially within the
next several ye; ,T Although current operating costs were considered
reasonable by national standards, the possibility of higher labor costs,
taxes and environmental regulations in the future were cited as important
factors in remaining competitive within the region.
It was also notedin the questionnaire that emissions are expected to
decline because of material conversions and manufacturing process changes.
In projecting growth factors, expanded production activity was consi-
dered a significant factor.
Based on the data supplied by this company, the projected growth
factors of 2.08 for 1982 and 2. 08 for 1990 can be considered to be reason-
ably accurate.
Ill-3 7
-------
NITEC PAPER COMPANY
The Nitec Paper Company, a manufacturer of various types of paper, is
located within the City of Niagara Falls at UTM coordinates 778.4 N and
173.3 E. The company's products include bath and facial tissue and magazine
paper which are used by the general public and magazine printers.
Because the facility was Located adjacent to an area which currently
does not meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard ques-
tionnaire and a personal interview would be u:':'ize
-------
During the course of interviewing, several factors appeared significant.
They included the following:
1. Of the three manufacturers who hold 50% of the market, Bonded
Abrasives Division is the second largest.
2. Representatives indicate another Bonded Abrasives facility is to be
built in the future; the Location, however, is presently unknown.
3. The facility is totally dependant on the Electro-Minerals Division
of Carborundum for its materials at this time, and
4. This facility's product is Labor intensive.
A projected decline of 5% per year in production over the next 12 years,
as well as seme question as to the plants contributing to Carborundums pro-
fitability, as indicated by the representative, were considered significant
in projecting growth factors.
Based on data supplied by the company in September 1978, the projected
growth factors of . 65 for 1982 and .35 for 1990 were considered questionable.
DUREZ DIVISION - HOOKER CHEMICAL, COMPANY
The Durez Division of the Hooker Chemical Company is located within
the City of North Tonawanda at UTM coordinates 773.0 N and 185.4 E. The
company produces phenolic compounds and formaldehyde hexamines for the
plastics industry.
Although the facility was Located in an area which currently meets air
quality standards, it was decided that a standard questionnaire and a per-
sonal interview would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding
the facility since emissions from this facility are considered substantial.
While interviewing this facility, it was learned that there is a 3% growth
rate per year in the phenolic compound industry at this time. There are no
major occupational, safety or health related problems, and the labor mar-
ket is good. Also significant was the fact that Durez Division has under-
taken a major energy conservation program within the plant.
In projecting growth factors, a 30% increase in production without addi-
tional machinery, and the growth rate of 3% per year for their particular
products were considered as most significant.
Ill-3 9
-------
Based on information provided by the company representatives, the pro-
jected growth of 1.11 for 1982 and 1.25 for 1990 can be considered to be
reasonably accurate.
R T JONES LUMBER COMPANY
The R-T Jones Lumber Company is a wholesale lumber company located
within the City of North Tonawanda at UTM coordinates 771.5 N and 183.5 E.
The company sells lumber to various local industries.
Although the facility was located adjacent to an area which currently
does not meet air quality standards, it was decided that a standard ques-
tionnaire would be utilized to solicit pertinent information regarding the
facility in lieu of a personal interview since emissions for this facility are
not considered substantial.
The questionnaire returned by the R T Jones Lumber Co. indicated that
there has been recent capital investments for buildings and equipment, and
that they would modify process lines to aid energy conservation. Another
significant factor noted was that elimination of the rail spur to Tonawanda
Island would seriously effect their activities.
In projecting growth factors, we have optimistically projected no elimi-
nation of the rail spur. Also noted was that the employment figures,
although fluctuating, indicates increased growth.
Based on data supplied by this facility, growth factors of 1.18 for 1982
and 1.40 for 1990 can be considered to be reasonably accurate.
111-40
-------
TABLE A-l
SUMMARY OF AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS
AREA SOURCE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Residential Fuel
Commercial/Institutional Fuel
Industrial Fuel
On-Site Incineration
Gasoline Fuel - Light Vehicle
Gasoline Fuel - Heavy Vehicle
Gasoline Fuel Off Highway - Small Gas Engines
Gasoline Fuel Off Highway - Farm Tractors
Diesel Fuel - Heavy Vehicle
Diesel Fuel Off Highway - Farm Tractors
Diesel Fuel Off Highway - Construction
Equipment
Diesel Fuel - Railroad
Aircraft
a. commercial
b. civil
c. military
Vessels
a. commercial
b. recreational
Dirt Roads Traveled
Dirt Airstrips
Construction Land Area (construction area)
Construction Land Area (cropland)
Rock Handling Storage
Slash Burning
Structural Fires
Reentrained Dust
Range of Growth Factors
(Low - High)
1982
. 25 - 2.62
1. 00 - 1. 33
1. 00 - 1. 32
1. 00 - 1. 00
. 69 - 2.61
.93 - 3.25
0. 25 - 2.62
1. 00 - 1. 00
.93 - 3.25
1. 00 - 1.00
.67 - 3.25
.95 - .95
1. 10 - 1.23
1.16 - 1.83
1. 00 - 1. 00
.89-1. 17
1.26 - 1.26
0 - 1.65
1.83 - 1. 83
.67 - 3.25
1. 00 - 1. 00
0 - 2. 10
1. 00 - 1. 00
. 25 - 2.62
.93 - 3.25
1990
0 - 5. 00
1. 00 - 1.73
1. 00 - 1.67
1. 00 - 1. 00
.49 - 3.37
.86-5. 84
0 - 5. 00
1. 00 - 1.00
.86-5. 84
1. 00 - 1. 00
.67 - 3.25
.96 - .96
1.2 - 1.60
1. 13 - 2.67
1. 00 - 1. 00
1. 00 - 2. 00
1. 58 - 1. 58
0 - 2.39
2.67 - 2.67
.67 - 3.25
1. 00 - 1. 00
0 - 2.20
1. 00 - 1. 00
0 - 3. 50
.86-5. 84
A-l
-------
Summary of Area Source Growth Factors (cont. )
AREA SOURCE
23. Industrial Process Sources
- Food and Kindred Products
- Textile Mill Products
- Apparel and other Textile Products
- Lumber and Wood Products
- Furniture and Fixtures
- Paper and Allied Products
- Printing and Publishing
- Chemicals and Allied Products
- Petroleum Products
- Rubber and Plastics Products
- Leather and Leather Products
- Stone, Glass and Clay Products
- Primary Metal Industries
- Fabricated Metal Products
- Machinery, excluding Electric
- Electrical Eqtiipment and Supplies
- Transportation Equipment
- Instruments and Related
- Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Range of Growth Factors
(Low - High)
1982
.78 - 3.41
.48 - .96
. 80 - .80
. 85 - 1,70
. 77 - .77
. 86 - 1.91
1. 04 - 4. 16
.84-2. 34
.85-1. 05
1. 07 - 3. 19
1. 00 - 1. 00
1. 03 - 2. 06
.95 - 3.48
.93 - 2.79
.94-2. 14
. 83 - 2.40
.80-2. 00
1. 04 - 1. 04
1. 05 - 2. 10
1990
.71 - 4.22
. 11 - .22
. 57 - .57
.82 - 1.64
. 50 - .50
. 71 - 1.81
1. 15 - 4.60
.64 - 2.64
.80-1. 10
1. 10 - 2.72
1.00 - 1.00
1. 05 - 2. 12
.93-3. 87
.87 - 2.61
.94 - 2.28
.64 - 3.00
.85-2. 00
1. 09 - 1. 09
1. 10 - 2.20
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2
RESIDENTIAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL //
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 D«
16
17
IH
19
20
2)
22
2}
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 _
38
39
40
41 '
42
43
44 .
45
46
47
48
GF 1982
0.75
1. 16
1.00
1. 16
1. 00
0. 93
1.06
l.-OO
0. 95
0.83
0.83
1. 00
1. 00
1.33
0.62
1. 35
1. 00
1. 00
0. 83
i. 83
1. 00
0. 70
0. 50
GF 1990
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1 . 00
1. 00
0. fib
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0.88
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 55
0. 75
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 66
1. 00
1. 00
] . 00
0.66 1 1.66
0. 87
1. 50
1. 00
0.95
0. 75
0. 83
1. 00
1. 08
1. 00
1. 16
1. 50
0. 83
0. 75
1.33
2. 00
0. 83
1. 00
0.75
0. 66
2. 00
1. 50
0. 75
0. 75
0.90
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
0. 90
1. 00
0. 83
!. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 83
0. 50
0. 66
1. 00
0.66
1.25
1. 00
1. 00
1 . 66
2. 00
1. 00
0. 50
CELL //
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
',7
J f>
GF 1982
1. 00
1. 80
2. 00
1. 10
1. 00
1.50
1. 00
1. 00
1. 50
C.66
59 2.00
60
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
1-00 ' A_3 96
0. 50
0. 75
1. 20
1.45
0. 71
1. 22
1. 00
1. 00
0. 90
1. 00
0. 72
1. 35
1. 50
1. 07
1. 16
0. 92
1. 27
2. 50
0. 91
2. 00
1. 27
2.00
1.27
1. 15
1. 00
1. 37
1.41
1. 50
0. 50
1.38
1.41
0. 75
1. 1 1
0. 96
1. 08
1. 35
0.92
GF 1990
1.00
1.40
3. 00
0. 80
1. 00
2. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 00
0. 66
1. 00
0.00
0. 83
1. 80
.2. 00
0. 85
1.36
0. 90
0. 83
0.95
0. 75
1. 00
1.71
1.66
1. 14
0. 83
0.80
1. 18
1. 00
0. 83
2. 00
1.34
1. 58
1. 00
1. 20
0. 85
0. 75
1.21
1.35
1. 00
1. 22
1.83
3. 50
0.88
0.96
1. 08
1.28
0.92
-------
RESIDENTIAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
LKL,.//
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
1 10
1 1 I
i j j
1 13
i 14
115
1 J6
1 17
1 18
' '9
120
12 1
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
1 35 ..
136
137
138
" 139
140
141
142
143
144
GF 1982
1. 31
0. 87
1. 15
1. 03
0. 92
0. 88
1. 00
1. 04
1.. 28
1. 50
1.22
0. 84
0. 79
0. 37
1.25
1. 00
0.42
0. 75
0. 90
0. 85
1. 75
1.21
0. 90
0. 83
0. 83
GF 1990
1.25
0. 75
1 . i '?
1 . '> 9
] 04
1. i 1
0. 69
1. 04
2. 00
1. 00
1.55
1. 10
0. 70
0. 50
1. 00
1. 00
0. 57
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 00
1.85
!. 27
0.66
0. 83
0.75 I 0.83
1. 75
0. 96
1. 33
1.25
1. 07
1. 12
1. 00
0.66
0. 87
1. 00
0.64
0. 95
1. 30
1. 37
0. 53
2. 50
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 08
0. 87
0. 83
,
2. 00
1.26
1. 16
1. 50
1. 14
1. 50
1. 12
0. 66
1. 00
1.25
0. 85
0. 90
1. 50
2. 25
0.62
5. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 16
0. 75
0. 50
*
A- 4
CELL //
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
1 M
15'>
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
GF 1982
1. 06
2.62
0. 58
2. 50
1.87
1.59
1. 33
2.25
1.40
1.43
0. 72
1. 27
2. 00
1. 25
1. 05
1. 34
1. 16
1. 15
0. 93
1. 35
0. 70
0. 25
0. 71
0. 93
0.83
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 05
0. 75
1. 55
0. 91
1. 02
1. 12
1. 08
0. 92
1.45
1. 28
1. 10
0. 80
I. 50
1. 04
0. 94
2. 00
i. 37
1.75
0. 37
0.61
GF 1990
1. 00
3. 00
0.66
0.00
2. 00
1. 36
1. 00
1. 00
1. 50
1.62
I. 00
0. 95
2. 25
i. 50
1. 39
]. 68
]. 38
1. 30
1. 00
1. 50
0. 80
0. 75
0. 85
1. 25
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0.75
1. 70
1. 00
1. 28
1.25
1.33
1. 00
1.20
1. 00
1.60
1. 00
2. 00
0. 83
1. 17
2. 00
1. 50
2. 00
0. 50
1. 00
-------
RESIDENTIAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont.)
CELL //
i
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
, 207
GF 1982
0.68
1. 00
0.65
0. 88
0.85
1.16
1. 50
0.92
1,00
0. 75
0. 88
0. 96
1. 04
0.93
1. 02
> 208 0.79
20'^
210
21 1
2)2
213
214
: 2 ' "
?, i 6
217
2 18
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
2 3 f ..
232
233
234
' 235
236
237
238
239
240
0. 50
1.06
1. 13
0.98
0. 92
1. 02
0. 87
1. 08
0. 87
0. 8 ,
0. 70
0. 87
1. 18
1.09
1. 00
1. 14
1.16
0. 89
1. 00
0.72
0. 81
1. 1 1
0. 82
1. 02
1.06
1. 28
0. 97
0. 81
1. 03
0. 60
0. 94
0. 91
i
GF 1990
1. 00
1. 00
o. c:.
i , 1 1
j. 90
1. 00
i. 50
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
0. 77
1. 00
1. 15
0.96
1. 13
0. 75
0. 50
1. 03
1. 08
0. 93
0. 82
1. 00
0. 80
I. 00
0.62
1. 25
0. 70
0. 87
1. 12
0. 90
1. 16
1. 14
1. 33
0. 84
1. 00
0. 77
0. 81
1. 00
0. 75
0.95
1. 00
1.28
0.9*
0. 81
0. 84
0.46
0. 88
1. 00
J
-!,
CELL //
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
& ;~' -
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
GF 1982
1. 10
0.86
0.92
0. 80
0.79
1. 07
1. 06
0. 87
1. 00
0. 93
1. 05
1.12
i. 09
1. 18
1. 00
0. 77
1. 00
0. 75
0. 85
1. 10
0. 77
0. 75
1. 00
0.90
0. 95
1. 37
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 12
1. 00
0. 75
1. 00
0. 77
0. 94
1. 00
1. 50
1. 00
2. 00
0. 94
0. 58
0. 88
0. 84
0. 83
1. 00
0. 93
0. 83
0. 80
GF 1990
1.20
0. 73
0. 84
0.60
0. 81
1. 07
1. 06
1. 00
1. 00
0. 93
0.90
0.91
0.90
2. 25
1. 00
0. 81
1. 00
0. 25
0.90
1. 00
1. 00
0. 75
1. 00
1.30
0. 83
1.25
1.20
1.00
1. 00
2.25
1. 00
1. 50
1. 00
0. 72
0. 88
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 88
0.66
0.66
0.76
0. 77
1. 00
0. 87
0. 83
0. 80
-------
RESIDENTIAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont.)
TKK, ,
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
TO?
303
GF 1982
0. 95
0. 93
2.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
0.90
1. 12
0, 50
0. 68
1. 00
1. 00
0. 96
0. 75
0. 75
30-i j 0.83
.1 0 5
306
307
308
309
3 10
> i '
" 12
1 1 }
314
315
316
0. 50
0. 70
0. 64
0. 50
GF 1990
0.63
0. 85
2. 00
1 , ( '.)
1. 00
1. 00
0. 80
0. 50
0. 75
0. 87
0. 50
2.50
0. 92
0. 85
1. 00
0.66
0. 50
0. 90
0. 85
0. 00
1. 75 j 1.50
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 50
1. 00
1. 00
). 00
1,00
1. 00
1. 00
0.67
1. 00
!
JL
\
\
\ '
V.-£
)
CELL //
GF 1^82
I
H|
GF 1990
i
!
5
-------
TABLE A-3
COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
-1.00
1. 00
1.01
1.03
12 ! 1.11
' ^ 1.11
1 j 1.11
1 1.11
| I<1
i 17
1. 01
I. 11
; IR 1.01
t
i ,
20
1.01
I. 01
1. 01
i -.' 1.01
]., 11
.'--I 1 . M
25 ; i. 01
1.01
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
; 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1
1.01
1. 05
1.05
1. 01
1. 00
1.01
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 02
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.00
1. 02
GF 1990
\00
1. 00
I. 00
i. 00
i. 00
1.03
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.01
1. 05
1. 19
1. 19
1. 19
1.19
1.03
1. 19
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1.19
1. 03
1.03
1. 03
1. 03
1.07
1.07
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1. 00
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.04
|
CELL #
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
C, '
59
60
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
A-
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1. 00
1.33
1.33
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1. 33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1. 13
1. 13
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.20
1.20
1.02
1.03
1.03
1.02
1.06
1.06
1.02
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.02
1. 02
1.20
1.20
1.20
GF 1990
. 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.73
1.73
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.29
1.73
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.03
1.44
1.44
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.08
1.08
1.05
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.05
1.05
1.44
1.44
1.44
-------
COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
GF 1982
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1. 02
1.00
.1.09
1. 09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
10'; | 1.09
110 1.09
1 ' 1.09
11?. , 1.09
113 1.09
114 ! 1.09
L -- -H , 1.09
116 1.09
!1? I 1.19
1 i 1.09
1 V j 1.09
l?u ! 1.09
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
M2
143
144
GF 1990
1.44
1.44
1.44
1 . 44
1.44
1. 05
1. 00
1.19
1. 19
1.19
1.19
1. 19
1. 19 .
1. 19
1. 19
1. 19
1.19
1. 19
1.19
1. 19
1. 19
1.19
1. 19
1. 19
'.09 1.1°
1. 09
1.06
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.09
1. 09
1.06
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1.06
1. 19
1.22
1. 19 .
1. 19
1.19
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1. 22
1.19
1. 19
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
CELL #
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
]r.l
15-
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A-8
GF 1982
1.09
1. 09
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.06
1.06
1.06
1. 10
1.26
1.06
1.00
1.00
1. 06
1.28
1.28
1. 15
1.15
1.28
1. 15
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.02
1.00
1.01
1. 15
1.01
1. 15
1.28
1.00
1.00
1.08
1. 13
1. 14
1.04
1.04
1.02
1.03
1. 13
1.13
1.03
1.00
1.00
GF 1990
. 1.19
1.19
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.13
1.13
1.08
1. 24
1.60
1. 13
1.00
1.00
1. 13
1.61
1.61
1. 32
1.32
1.61
1.32
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.02
1.32
1.02
1. 32
1.61
1.00
1.00
1.17
1.22
1. 32
1. 10
1. 10
1.05
1.08
1.29
1.29
1.08
1.00
1.00
-------
COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
20*
1 2 Of)
2( ".'
2 0«
209
210
21 f
212
713
,-. \ "
?1 s
2 J ''.
21 /
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
23.1
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
t
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.15
1. 15
1.00
1. 04
1. 04
1.14
1. 14
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
J .02
1. 02
1.02
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
GF 1990
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 32
I. 32
1. 00
1. 10
1. 10
1. 32
1. 32
1.05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 05
1.05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 05
1.00
UOO
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1, 00
J. 00
1 . 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
J.OO
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
A-
CELL #
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
2 r' ' >
25 J
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
9
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
GF 1990
1.00
" i.oo
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-------
COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
289
290
291 '
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
l
*# Lake E
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 00
1. 00
1. 15
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
i.oo
**
rie
GF 1990
1,00
1 , 00
1. 00
1 . 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.22
1.22
1.22
1. 00
1. 00
1. 32
l.OQ
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
##
J
4.
-1
!"
0
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-4
INDUSTRIAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
1
i
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
47
48
1
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1. 01
i.OO
1.00
1.00
1.03
1. 11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.06
1.00
1.01
1.00
1. 01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 02
1.00
1 .00
1.02
GF 1990
1,00
1 . 02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1. 02
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.05
1. 18
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 09
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.02
1. 01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.04
1.00
1 .00
1.04
j
CELL #
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
c,7
SP-
59
60
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
A-ll
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1. 30
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 01
1. 01
1.00
1. 00
1. 22
1.22
1. 01
1.04
1.00
1. 01
1.00
1.00
1. 01
1.22
1.22
1.22
1. 22
1.00
1.00
1.22
1.22
1.22
GF 1990
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
LOO
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.47
1.47
1.04
1.08
1.00
1. 04
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.00
1.00
1.47
1.47
1.47
-------
INDUSTRIAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
97
' 98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
! 10
111
112
113
114
LIB
116
117
118
U9
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
1'35
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
GF 1982
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.00
1.00
,1.00
1.00
1.08
1.08
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1 .00
1. 32
1. 08
1.08
1 .00
1.32
1.32
1. 32
1. 32
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1.08
1.01
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
GF 1990
1.47
). 47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 17
1.17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1 .00
1. 52
1. 17
1. 17
1 .00
1. 52
1. 52
1. 52
1. 52
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1. 17
1.02.
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
't
i
A-12
CELL #
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
J C/J
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.00
1. 13
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.00.
1. 02
GF 1990
. 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.00
1. 30
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.00 1.00
i
1.00
1.00
1. 13
1.26
1. 13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 02
1.00
1.00
1.13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
1. 10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 11
1. 11
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.29
1. 57
1.29
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.01
1.29
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 14
1.14
1. 11
1.22
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.23
1.23
1.07
1.00
1.00
-------
INDUSTRIAL FUEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (coat.)
CELL #
192
'193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
..06
207
208
209
210
211 -
316
1
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.11
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1.00
GF 1990
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
l.CO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.24
1.00
1.00
1.05
1. 05
1.00
1.00
1. 05
1.05
1.05
1. 05
1.00
A-l
CELL #
3
GF 1982
.
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-5
ON-SITE INCINERATION GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
316
GF 1982
1.00
GF 1990
I. 00
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
A-14
-------
TABLE A-6
GAS FUEL - LIGHT VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
i ',
]/<
GF 1982
0 .85
0 . 84
0.84
0.81
0 . 81
0.81
0.86
0,81
0 .84
0 . 85
0.85
0.84
0.84
0.84
i 0 . 84
I O.R4
17
1°.
!>;
20
~> i
(
'\
2/.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3.9
40
41
42
43
44
45
4o
47
48
1
0 . ''A
GF 1990
0.64
0 . 64
0 . f. 1-
o , <;-v
!
I
t
o . 59 !
0 . 59
0 . 66
0 . 59
0,64
0.64
0 . 64
0 . 63
0.63
0.63
0 , 6 3
0 , 6 3
o»63
0.84 O.C3
0 . 84
i, , 34
0 . 84
0,84
0 . 8-
0 , 84
0 , 6 3
0.63
0 . h 3
0 . 63
0.63
0.63
0 . f -1 -.63
i
i
0.84 ! 0.63
i
0. 84
0.81
0.81
0.87
0. 86
0. 86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.86
0.91
0.86
0.91
0-84
0.86
0.63
0. 59
0. 59
0, 68
0. 66
0,66
0. 66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0. 66
0.74
0.74
0. 74
0.66
0.74
0.66
0. 74
0.63
0.66
1
CELL #
49
P0
M
52
53
54
55
56
^7
GF 1982
0.84
0.91
0.84
0.84
0. 87
0.87
0. 87
0. 87
0. 87
1 8 0. 87
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
i 77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
A-151
0. 87
0. 87
0. 84
0. 79
0.83
0. 86
0. 86
0. 86
0.86
0.86
0. 79
0.83
0. 79
0.83
0. 79
0. 86
0.86
0. 86
0.69
1.01
1. 01
1. 37
0.94
0.86
0. 86
2.61
0.84
0.90
0.94
0. 89
0.89
0. 95
0. 95
0.87
0. 87
0.95
0. 95
0- 89
GF 1990
0.63
0.74
0.63
0.63
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
s
0.68 I
0.68
0.68
0.68
0. 63
0.55
0.61
0. 67
0.67
0. 67
0. 67
0.67
0.55
0. 61
0. 55
0. 61
0. 56
0. 67
0.67
0.67
0.78
0.89
0.89
1.45
0.78
0.66
0.66
3.37
0.63
0. 72
0. 78
0.71
0. 71
0. 81
0. 81
0. 67
0.67
0. 81
0.81
0. 71
-------
GAS FUEL - LIGHT VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
97
, 98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
] 18
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
1,35
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
GF 1982
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.95
0.95
0. 87
0. 95
0. 86
0^97
0.97
0.97
0-97
0.86
0.86
0. 86
0.86
0.86
0. 86
0. 97
0. 97
0.97
0. 97
0. 86
0.86
0. 86
0.86
0.89
0. 86
0.97
0.97
0. 95
0. 95
0. 89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.95
0.95
0.97
0.97
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
GF 1990
0,71
0. 71
0. 71
0. 81
0.81
0. 67
0. 81
0.66
0. 83
0.83
0. 83
0.83
0.66
0.66
0.66
0. 66
0.66
0. 66
0. 83
0. 83
0.83
0. 83
0.66
0.66
0.66
0. 66
0. 71
0. 66
0.83
0. 83
0. 81
0.81
0. 71
0. 71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.81
0.81
0.83
0. 83
0. 72
0. 72
0. 72
0. 72
0.72
0-72
j
CELL #
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
1 '
GF 1982
0.97
0.97
0.90
0.90
0.90
0. 93
0.93
0.84
0. 86
0. 84
l:->5 0.93
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A-l'6
0.83
0.91
0.93
1.03
1.03
0.97
0.94
1.04
0.86
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0. 84
0.84
0.86
0.84
0. 76
0.94
0. 76
0.94
1.04
0.96
0.96
0. 81
0.81
0.81
0.96
0.96
0.76
0. 79
0. 79
0.79
0.79
0. 79
a 91
GF 1990
0.83
0.83
0. 72
0. 72
0.72
0. 78
0. 77
0.63
0. 66
0. 63
0. 77
0. 62
0. 72
0. 78
1. 00
1. 00
0.84
0. 79
0. 95
0. 67
0. 74
0. 74
0. 74
0. 74
0. 74
0.63
0.63
0.66
0.63
0. 60
0. 79
0. 60
0.79
0.94
0.81
0. 81
0. 59
0. 59
0. 59
0.81
0.81
0. 60
0. 56
0. 56
0. 56
0. 56
0. 56
0. 74
-------
GAS FUEL - LIGHT VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont.)
CELL #
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204.
205
206
?07
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
.233
234
235
236
'237
238
239
240
1
GF 1982
0.91
0. 79
0.84
0.97
0.97
0. 76
0.96
a 96
OL81
081
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0. 87
0.83
0. 80
0.80
0.80
0. 80
0. 80
0. 80
a so
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.80
0. 80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0. 80
0. 80
0.80
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0. 82
0.82
GF 1990
0. 74
0. 56
0. 6!>
0.84
0, 84
0.60
0. 81
0. 81
a 59
a 59
0.67
0.67
0.67
0. 67
0. 67
0. 67
0.67
0. 67
0.67
0.61
0. 57
0. 57
0. 57
0.57
0. 57
0. 57
a 57
0. 61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0. 61
0.61
0. 57
0. 57
0. 57
0. 57
0. 57
0.57
0. 57
0.57
0. 60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0. 60
0.60
CELL #
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
?.'0
ZL-
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274.
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
A-lV
GF 1982
0.82
0.82
0.82
0. 82
0.82
0.75
0. 75
0. 75
0.75
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.8?.
0. 82
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.83
0.82
0. 82
0.82
. 0.83
0.83
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0. 79
0.79
0.83
0-83
0. 83
0. 83
0. 88
0.88
0. 89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.89
0.89
GF 1990
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0. 60
0.60
0. 60
0.60
0.60
0. 56
0. 56
0. 56
0. 56
0. 56
0.61
0.59
0.59
0. 59
0.61
0.61
0. 56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0. 56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.70
0. 70
0. 72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0. 70
0. 70
0.70
0.72
0.72
-------
GAS FUEL - LIGHT VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
289
,290
291 .
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
1
GF 1982
0.89
0.89
0. 88
0. 88
0. 88
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0. 89
0.89
0-89
0.93
0.93
0.97
0.93
0.91
0.84
0 .84
0 .84
0.91
0 .91
0 .91
0 .84
0 .84
0 .84
GF 1990
0.72
0. 72
0 . 70
0.70
0.70
0. 78
0. 78
0.78
0.78
0.78
0. 71
0. 71
0.71
0.78
0 .78
0.84
0. 78
0-74
0 .63
0 -63
0 . 63
0 -74
0 . 74
0 . 74
0 .63
0 .63
0 .63
i
1
A
|
-18
CELL #
GF 1982
i
i
i
GF 1990
-------
GASOLINE FUEL
TABLE A-7
HEAVY VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
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
47
48
GF 1982
1.05
1. 05
1.05
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.07
1.01
-1.05
1. 05
1.05
1.04
1.04
1. 04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1.04
1. 04
1. 04
1.04
1. 04
1.01
1.01
1. 08
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1.07
1. 07
1.07
1. 07
1.07
1.07
1. 13
1.13
1. 13
1.07
1. 13
1.07
1. 13
1.05
1.07
GF 1990 1
*
1. 11
1, 1''!
1. '0
I. 0?
1.02 i
1. 03
1.14 !
1.02
1. 10
1. 11
1.11
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
1.09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
1. 09
1.09
1.09
1.02
1.02
1. 17
1. 14
1. 14
1.14
1. 14
1. 14
1.14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.14
1.28
1. 14
1.28
1. 10
1. 14
' CELL #
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
"','
60
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
A-19
GF 1982
1.05
1. 13
1.05
1.05
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
'.08
1.05
0.98
1. 03
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
0.98
1.03
0.98
1.03
0.98
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 17
1.26
1.26
1. 70
1. 17
1.07
1.07
3.25
1.05
1.11
1. 17
1.11
1.11
1.19
1.19
1.08
1.08
1.19
1.19
1. 11
GF 1990
1. 10
' 1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1. 17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1. 17
1.17
1. 10
0.96
1.06
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1.16
0.96
1.06
0.96
1.06
0.97
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 36
1.55
1. 55
2. 50
1.36
1. 14
1. 14
5.84
1. 10
1.25
1.36
1.23
1.23
1.40
1.40
1. 17
1.17
1.40
1.40
1.23
-------
GASOLINE FUEL - HEAVY VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
97
. 98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
] 110
1 11
] 12
113
114
! IS
116
1 17
' '3
1 19
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
1,35
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
GF 1982
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1.19
1. 19
1.08
1.19
.1.06
1.21
1.21
1. 21
1. 21
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1.22
1. 22
1.22
1. 22
1.06
1.06
GF 1990
1.23
1.2:
1 . " 3
1.40 j
1.40 1
1. 17
1.40
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.44
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.44
1. 14
1. 14
1.06 i 1.14
1.06 1. 14
1. 11
1. 06
1.22
1.22
1. 19
1.19
1. 11
1. 11
1.11
1. 11
1.11
1.11
1. 19
1. 19
1.22
1.22
1. 11
1. 11
1.11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 23
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1.40
1.40
1. 23
1.23
1.23
1. 23
1.23
1.23
1.40
1.40
1.44
1.44
1.25
1. 25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1. 25
| CELL #
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
\ Z I
[ _ '
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A-20
GF 1982
1.21
1.21
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 16
1. 16
1.05
1.07
1. 04
1. 16
1.03
1.24
1.16
1. 34
1.34
1. 21
1.17
1. 30
1.08
1.13
1. 13
1. 13
1.13
1. 13
1. 05
1.Q5
1.07
1.05
1.02
1.17
1. 02
1.17
1.30
1. 19
1. 19
1. 01
1.01
1. 01
1.19
1.19
1.02
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.13
GF 1990
1.44
' 1.44
1. 25
1. 25
1. 25
1. 34
1. 34
1. 10
1. 14
1.09
1. 34
1.07
1. 30
1. 34
1. 74
1. 74
1.46
1. 36
1. 64
1. 16
1.28
1. 28
1.28
1. 28
1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1. 14
1. 10
1. 04
1. 32
1.04
1. 36
1. 64
1.41
1.41
1. 03
1. 03
1. 03
1.41
1.41
1.04
0. 97
0. 97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.28
-------
GASOLINE FUEL - HEAVY VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont.)
CELL #
193
,194
195 .
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205'
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
2 1 6
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
2,31
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
GF 1982
1. 13
0.98
1.05
1.21
1.21
1.02
1. 19
1.19
1.01
1.01
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.93
1.00
1.02
1. 01
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1.01
GF 1990
1. 28
0.9'
1 . 1 0
1. 46
1.46
1.04
1.41
1.41
1.03
1.03
1. 16
1. 16
1.17
1.17
1.17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1. 03
1.03
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1.86
1.00
1.05
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
CELL #
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
,; '.)
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
A- 21 '
GF 1982
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.02
1. 02
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
1. 02
1.02
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.03
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.03
1.03
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1. 03
1. 10
1. 10
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 11
1.11
GF 1990
1.02
"l.02
1. 02
1.05
1.05
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
1.05
1.05
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.06
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.06
1. 06
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1.21
1.21
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.24
1.24
-------
GASOLINE FUEL - HEAVY VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cent. )
CELL #
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301 '
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
31 I
312
313
314
315
»
GF 1982
1. 11
1. 11
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
'l. 16
1. 16
1.11
1. 11
1. 11
1.16
1. 16
1.21
1. 16
1.13
1.05
1.05
1. 05
1.13
1.13
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
GF 1990
1.24
1.24
1. 21
]. 21
1.21
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1. 35
1. 23
1.23
1.23
1. 35
1. 35
1.46
1.35
1. 28
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
j.
\
-2
2
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
"
-------
TABLE A-8
GASOLINE FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY - SMALL GAS ENGINES GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CKLL //
]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2/
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 '
46
47
48
. GF 1982
0. 75
1. 16
1. 00
1. 16
1. 00
0. 93
1.06
1. 00
0'. 95
0. 83
0.83
1. 00
1. 00
1. 33
0.62
1. 35
1. 00
1. 00
0. 83
1. 83
1. 00
0. 70
0. 50
0.66
GF 1990
1. 00
1. 00
3. 00
L 00
1. 00
0, 86
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 88
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 55
0. 75
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.66
1 . 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.66
0.87 I 0.85
1.50 ! 1.00
1. 00
0.95
0. 75
0. 83
1. 00
"l. 08
1. 00
1. 16
1. 50
0. 83
0. 75
1. 33
2. 00
0. 83
1. 00
0. 75
0.66
2. 00
1. 50
0. 75
0. 75
0.90
1. 00
0. 90
1. 00
0. 83
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
0. 83
0. 50
0. 66
1. 00
0. 66
1.25
1. 00
1. 00
1. 66
2. 00
1. 00
0. 50
CELL //
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
f'H
59
60
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
1.00 A_2 96
GF 1^82
1.00
1.80
2. 00
1. 10
1. 00
1. 50
1. 00
1. 00
1. 50
0.66
2. 00
0. 50
0. 75
1. 20
1.45
0. 71
1. 22
1. 00
1. 00
0. 90
1. 00
0. 72
1. 35
1. 50
1. 07
1. 16
0. 92
1.27
2. 50
0.91
2. 00
1. 27
2. 00
1.27
1. 15
1. 00
1. 37
1.41
1. 50
0. 50
1.38
1.41
0. 75
1.11
0.96
1. 08
1. 35
0.92
GF 1990
1.00
1.40
3. 00
0. 80
1. 00
2. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 00
0. 66
1. 00
0.00
0.83
1. 80
2. 00
0.85
1.36
0. 90
0. 83
0. 95
0.75
1. 00
1.71
1.66
1. 14
0. 83
0. 80
1. 18
1. 00
0. 83
2. 00
1. 34
1. 58
1. 00
1.20
0.85
0.75
1.21
1.35
1. 00
1.22
1.83
3. 50
0. 88
0.96
1.08
1.28
0. 92
-------
GASOLINE FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY - SMALL GAS ENGINES GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(co
CKI.I. //
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
1 10
1 1 1
1 12
1 13
114
115
1 16
117
118
3 19
120
12 1
122
123
124
1 >.S
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135 ..
136
137
138
' 139
140
141
142
143
144
GF 1982
1.31
0.87
1. 15
1. 03
0. 92
0.88
1. 00
1. 04
1,28
1. 50
1.22
0. 84
0. 79
0. 37
1.25
1. 00
0.42
0. 75
0. 90
0. 85
1. 75
1.21
0.90
0. 83
0. 83
0. 75
1.75
0. 96
1.33
1.25
1. 07
1. 12
1. 00
0. 66
0. 87
1. 00
0. 64
0. 95
1. 30
1. 37
0. 53
2.50
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 08
0. 87
0.83
'
GF 1990
1.25
0. 75
1. 10
1. 19
!. 04
!. 1 1
0.69
1. 04
2. 00
1. 00
1.55
1. 10
0. 70
0. 50
1. 00
1. 00
0. 57
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 00
1. 85
I. 27
0. 66
0. 83
0. 83
2. 00
1. 26
1.16
1. 50
1. 14
1. 50
1. 12
0. 66
1. 00
1.25
0. 85
0. 90
1.50
2.25
0.62
5. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 16
0. 75
0. 50
j
CELL //
(45
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
1 5 5
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A-24
GF 1982
1. 06
2.62
0. 58
2. 50
1. 87
1.59
1. 33
2.25
1.40
1.43
0. 72
1.27
2. 00
1. 25
1. 05
1. 34
1. 16
1. 15
0. 93
1. 35
0. 70
0. 25
0. 71
0.93
0. 83
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 05
0. 75
1. 55
0. 91
1. 02
1. 12
1. 08
0.92
1.45
1.28
1. 10
0. 80
1. 50
1. 04
0. 94
2. 00
1. 37
1. 75
0. 37
0.61
GF 1990
1. 00
3.00
0.66
0.00
2. 00
1. 36
1. 00
1. 00
1. 50
1.62
1. 00
0.95
2. 25
1. 50
1.39
1. 68
1. 38
1. 30
1. 00
1. 50
0. 80
0. 75
0. 85
1.25
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 75
1. 70
1. 00
1. 28
1.25
1. 33
1. 00
1. 20
1.00
1.60
1. 00
2. 00
0.83
1. 17
2. 00
1. 50
2. 00
0. 50
1. 00
-------
GASOLINE FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY - SMALL GAS ENGINES GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont. )
r~
C F.I.I. //
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
ZOO
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
GF 1982
0.68
1. 00
0. 65
0. 88
0.85
1. 16
1.50
0.92
1,00
0. 75
0. 88
0.96
1. 04
0.93
1. 02
2 OH 0.79
209
210
21 1
2\i
213
/14
21'.
f 16
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
' 235
236
237
238
2 3 9
240
0. 50
1. 06
1. 13
0.98
0. 92
1. 02
0. 87
1 . 03
0. 87
0. 87
0. 70
0. 87
1.18
1. 09
1. 00
1. 14
1. 16
0. 89
1. 00
0. 72
0. 81
1. 1 1
0. 82
1. 02
1.06
1.28
0. 97
0. 81
1. 03
0.60
0. 94
0. 91
i
GF 1990
1.00
1. 00
0.62
1.22
0. 90
1. 00
1. 50
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
0.77
1. 00
1. 15
0.96
1. 13
0.75
0. 50
1. 03
1. 08
0. 93
0. 82
1. 00
0. 80
1. 00
0. 62
1.25
0. 70
0. 87
1.12
0. 90
1.16
1. 14
1. 33
0.84
1. 00
0. 77
0. 81
1. 00
0. 75
0.95
1. 00
1.28
0. 9*
0. 81
0. 84
0.46
0. 88
1. 00
CELL ti
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
A- 2 5
GF 1982
1. 10
0.86
0.92
0. 80
0.79
1. 07
1.06
0. 87
1. 00
0.93
1. 05
1. 12
1. 09
1. 18
1. 00
0.77
1. 00
0.75
0. 85
1. 10
0. 77
0. 75
1. 00
0.90
0.95
1.37
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 12
1. 00
0. 75
1. 00
0. 77
0. 94
1. 00
1. 50
1. 00
2. 00
0.94
0. 58
0. 88
0. 84
0. 83
1. 00
0.93
0. 83
0. 80
GF 1990
1.20
0.73
0.84
0. 60
0.81
1.07
1. 06
1. 00
1.00
0. 93
0.90
0.91
0.90
2.25
1. 00
0. 81
1. 00
0.25
0.90
1.00
1. 00
0. 75
1. 00
1.30
0. 83
1.25
1.20
1.00
1. 00
2.25
1. 00
1. 50
1. 00
0. 72
0.88
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 88
0.66
0.66
0.76
0. 77
1. 00
0. 87
0. 83
0.80
-------
GASOLINE FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY - SMALL GAS ENGINES GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cc
CKF.L //
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
GF 1(>82
0. 95
0.93
2. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
0. 90
1. 12
0-. 50
0. 68
1. 00
1. 00
0.96
0. 75
0.75
304 0.83
305
306
307
308
309
310
3! )
312
313
314
315
316
"
0. 50
0. 70
0. 64
0. 50
1.75
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 50
1. 00
GF 1990
0.63
0. 85
2. 00
1. 00
K 00
1. 00
0. 80
0. 50
0. 75
0. 87
0. 50
2. 50
0. 92
0. 85
1. 00
0.66
0. 50
0.90
0. 85
0. 00
. 50
. 00
. 00 I
. 00
. 00
. 00
0. 67
1. 00
A
* c*
6
CEI.I. //
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-9
GAS FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (FARM TRACTORS) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
OKI I. II
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
: 17
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
43
45
48
49
52
53
54
5_6
57
58
59
60
61
63
70
76
77
78
79
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
l.OQ
1.00
1-. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.0 0
1.00
1. 0 0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
J. 0 0
1.00
1.00
1.00
GF 1990
1.0
1 . 0 r.
1 . U 0
1 , 0 0
; . o o
l.OQ
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 . 0 0 1.00
1 . 0 0 ' ] . 0 0
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
A-
CELL II
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
101
103
108
109
110
1 11
112
113
116
124
127
128
129
132
134
135
136
138
139
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
2 15°
GF 1982
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
i.oo
1.00
i.oo
1. 00
i.oo
i.oo
i.oo
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 0 0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 0 0
1. 0 0
GF 1990
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
i.oo
i.oo
1.00
i.oo
i.oo
i.oo
i.oo
i.oo
i.oo
1.00
1. 0 0
1.00
1.0 0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.0 0
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 0 0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 0 0
1.00
1.0 0
-------
GAS FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (FARM TRACTORS) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont.)
CELL #
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
164
173
: 174
1 0
176
177
178
179
180
1 SI
U2
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
204
205 -
206
207
210
' 211
. GF 1982
1.00
i.oo
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1'. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
i.oo
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
GF 1990
1. 00
1. 00
1 , 0','
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
i.oo
1. 00
i.oo
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
]. 00
1. 00
]. 00
1. 00
1.00 1.00
i.oo I i.oo
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
,
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
I. 00
1. 00
JL
\
-2
8
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-10
DIESEL FUEL HEAVY VEHICLES GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
1
CELL #
1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lr>
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
GF 1982
1. 05
1. 05
1.05
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1.07
1.01
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.04
1.04
1. 04
1. 04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1. 04
1.04
1.04
1.01
1.01
1.08
1. 07
J.07
1.07
1.07
1. 07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1.07
1. 13
1.07
1. 13
1.05
1. 07
GF 1990
1. 11
1 , J '
i. 1'i
~; . o?.
i op
- t \f C.
1. 03
i. 14
i. 02
1. 10
1.11
1. 11
1. 09
1. 09
1. 09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
] . 09
1. 09
1.09
1.09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
1. 09
1.09
1.09
i.02
1 . 02
1. 17
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1.14
1. 14
1. 28
1.28
1.28
1.14
1.28
1. 14
1.28
1. 10
1. 14
1
j - - - -
CELL #
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
5P
59
60
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
A- 29'
GF 1982
1.05
1.13
1.05
1.05
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.05
0.98
1.03
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
0.98
1.03
0.98
1.03
0.98
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 17
1.26
1.26
1.70
1. 17
1. 07
1.07
3. 25
1.05
1.11
1.17
1.11
1. 11
1.19
1.19
1.08
1.08
1.19
1.19
1. 11
GF 1990
1.10
' 1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1. 17
1.17
1. 17
1.17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1.17
1. 10
0.96
1.06
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
0.96
1.06
0.96
1.06
0.97
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 36
1.55
1. 55
2. 50
1. 36
1. 14
1. 14
5.84
1. 10
1.25
1. 36
1.23
1.23
1.40
1.40
1.17
1.17
1.40
1.40
1.23
-------
DIESEL FUEL HEAVY VEHICLE GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont. )
CELL #
97
. 98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
11!
) 12
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
1,35
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
GF 1982
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1.19
1. 19
1.08
1.19
1.06
1.21
1.21
1. 21
1. 21
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 22
1. 22
1. 22
1.22
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 11
1.06
1.22
1. 22
1. 19
1.19
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1.11
1. 19
1.19
1.22
1.22
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
GF 1990
1.23
1.2?
1 , ,-;3
1.40
1.40
1. 17
1. 40
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1. 44
1.44
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1.44
]. 44
1.44
1. 44
1. 14
1. 14
I. 14
1. 14
1. 23
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1.40
1.40
1. 23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1. 23
1. 40
]. 40
1.44
1.44
1.25
1. 25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1. 25
CELL #
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
1 54
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A-3'0
GF 1982
1.21
1.21
1.11
1.11
1. 11
1. 16
1. 16
1.05
1. 07
1. 04
1. 16
1.03
1.24
1. 16
1. 34
1.34
1. 21
1. 17
1. 30
1.08
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1.05
1. Q5
1.07
1.05
1.02
1. 17
1.02
1. 17
1.30
1. 19
1. 19
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1.19
1.19
1.02
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.13
GF 1990
1.44
' 1.44
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.34
1. 34
1. 10
1. 14
1.09
1.34
1.07
1. 30
1.34
1.74
1.74
1.46
1. 36
1.64
1. 16
1.28
1.28
1.28
1. 28
1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1.14
1.10
1. 04
1.32
1.04
1. 36
1.64
1.41
1.41
1. 03
1.03
1. 03
1.41
1.41
1.04
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.28
-------
DIESEL FUEL HEAVY VEHICLES GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont.)
CELL jjf
193
,194
195 .
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
^08
209
210
211
212
213
214
?iS
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
2,31
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
GF 1982
1.13
.98
1.05
1.21
1.21
1.02
1. 19
1.19
1-. 01
1.01
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1. 03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.93
1.00
1. 02
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
GF 1990
1.28
,97
1.10
1. 46
1 . 46
1.04
1.41
1.41
1.03
1.03
1. 16
1. 16
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1.03
1.00
1.00
1 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
1.00
1.05
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
CELL #
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
?50
2 .}
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
A- 31'
GF 1982
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.02
1. 02
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
1. 02
1.02
1. 01
1.01
1.01
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.03
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.03
1.03
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1. 10
1. 10
1. 11
1. 11
1.11
1. 11
1.10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 11
1.11
GF 1990
1.02
"l.02
1.02
1.05
1.05
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
1.05
1.05
1.02
1.02
1. 02
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.06
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.06
1. 06
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1.06
1. 21
1.21
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.24
1.24
-------
DIESEL FUEL HEAVY VEHICLES GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
[
CELL #
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301 '
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
3 1 0
31 1
3! i
313
314
315
1
GF 1982
1. 11
1. 11
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 11
1. H
1. 11
1.16
1. 16
1.21
1. 16
1. 13
1. 05
1.05
1. 05
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
I. 13
1. 13
GF 1990
1.24
1.24
1. 21
1. 21
1.21
1. 35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1. 35
1.23
1.23
1.23
1. 35
1.35
1.46
1. 35
1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 28
1. 28
1. 28
1. 28
1.28
1.28
/
L
3,
?
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
DIESEL FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (FARM TRACTORS) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
; c ).; i i . //
i
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
I?
24
25
27
28
2V
30
','
3 .:,
.: 3
34
35
36
37
38
39
43
45
48
4?
52
53
54
56
ST
58
59
60
'. 61
63
70
76
77
78
79
GF 1982
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1,00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
' 1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1, 00
1. 00
1. 00
GF 1990
1. 00
1 . 00
1. 00
1 . 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00 |
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
i. 00
1.00
i. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
! . 00
1 . 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1, 00
1. 00
i. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
CELL #
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
101
103
108
109
110
111
112
113
116
124
127
128
129
132
134
135
136
138
139
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
1.00 A_33 150
GF 1982
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
]. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
GF 1990
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
-------
DIESEL FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (FARM TRACTORS) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont.)
OR F.I. //
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
164
173
| 174
! 7 S
176
177
178
179
180
181
18.2
183
1 84
185
186
187
188
189
196
197
193
199
200
201
202
204
205 -.
206
207
210
' 211
GF 1'i.HZ
1.00
i.oo
1. 00
1.00
i.oo
1. 00
1. 00
i.oo
1,00
i.oo
1. 00
1. 00
i.oo
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1 . 0 0
GF 1990
i.oo
i.oo
1 , 0 0
'.oo
1 . 0 0
1.00 |
i.oo 1
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
i.oo
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
]. 00
1. 00
1. 00
]. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
'.
1. 00
I. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
i. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
A-.
CELL //
(
GF 1982
!
i
i
t
i
i
i
34
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-12
DIESEL FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
1 CELL #
1
2
i 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1^
16
17
18
19
20
21
?, /",
2}
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
' 43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
GF 1982
1.80
1.43
1.43
1.67
1.67
2.25
2.25
1.67
1'.43
2. 00
3.25
2. 30
2.30
2. 30
2.30
1. 18
2. 30
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
2.30
1. 18
1 . 1 8
1. 18
1. 18
1.93
1.93
1.43
1. 00
1.43
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 15
1. 12
1. 15
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
GF 1990
1.80
1,43
1.43
1.67
1.67
2. Zb
2.2'j
1.67
1.43
2. 00
3.25
2.30
2.30
2. 30
2. 30
1. 18
2.30
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
2.30
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1.93
1.93
1.43
1.00
1.43
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1.50
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
1. 16
CELL #
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6n
t J
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
A 35
GF 1982
1. 12
1. 12
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1, 12
1. 02
1. 02
1.17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 02
1. 03
1. 02
1. 02
1. 14
1. 02
1.01
1.01
1. 00
1. 00
1. 04
1. 04
1. 03
1. 00
1.00
1. 03
1. 01
1.01
1. 03
1.04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 03
1. 03
1.04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
GF 1990
1. 16
1. 16
1.43
1.43
1,43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1. 16
1. 08
1.08
1. 17
1. 17
1. J7
1. 17
1. 17
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1.79
1.08
1.05
1.05
1. 00
1.00
1. 11
1. 11
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 06
1. 06
1. 17
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 08
1. 08
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
-------
DIESEL FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT) GROWTH FACTORS (G!
(cont. )
1
CELL #
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
1 ! I
1 1 M
]>S
1 1 6
117
1 18
)19
120
1 ;, i
1 L i
1 2
1^:4
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139 '.
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
GF 1982
1. 04
1.03
1. 02
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1» 01
1.01
1. 01
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1.01
1. 01
1. 01
J. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 05
I. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1. 01
1. 01
1.01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 06
1.06
1. 01
GF 1990
1. 1!
1.08
?, OS
]. 07
1. 07
1.07
1.07
1. 07
1. 07
1.07
1.07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1.07
1.07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1.10
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.07
1. 07
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 06
1. 07
1. 07
1. 06
1.06
1.06
1.03
A
-3
6
CELL #
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
GF 1982
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1. 00
1. 01
1. 12
1. 12
1. 01
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 15
1. 12
1. 08
1. 02
1. 08
1.02
1. 02
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
0. 86
0.67
1. 00
1.00
0.93
1.00
1. 14
1. 14
1. 00
1. 00
1. 12
1. 12
1.00
1. 12
1. 02
1.02
0.96
1.00
1. 00
GF 1990
1. 03
1. 06
1. 06
1. 00
1.03
1.62
1.62
1. 03
1. 08
1. 08
1. 09
1. 09
1. 08
1. 09
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
1.36
1. 09
1.36
1.09
1. 08
1. 00
1. 00
0. 88
0. 86
0.67
0. 83
0. 83
0.79
1. 00
1.79
1.79
1. 00
1. 00
1. 16
1. 16
1. 00
1. 16
1.09
1. 09
0.87
0.83
0.83
-------
DIESEL FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT) GROWTH FACTORS (GF
(cont.)
CELL #
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
21.9
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
23-8
239 '
240
241
242
' 243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
GF 1982
.67
.67
1. 03
1. 03
1. 03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
U03
1. 03
1.03
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
GF 1990
.67
.67
1 . 08
i . 08
1. 03
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
CELL #
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
A-37
GF 1982
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.05
1. 05
GF 1990
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 10
1. 10
-------
DIESEL FUEL - OFF HIGHWAY (CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT) GROWTH FACTORS
(cont. )
CELL #
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
-
GF 1982
1. 05
1. 00
1.00
1. 02
1. 00
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
l'. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 00
GF 1990
1. 10
1. 00
1. 00
1. 09
1,00
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 00
A
-3
8
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-13
DIESEL FUEL- RAILROADS GROWTH FACTORS (GF>
CELL #
9
10
12
15
16
17
19
20
26
28
30
32
34
42
4"
46*
47*
49*
53
60
62
64
66
67
68
70
73
75
76
77
82
83
84
85
86
102
107
108-
113*
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
1 2 1 *
125
128
129
GF 1982
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
a 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0^95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
GF 1990
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0. -j6
0-96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.95 j 0.96
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0. 95
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0, 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0- 96
0.96
i
-'.
CELL #
130
134
135
136
138
139
140
141
142
14 '.
145
150
151
152
153
155
156
157
160
161
162
163
164
175
176
181
182
183
184
186
187
188
189
191
196
197
198
200
202
204
205
206
208*
209*
210
21 1
212
213
214
c 215
GF 1982
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
"0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
GF 1990
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0-96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
-------
DIESEL FUEL - RAILROADS GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
220
221
222
225
226
227
237
238
239
240
241
247
218
254
255
256*
257
258
262
263
264
?,65
2tV,
2t>7
268*
269*
270
271
272
273
274*
275*
276*
277*
278
279
281
28-5
286
290
291*
292*
294*
295*
296*
GF 1982
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0'. 95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0 . ^ 5
0.9 -
0.95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0. 95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.95
0 .95
*Grid Cells containing
railroad
yard activity
GF 1990
0.96
0 , ', '>
0. 95
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0 . 96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0. 96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
0 .96
CELL #
297
301
302
303*
304*
305*
A-40
GF 1982
0.95 '
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
GF 1990
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0. 96
0.96
-------
TABLE A-14
AIRCRAFT GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
!
Grid #
1
3
8
10
11
14
28
*32
34
77
81
1
82
**106
1 16
127
178
179
181
183
188
i89
198
199
260
263
310
158
159
164
Commercial
1982 1990
-
1. 10
1.23
Civil
1982 1990
1.83
1.83
i
j 1.83
1.20
1.60
1. 83
1.83
1.83
1. 83
1.55
1. 83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1. 16
1. 83
1. 83
1. 83
1. 83
1. 83
1. 83
1. 83
1. 83
1.83
1. 83
1.83
1. 83
1.83
1.83
1. 83
1.83
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2, 18
2 , 'j 7
2.67
2.67
2.67
1. 13
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2. 67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
Military
1982 1990
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
* Contains Niagara Falls International Airport
** Contains Greater Buffalo International Airport
A-41
-------
TABLE A-15
VESSEL GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
GRID #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
36
* 63
69
* 70
73
74
'62
J64
187
189
190
191
197
*2 1 5
**216
**231
**232
247
248
262
263
275
276
**277
**278
##279
##293
294
305
#316
Commerci
1982
al Vessels
1990
!
0 . 89
0 . 89
0 . 89
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 14
R ecreationa
1982
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2.00
2. 00
2. 00
2.00
2. 00
1.90
]. 26
t.1 Vessels
1990
1.58
1. 58
1. 58
1. 58
1. 58
1.58
1.58
1. 58
1.58
i
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1. 58
1. 58
1. 58
1.58
1. 58
1.58
1. 58
1.58
1.58
1.58
1. 58
1. 58
1.58
1. 58
1. 58
1. 58
1. 58
* Contains Niagara River - Black Rock Channel
section of Port of Buffalo
## Contains Buffalo Harbor section of Port of Buffalo
# 10 by 10 kilometer grid in Lake Erie
A-42
-------
TABLE A-16
DIRT ROADS TRAVELED GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
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
47
48
GF 1982
0.59
1.65
1.65
0.00
0. 00
1.07
0.00
0.00
1.65
0. 72
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0. 55
0. 55
0. 80
0. 00
0. 80
0. 00
0.95
0.95
0.95
0. 95
0.95
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.95
o.oo
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
GF 1990
0. 13
2 . 5 i
2,39
0. 00
0, 00
1. 15
0. -,'Q
0.00
2.39
0.40
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
o.oo
o.oo
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.03
0.03
0.57
0, 00
0. 57
0.00 .
0.88
0. 88
0.88
0. 88
0.88
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.88
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00 J
A-
CELL #
49
50
51
! 52
53
54
55
56
57
GF 1982
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0,00
59 0, f'O
60 0, CO
61 0. 00
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
43
1 . 00
1. 00
0. 00
0.45
0. 00
0. 00
0.45
0. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 00
0. 00
1.00
0.85
0.85
0. 00
1. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.30
0.24
0.24
0.30
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. Of)
0. Of)
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
o.oo
o.oo
0. 00
GF 1990
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0,00
0.00
0. 00
1. 00
). 00
0. 00
0. 00'
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
1. 00
1.00
0. 00
0. 00
1.00
0.68
0.68
0. 00
1. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
o.oo
0. OQ
0. 00
o.oo
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
-------
DIRT ROADS TRAVELED GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
CELL #
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
100
: 110
l ' '
GF 1982
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 0 0
1.13
0.00
0. 00
0.37
0.0 0
0.00
0.37
0.37
0. 0 0
0.00
1 J2 [ 0. 0 0
, -i , i
] 13
114
] 1 5
116
1 17
,
! 1 1 H
i , .
! 1 9
120
1Z1
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
13.4
135
136
137
138
' 139
140
141
142
143
144
0. 0 0
0.0 0
0. 0 0
0. 37
0. 0 0
0.0 0
0.37
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
o.oo
0. 0 0
0.37
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0.00
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0.37
0. 0 0
0.0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
GF 1990
0.00
0. 00
0. <' 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
1.27 1
0. 0 0
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
o.oo i
0. 00
0. 0 0
0. 00
0.00
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
0. 0 0
0. 0 0 1
0. 0 0
o.oo
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
o.oo
0. 0 0
0.0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
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 o
0. 0 0
CELL #
145
146
147
148
] 149
150
151
152
153
i -. /
GF 1982
0.00'
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.76
0.76
o.oo
0. 00
1. 53
15t i 0.76
156 ' 0.00
157 : 0,91
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A- 44'
0. 76
GF 1990
0. 00
0. 00
0. 0 0
0. 00
0. 00
0.48
0.48
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
2. 13
0.48
0. 0 0
0. 81
! 0.48
0.63 ! 0.38
0.00 ! o. 00
0. 87
0.87
0.63
0. 87
0. 0 0
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. 0 0
0.87
1.00
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
1. 03
1.41
0. 72
0.85
0. 96
0. 96
0.83
1. 05
0. 0 0
1.41
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 72
0. 72
0. 38
0. 72
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
1.00
0. 72
1.00
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
0. 0 0
1. 06
1. 88
0.41
0.68
0.92
0. 92
0. 63
1. 11
0. 0 0
1.87
0. 0 0
0.00
0. 0 0
-------
DIRT ROADS TRAVELED GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont. )
I CELL #
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
ZOO
201
202
203
204
205
206
2 u ;
208
209
210
211
212
,'.1 ^
214
-------
DIRT ROADS TRAVELED GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont.)
CELL #
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
3U3
304
305
306
307
308
HQ9
>JO
31]
3J2
313
314
315
316
GF 1982
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
o.oo
0.00
0. 00
o.oo
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 52
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
GF 1990
0. 00
0. 00
0, 00
0. 00
o.oo
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
1
\.
'
-4
6
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-17
DIRT AIRSTRIPS GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
1
3
6
8
11
28
34
77
81
158
159
178
179
189
iv8
!
i
GF 1982
1. 83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
GF 1990
2.67
2. 67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
A-
CELL #
j
47
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-18
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA (CONSTRUCTION AREA) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20'
21
?.?.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39" -.
40
41
42
' 43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
GF 1982
1.80
1.43
1.43
1.67
1.67
2.25
2.25
1.67
1.'43
2. 00
3.25
2.30
2.30
2. 30
2.30
1. 18
2. 30
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
2. 30
1. 18
1. 18
GF 1990
1. 80
1.43
1. 43
1.67
1 . 6 7
2.25
2.25
U67
1.43
2. 00
3.25
2.30
2.30
2.30
2. 30
1. 18
2. 30
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
1. 18
3. 18
2.30
1. J8
1. 18
1. 18 1. 18
1. 18
1.93
1.93
1.43
1. 00
1.43
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1.50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 15
1. 12
1. 15
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 18
1.93
1. 93
1.43
1. 00
1.43
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
1.50
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
I
-
CELL #
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
(,n
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
1.16 A- 48' 100
GF 1982
1. 12
1. 12
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1. 12
1.02
1. 02
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 02
1. 03
1. 02
1. 02
1. 14
1. 02
1. 01
1. 01
1. 00
1. 00
1. 04
1. 04
1. 03
1.00
1. 00
1. 03
1. 01
1. 01
1. 03
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 03
1. 03
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
GF 1990
1. 16
1. 16
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
J.43
). 16
1.08
1. 08
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1.79
1. 08
1. 05
1.05
1. 00
1. 00
1. 11
1. 11
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 06
1. 06
1. 17
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 08
1. 08
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
-------
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA (CONSTRUCTION AREA) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont. )
i CELL tf
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
1 14
] 15
j ' '<
] 17
118
119
120
121
122
! 1 ) 2
1 o J>
l?.4
US
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139 ,
140
141
142
' 143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
GF 1982
1. 04
1. 03
1. 02
1. 01
1.01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1.-01
1. 01
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1.01.
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
] . 01
1. 01
1. 05
1, 01
1. 01
I. 01
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 05
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1.01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1. 01
1.06
1. 06
1. 01
GF 1990
1. 11
1. 08
MM
1, : .
; . t;v
l.O,'
1 , 07
1.07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
I. 07
1.07
1. 07
1. 10
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
l.-O
1 . J 0
J.10
1..10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1.10
1. 07
1. 07
1. 06
1. 06
1. 06
1. 06
1.06
1. 06
1. 07
1. 07
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.03 A
CELL #
' 151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Jul
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 '
199
200
49
GF 1982
1.01
1.01
1.01
1. 00
1. 01
1. 12
1. 12
1. 01
1. 02
1.02
; 1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 15
1. 12
1. 08
1. 02
1. 08
1. 02
1. 02
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
0. 86
0.67
1. 00
1. 00
0. 93
1.00
1. 14
1. 14
1. 00
1. 00
1. 12
. 1.12
1. 00
1. 12
1.02
1.02
0.96
1.00
1.00
GF 1990
1. 03
1. 06
1. 06
1. 00
1. 03
1.62
1. 62
1. 03
1.08
1.08
1. 09
1. 09
1.08
1.09
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 15
1. 16
1.36
1.09
1.36
1.09
1. 08
1. 00
1. 00
0. 88
0. 86
0. 67
0.83
0. 83
0. 79
1. 00
1.79
1.79
1. 00
1. 00
1. 16
1. 16
1. 00
1. 16
1.09
1. 09
0.87
0. 83
0. 83
-------
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA (CONSTRUCTION AREA) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont.
CELL #
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
21-,
/. I > ,
?. 17
218
21.0
220
221
,! ' /'
223
2?4
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
23.8
239 '.
240
241
242
' 243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
GF 1982
0.67
0.67
1. 03
1.03
1.03
I. 03
1. 03
1. 03
1/03
1. 03
1. 03
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
GF 1990
0.67
0. 67
1. UH
i, 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
J. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1 . 02 ' 1.08
1. 02 i 1. 08
I. 02 i 1. 08
!.02 | 1.08
1. 02
1. 02
1. 08
1. 08
1. 02 < 1 . 08
1.0? 1.08
1.02 ; 1.08
1.02 .1.08
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
*.-'.
C
CELL #
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
2 G <
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298 '
299
300
GF 1982
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
1. 02
. 1. 02
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 05
1.05
GF 1990
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
J. 08
1. 08
J. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1, 08
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 10
1. 10
-------
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA (CONSTRUCTION AREA) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(conts)
CELL #
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
GF 1982
1. 05
1. 00
1.00
1. 02
1.00
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
i; 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 12
1. 00
GF 1990
1. 10
1. 00
1. 00
]. 09
1.00
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 00
A
CELL #
-
: 1
A
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-19
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA (CROPLAND) GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CKI.I. //
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
16
17
24
25
27
28
2'.»
30
31
12
33
;!
35
36
37
38
39
43
45
48
49
52
53
51
56
57-
58
59
60
61
63
70
76
7 7
78
79
80
GF 1982
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
l.'OO
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
!. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
i . 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1 . 00
1. OP
GF 1990 |
1. 00
1 . r> '"'
1. !'.°
1, 00
'
i. 00
>.00 i
I. 00
1 . 00
1. 00
!. 00
I. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
!. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1 . 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
!. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
A
52
GEL!, //
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
no
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
101
103
108
109
110
1 11
1 12
113
1 16
124
127
128
129
132
134
135
136
138
139
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
GF 1982
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
I. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1 . 00
I. 00
1. 00
1. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
GF 1990
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
I. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
-------
CONSTRUCTION LAND AREA (CROPLAND) GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
f '""" "" - -~ " ' ^
c ]; i . i . //
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
164
173
174
175
176
1 7 /
1 7H
179
180
181
18Z
183
l'<4
185
186
187
1H8
189
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
204
205
206_
207
2 10
211
GF 1982
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
]. 00
i.'oo
i.oo
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
i. oo
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
l
C, F 1990
1. 00
1. 00
i. 00
1 , ')0
'. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
i.oo
i.oo
1.0°
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
i.oo
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
i.oo
1. 00
i.oo
1. 00
i.oo
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
A-
CEI.I. //
53
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
\ TABLE A-20
ROCK HANDLING AND STORAGE GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CELL #
7
10
28
34
83
85
117
141
153
154
159
160
181
198
199
200
202
GF 1982
0. 00
2. 10
1. 50
1.20
1. 02
1.02
1.60
0.00
1.00
1.02
0. 00
1. 03
0. 00
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.78
GF 1990
0., 00
2 , 10
1. 50
1.42
1. 07
1. 07
2.20
0.00
1. 00
1.15
0. 00
1. 12
0. 00
0.94
0. 83
0. 83
0. 72
/
.
-5-
CELL #
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-21
SLASH BURNING GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
(,! I.I. //
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
28
29
31
3 ;
34
S3
82
i
GF 1982
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.-00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
GF 19'>0
1. 00
1. no
1 . 00
i . 00
! , iVJ |
) . 00
1, 00 \
I. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
I
I
A~
CEI I. ft
J
55
GF 1982
i
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-22
STRUCTURAL FIRES GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
CK! 1. II
\
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'' I
:.,'.
2 !,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
10
41
-- 42
43
44 ,
45
. l
! 7
4,"
i
. GF 1982
0. 75
1. 16
1. 00
1. 16
1. 00
0. 93
1.06
1. 00
0. 95
0. 83
0.83
1. 00
1. 00
1. 33
0. 62
1.35
1. 00
1. 00
0. 83
1. 83
1. 00
0. 70
0. 50
0. 66
0. 87
1. 50
1. 00
0.95
0. 75
0. 83
1. 00
']. 08
1. 00
1.16
1. 50
0. 83
0. 75
1. 33
2. 00
0. 83
1. 00
0. 75
0.66
2. 00
1. 50
0. 75
0. 75
0. 90
''
GF 1990
1. 00
1. 00
1. f/0
1. 00
i.oo !
i
0. 86
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0. 88
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 55
0. 75
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 66
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 66
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
0. 90
1. 00
0. 83
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
0. 83
0. 50
0. 66
1. 00
0. 66
1.25
1. 00
1. 00
1. 66
2. 00
1. 00
0. 50
1. 00 '
A- 56
CELL II
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
t. _,
58
59
60
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
GF 1982
1. 00
1. 80
2. 00
1. 10
1. 00
1. 50
1. 00
1. 00
1. 50
0. 66
2. 00
0. 50
0. 75
1.20
1.45
0. 71
1.22
1. 00
1. 00
0. 90
1. 00
0. 72
1. 35
1. 50
1. 07
1. 16
0. 92
1. 27
2. 50
0.91
2. 00
1. 27
2. 00
1. 27
1. 15
1. 00
1. 37
1.41
1. 50
0. 50
1. 38
1.41
0. 75
1. 1 1
0. 96
1. 08
1.35
0.92
GF 1990
1. 00
1.40
3. 00
0. 80
1. 00
2. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 00
0. 66
1. 00
o.oo
0. 83
1. 80
.2. 00
0. 85
1.36
0. 90
0. 83
0. 95
0. 75
1. 00
1.71
1. 66
1. 14
0.83
0. 80
1. 18
1. 00
0. 83
2. 00
1. 34
1. 58
1. 00
1. 20
0. 85
0. 75
1.21
1. 35
1.00
1. 22
1.83
3. 50
0. 88
0. 96
1. 08
1.28
0.92
-------
STRUCTURAL FIRES GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont. )
I..//
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
1 10
1 1 1
i '< :
I ! )
! 14
115
i ' 6
1 17
1 18
! ' ')
} /.o
1 '.1
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135 ..
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
M '»
144
GF 1982
1.31
0. 87
1. 15
1. 03
0.92
0. 88
1. 00
1. 04
1.28
K 50
1.22
0. 84
0.79
0. 37
1.25
1. 00
0.42
0. 75
0. 90
0. 85
1. 75
1.21
0. 90
0. 83
0. 83
0.75
1. 75
0. 96
1. 33
1.25
1. 07
1. 12
1. 00
0.66
0. 87
1 . 00
0. 64
0. 95
1. 30
1. 37
0. 53
2. 50
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 08
O.H7
0. 83
'
GF 1990
1. 25
0. 75
1. . 0
1. ;
t .. 04
J , I 1
0. 6'J
1 . 04
2. 00
1. 00
1. 55
1. 10
0. 70
0. 50
1. 00
!. 00
0. 57
1. 00
1. 00
1 . 00
2. 00
1 . 85
! . 27
0. 66
0. 83
0. 83
2. 00
1. 26
1. 16
1. 50
1. 14
1. 50
1. 12
0. 66
1. 00
1.25
0. 85
0. 90
1. 50
2. 25
0.62
5. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.16
0. 75
0. 50
l
CELL //
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
1C4
GF 1982
1. 06
2.62
0.58
2. 50
1. 87
1.59
1.33
2.25
1.40
1.43
r, i 0.72
156 I.Z.?
157 2.00
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
i 172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A-57 '
1.25
1. 05
1.34
1. 16
1. 15
0.93
1. 35
0. 70
0. 25
0. 71
0. 93
0. 83
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1.05
0. 75
1. 55
0. 91
1. 02
1. 12
1. 08
0.92
1.45
1.28
1. 10
0. 80
1. 50
1.04
0. 94
2. 00
1.37
1.75
0. 37
0.61
!
GF 1990
1. 00
3. 00
0. 66
0.00
2. 00
1. 36
1. 00
1. 00
1. 50
1.62
1.00 I
0. 95
2. 25
1. 50
1.39
1.68
1. 38
1. 30
1. 00
1. 50
0. 80
0. 75
0. 85
1.25
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
0.75
1. 70
1. 00
1. 28
1. 25
1. 33
1. 00
1. 20
1. 00
1.60
1.00
2. 00
0.83
1. 17
2. 00
1. 50
2. 00
0. 50
1.00
-------
STRUCTURAL FIRES GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cent. )
'.:K i.i. //
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
21 1
212
213
2 1 4
2 1 '3
21 A
21 /
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230_
231
232
233
234
' 235
236
237
238
2 3 '.)
240
GF 19 82
0.68
1. 00
0. 65
0. 88
0.85
1. 16
1.50
0.92
1,00
0. 75
0.88
0. 96
1. 04
0.93
1. 02
0. 79
0. 50
] . 06
1. 13
0. 98
0. 92
1. 02
0. 87
1. 03
0. 87
0. 87
0. 70
0. 87
1. 18
1. 09
1. 00
1. 14
1.16
0. 89
1. 00
0.72
0. 81
1. 11
0. 82
1. 02
1. 06
1.28
0. 97
0. 81
1. 03
0.60
0. 94
o. 91
,
GF 1990
1.00
1. 00
0. 62
1.22
0. 90
1. 00
1. 50
0. 85
1. 00
1. 00
0. 77
1. 00
1. 15
0.96
1. 13
0. 75
0. 50
1. 03
1. 08
0. 93
0. 82
1. 00
0. 80
1. 00
0.62
1.25
0. 70
0. 87
1. 12
0. 90
1. 16
1. 14
1. 33
0. 84
1. 00
0. 77
0. 81
1. 00
0. 75
0.95
1. 00
1.28
0. 94
0. 81
0. 84
0.46
0. 88
1. 00
CELL #
24i
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
A-58
GF 1982
1. 10
0. 86
0.92
0.80
0. 79
1. 07
1.06
0. 87
1. 00
0. 93
1. 05
1.12
1. 09
1. 18
1. 00
0. 77
1. 00
0. 75
0.85
1. 10
0. 77
0. 75
1. 00
0. 90
0. 95
1. 37
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
2. 12
1. 00
0. 75
1. 00
0. 77
0. 94
1. 00
1. 50
I. 00
2. 00
0. 94
0. 58
0. 88
0. 84
0.83
1. 00
0. 93
0. 83
0. 80
GF 1990
1.20
0. 73
0.84
0. 60
0. 81
1. 07
1. 06
1. 00
1. 00
0. 93
0.90
0.91
0.90
2.25
1. 00
0. 81
1. 00
0.25
0. 90
1. 00
1. 00
0. 75
1. 00
1.30
0. 83
1.25
1. 20
1.00
1. 00
2.25
1. 00
1. 50
1. 00
0. 72
0. 88
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
0. 88
0. 66
0.66
0.76
0. 77
1. 00
0. 87
0. 83
0. 80
-------
STRUCTURAL FIRES GROWTH FACTORS (GF) (cont.)
CM. I. //
2*9
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
31 1
312
313
314
315
GF 1982
0.95
0. 93
2. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1. 12
0. 50
0168
1.00
1. 00
0.96
0. 75
0.75
0.83
0. 50
0. 70
0. 64
0. 50
1.75
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
I. 00
1. 00
0. 50
1
GF 1990
0.63
0. 85
2. 00
1. no
1. 00
1. 00
0. BO
0. 50
0. 75
0. 87
0. 50
2. 50
0.92
0. 85
J. 00
0.66
0. 50
0.90
0. 85
0. 00
1. 50
1 . 00
) . 00
1 . 00
1. 00
1 . 00
0. 67
1
I
i
^-59
CELL //
GF 1982
GF 1990
-------
TABLE A-23
REENTRAINED DUST GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
I
CELL #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
] r>
16
17
18
19
20
21
72
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
GF 1982
1. 05
1. 05
1.05
1.01
1.01
1. 01
1.07
1.01
1.05
1. 05
1.05
1. 04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1. 04
1.04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1. 04
1.04
1. 04
1. CM
1.04
1. 04
1. 01
1.01
1. 08
1. 07
1.07
1. 07
1.07
1. 07
1.07
1. 07
1.07
1.07
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1.07
1. 13
1. 07
1. 13
1.05
1. 07
GF 1990
1. 11
1. 30
1. 10
1.02
1.02
1. 03
1. 14
1. 02
1. 10
1. 11
1.11
1. 09
1. 09
1. 09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
1. 09
1. 09
1.09
1.09
1. 09
1. 09
!.09
1. 09
1.09
1.09
1. 02
1.02
1. 17
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 28
1.28
1.28
1.14
1.28
1. 14
1. 28
1. 10
1. 14
A
L-6
0
CELL #
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
'if-
GF 1982
1.05
1. 13
1.05
1.05
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
59 j 1.08
60 1.08
61 1.05
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
0.98
1.03
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
0.98
1.03
0.98
1.03
0.98
1.08
1.08
1.08
1. 17
1.26
1.26
1. 70
1. 17
1. 07
1.07
3. 25
1.05
1.11
1.17
1.11
1. 11
1. 19
1.19
1.08
1.08
1. 19
1.19
1. 11
GF 1990
1. 10
' 1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1. 17
1.17
1. 17
1.17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 10
0. 96
1.06
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
0.96
1.06
0.96
1. 06
0. 97
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1.36
1.55
1. 55
2. 50
1. 36
1. 14
1. 14
5.84
1. 10
1. 25
1. 36
1.23
1.23
1.40
1.40
1. 17
1. 17
1.40
1.40
1. 23
-------
REENTRAINED DUST GROWTH FACTORS ;(GF)(cont. )
r
CELL #
97
. 98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106 .
107
108
109
110
1 i I
112
113
114
1 15
116
117
l 18
1 19
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
1,35
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
1
GF 1982
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1.19
1. 19
1.08
1.19
1.06
r. 21
1.21
1. 21
1. 21
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 22
1.22
1.22
1. 22
1.06
1.06
1. 06
1.06
1. 11
1.06
1.22
1.22
1. 19
1. 19
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1.19
1. 19
1.22
1.22
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1.11
1. 11
GF 1990
1.23
l.?3
1.23
1.40
1.40
1. 17
1. 40
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.44
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.44
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1.23
1. 14
1.44
1.44
1.40
1.40
1. 23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.40
1.40
1.44
1.44
1.25
1. 25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
CELL #
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
1 '- 4
1 .',
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
A-6l'
GF 1982
1.21
1.21
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1. 16
1. 16
1.05
1.07
1. 04
1. 16
1.03
1.24
1.16
1. 34
1.34
1.21
1.17
1.30
1.08
1.13
1.13
1. 13
1.13
1. 13
1.05
1.Q5
1.07
1.05
1.02
1.17
1.02
1. 17
1.30
1. 19
1. 19
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.19
1.19
1.02
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.13
GF 1990
1.44
'1.44
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.34
1.34
1. 10
1. 14
1.09
1.34
1.07
1. 30
1.34
1.74
1,74
1.46
1. 36
1.64
1.16
1.28
1.28
1.28
1. 28
1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1.14
1. 10
1. 04
1. 32
1.04
1. 36
1.64
1.41
1.41
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.41
1.41
1.04
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.28
-------
REENTRAINED DUST GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont. )
CELL #
193
,194
195 .
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
705'
206
'..7
208
209
210
211
212
213
°14
215
?. 16
217
218
2J9
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
2,31
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
GF 1982
1.13
0.98
1.05
1.21
1.21
1.02
1. 19
1. 19
1.01
1. 01
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1. 08
1. 08
1. 08
1.08
1. 03
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.03
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1. 03
1. 03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.93
1.00
1. 02
1. 01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1. 01
GF 1990
1. 28
0.97
1.10
1. 46
1.46
1.04
1.41
1.41
1.03
1.03
1. 16
1. 16
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1. 17
1.17
1. 17
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1. 03 '
1. 03
1.03
1. 03
1. 03
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
1.00
1.05
1. 02
1.02
1. 02
1.02
1.02
CELL #
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
Z''(]
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
A- 4 2
GF 1982
1.01
1. 01
1.01
1.02
1.02
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
1. 02
1.02
1. 01
1. 01
1.01
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.03
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.03
1. 03
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.03
1. 03
1.03
1. 03
1. 10
1. 10
1.11
1. 11
1.11
1.11
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 11
1. 11
GF 1990
1.02
"l. 02
1. 02
1.05
1. 05
0.86
0.86
0..86
0.86
1.05
1. 05
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.06
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.06
1. 06
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.21
1.21
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.24
1.24
-------
REENTRAINED DUST GROWTH FACTORS (GF)(cont.)
CELL #
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301 '
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
f
I
GF 1982
1. 11
1.11
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
r. 16
1. 16
1. 11
1. 11
1. 11
1.16
1. 16
1.21
1. 16
1. 13
1. 05
1.05
1. 05
1.13
1. 13
1. 13
1. 13
1.13
1. 13
GF 1990
1.24
1.24
1. 21
1. 21
1.21
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1. 35
1.23
1.23
1.23
1. 35
1.35
1.46
1.35
1.28
1. 10
1. 10
1. 10
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
A
CELL #
-63
GF 1982
GF 1990
'
-------
TABLE A-24a
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 20 - Food and Kindred Products
Grid #
16
71
82
108
114
123
124
125
128
176
187
200
210
219
220
231
232
* 237
247
259
261
264
**265
269
270
276
# 277
290
306
311
Employ me tit
340
270
286
150
420
50
600
908
51
400
98
80
135
50
280
70
50
835
360
81
190
175
800
160
50
147
494
65
61
500
GF 198Z
0. 78
0. 78
1.56
. 0. 78
0. 78
0. 78
0. 73
0. 78
0.78
0. 78
0. 78
0. 78
0.78
0.78
0.78
0. 78
0.78
3.36
0.78
0. 78
1. 56
1. 56
1. 00
0. 78
0. 78
0.78
3.41
0.78
0.78
i0.78
GF 1990
0.71
0. 71
1.42
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0. 71
0.71
0. 71
0. 71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
4.22
0.71
0.71
1.42
1.42
1.00
0. 71
0. 71
0.71
3.45
0. 71
0. 71
0.71
r i n T -» n
* Includes employment of 500 and growth factors of 1.8 and 2.8
for 1982 and 1990, respectively, for a facility included in the
point source projections.
#* Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
# Represents the sum of employments and growth factors for
3 facilities included in the point source projections.
A-64
-------
TABLE A-Z4b
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 22 - Textile Mill Products
Grid #
2
265
Employment,
180
550
GF 1982
0.48
0.96
GF 1990
0.11
0.22
TABLE A-24c
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 23 - Apparel and Other Textile Products
Grid #
30
140
215
232
250
253
264
273
Employment
75
50
100
50
1300
75
60
236
GF 1982
0. 80
0 . 80
0. 80
0.80
0.80
0. 80
0 . 80
0.80
GF 1990
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0. 57
TABLE A-24d
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 24 - Lumber and Wood Products
Grid //
10
^ 68
75
160
214
271
Employment
120
55
50
103
75
75
GF 1982
0. 85
1. 18
0. 85
1.70
0.85
0.85
GF 1990
0 . 82
1.40
0.82
1. 64
0.82
0.82
* Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
A-65
-------
TABLE A-24e
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 25 - Furniture and Fixtures
Grid #
75
124
214
238
240
271
Employment
f,0
55
269
75
55
100
GF 1982
0. 77
0. 77
0. 77
0.77
- 0. 77
0. 77
GF 1990
0. 50
0. 50
0. 50
0. 50
0. 50
0. 50
TABLE A-24I
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 26 - Paper and Allied Products
Grid //
2
* 19
68
77
84
115
117
141
205
214
227
225
260
265
266
##268
270
271
##308
Employment
200
475
650
170
225
630
240
100
170
135
70
80
100
125
50
175
101
60
600
GF 1982
0.86
1.91
1. 72
0. 86
0. 86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0. 86
1.72
0. 86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0. 86
1. 10
0.86
0. 86
1.20
GF 1990
0. 71
1.81
1.42
0.71
0. 71
0.71
0.71
0. 71
0.71
1.42
0.71
0. 71
0.71
0. 71
0.71
1. 17
0 .71
0.71
1.38
Includes employment of 350 and growth factors of 1.05 and
1. 10 for the years 1982 and 1990, respectively, for a facility
included in the point source projections.
Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
A-66
-------
TABLE A-24g
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 27 - Printing and Publishing
Grid #
46
152
177
208
209
215
232
243
244
250
264
265
273
310
318
Employment
100
b5
70
50
110
166
100
130
55
1063
1100
60
465
600
1400
GF 1982
I, 04
i 1. 04
1. 05
i , 04
1. 04
1, 04
1 . 04
J . J4
1. 04
4. 16
1. 04
]. 04
]. 04
2. 08
1. 04
i
GF
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
4.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1990
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
60
15
15
15
30
15
* Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
A-67
-------
TABLE A-24h
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 28 - Chemicals and Allied Products
Grid #
2
10
43
63
* 67
* .70
71
74
207
209
232
275
* 278
* 279
291
308
**312
# 313
* 314
Employment
127
4 4 0
175
219
950
170
500
536
210
220
70
500
560
130
90
54
2800
118
2000
GF 1982
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
1. 11
1. 00
0. 84
0. 84
1.68
0.84
0. 84
1.68
1.50
0.90
0.84
0. 84
1. 84
2.34
1.10
GF 1990
0.64
0.64
0. 64
0. 64
1.25
1. 00
0. 64
0. 64
1.28
0.64
0.64
1.28
1.61
0.80
0.64
0.64
1.64
2.64
1. 10
TABLE A-241
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 29 - Petroleum Products
Grid //
* 63
70
* 280
Employment
327
50
235
GF 1982
1. 05
0. 85
1.05
GF 1990
1. 10
0. 80
1. 10
* Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
#*Includes employment of 800 and growth factors of 1. 00 for both 1982 and
1990 for a facility included in the point source projections.
'# Includes employment of 68 and growth factors of 1. 50 and 2. 00 for 1982
and 1990, respectively, for a facility included in the point source projections.
A-68
-------
TABLE A-24J
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 30 - Rubber and Plastics Products
Grid #
16
* 70
75
83
115
119
122
177
**314
209
213
214
239
271
291
Employ me nt
510
2094
100
152
80
50
65
50
3400
50
126
55
106
300
50
GF 1982
2. 14
3. 19
1.07
1. 07
1.07
1.07
1. (T
1. 07
1. 10
1. 07
2. 14
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1.07
GF 1990
2.72
2.48
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
i. 36
1. 10
1.36
2.72
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
TABLE A-24k
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 31 - Leather and Leather Products
Grid //
259
264
Employment
200
70
GF 1982
1. 00
1. 00
GF 1990
1.00
1. 00
* Includes employment of 1400, a 1982 growth factor of 1.05
and a 1990 growth factor of 1. 12 for a facility included in
the point source projection.
** Represents data for a facility included in the point source
projections.
A-69
-------
TABLE A-241
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 32 - Stone, Glass and Clay Products
Grid #
32
* 34
39
* 41
-------
TABLE A-24m
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 33 - Primary Metal Industries
Grid #
16
26
41
42
. 68
* 70
115
139
171
*#172
208
209
212
214
##215
216
250
270
271
##279
* 284
Employment
57
GF 1982
1. 16
900 i 1.16
650
1250
245
590
141
1369
130
120
50
2889
102
185
735
890
60
276
50
2600
400
286 i 215
* 293 \ 190
# £94
303
##305
#*308
##312
5000
50
5200
1000
650
2.32
' 1.16
1. 16
2. 17
1. 16
1. 16
1. 16
1.07
1. 16
3.48
1. 16
1. 16
1.45
3.48
1. 16
2.32
1. 16
1. 02
1. 08
1. 16
1. 16
1. 04
1. 16
2. 20
0.95
1. 16
GF 1990
1.29
1.29
2.58
1.29
1.29
2.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1. 15
1.29
3.87
1.29
1.29
2.00
3. 87
1.29
2. 58
1.29
1.06
1.15
1.29
1.29
1.09
1.29
2.38
0.93
1.29
# Includes employment of 200 and growth factors of 1. 01 and 1. 00
for the years 1982 and 1990, respectively, for a facility included
in the point source projections.
## Represents a facility included in the point source inventory.
# Represents a facility located in two adjacent grids, one-half the
total employment is shown; growth factors are from the point
source projections.
## Includes a facility located in two adjacent grids; for the grid
shown, the facility has an employment of 5000, and growth
factors of 1.04 and 1.09 for the years 1932 and 1990, respectively,
from the point source projections.
A-71
-------
TABLE A-24n
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 34 - Fabricated Metal Products
Grid #
2
10
16
40
68
* 75
93
116
119
145
153
162
186
187
197
203
208
*209
212
215
231
232
238
250
257
260
261
264
265
267
270
301
305
313
Employment
110
95
300
224
190
732
150
585
300
209
133
200
102
108
5000
75
135
1468
85
53
50
285
100
135
100
300
986
50
120
235
146
507
96
75
GF 1982
0.93
0.93
1.86
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
1. 00
0.93
0.93
0.93
2.79
0.93
0.93
0.93
0. 93
0. 93
0.93
0.93
1.86
0.93
1.86
0.93
0.93
GF 1990
0.87
0.87
1.74
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.91
0.87
0.87
0.87
2.61
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0. 87
0.87
0.87
1.74
0.87
1.74
0.87
0.87
#Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
A-72
-------
TABLE A-24o
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 35 - Machinery, excluding Electric
Grid #
10
25
28
40
65
66
67
68
71
75
82
105
114
117
119
125
140
142
200
203
204
209
214
238
231
232
236
237
256
260
264
*270
272
273
276
293
308
Employment
60
150
100
224
110
100
90
103
50
675
500
130
94
275
55
210
50
60
400
110
380
206
102
425
50
220
330
600
75
1280
120
1550
115
150
187
470
1800
GF 1982
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1. 07
1. 07
2. 14
1. 07
2. 14
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1.07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1. 07
1.07
2. 14
2. 14
2. 14
1. 07
1. 07
2. 14
1. 07
1.07
1. 07
1. 07
1.07
0.94
1. 07
2. 14
1.07
1. 07
1.07
GF 1990
1.14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
2.28
1. 14
2.28
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
2.28
2.28
2.28
1. 14
1. 14
2.28
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
0-94
1. 14
2.28
1. 14
1. 14
1. 14
*Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
A-73
-------
*"->.r ***«
TABLE A-24p
INDUSTRIAL PROCfJSS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 36 - Electrical Equipment and Supplies
Grid #
42
* 44
54
108
115
118
119
125
156
**172
*#173
216
Employment
175
1250
175
480
600
65
70
149
275
732
350
150
GF 1982
0.83
2.40
. 0. 83
1.66
0.83
0. 83
0.83
1.66
0. 83
1.25
1.20
0.83
GF 1990
0-64
3. 00
0.64
1.28
0.64
0.64
0.64
1.28
0.64
1.35
1.40
0.64
TABLE A-24q
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 37 Industries - Transportation Equipment
Grid //
** 28
32
** 70
80
82
83
119
216
220
221
#*238
239
261
268
#*272
Employment
8800
4000
9000
95
150
200
100
289
1100
54
180
3400
50
68
2300
GF 1982
2. 00
0. 80
1.40
0.80
0.80
0.80
0. 80
0. 80
1.37
0. 80
0.80
1.15
0.80
0.80
1.37
GF 1990
2. 00
0.85
1.45
0. 85
0. 85
0.85
0.85
0.85
1.37
0.85
0.85
1.25
0. 85
0. 85
1.37
* Includes the sum of employment and growth factors for two
facilities included in the point source projections.
** Represents a facility included in the point source projections.
A-74
-------
TABLE A-24r
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 38 - Instruments and Related
Grid #
Employtnenb
GF 1982
GF 1990
107
152
80
524
1.04
1.04
TABLE A-24s
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AREA SOURCES
GROWTH FACTORS (GF)
SIC Group 39 - Miscellaneous Manufacturing
1. 09
1.09
Grid #
207
250
264
Employment
50
100
700
GF 1982
1. 05
1.05
2. 10
GF 1990
1. 10
1. 10
2.20
A-75
-------
TABLE B-l
SUMMARY OF FACILITY GROWTH FACTORS
Growth Growth
Facility Name Factor Factor
1982 1990
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Clarence A. Hackett, Inc.
Ashland Petroleum Co.
C. R. Huntley Steam Station
Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.
FMC Corp. Industrial Chemical Div.
J. H. Williams
Tonawanda Coke Company
Chevrolet- Tonawanda Motor Plant (River Rd. )
Chevrolet-Tonawanda Plant (Irene St. )
Chevrolet-Tonawanda (Kenmore Ave. )
Chevrolet-Tonawanda Forge (River Rd. )
Ford Motor Co.
Buffalo Color Corp.
American Malting
Anaconda Co. - Brass Division
Buffalo Evening News, Inc.
Buffalo South Park Conservatory
City of Buffalo, West Side, Incinerator
Commodore Perry Homes
Donner-Hanna Coke Corp.
General Motors Corp, (Axyle Plant)
General Mills, Inc.
H & D Division (Westvaco)
Hanna Furnace Corp.
Industrial Chemical Div. (Allied Chemical)
International Multifoods
Town of Tonawanda Incinerator
Marine Drive Apartments, Inc.
Mercy Hospital
Mobil Oil Corporation
Peavey Company Flour Mills
Republic Steel Corporation
Shenango, Inc.
Trico Products #2
Trico Products #3
Worthington - CEI, Inc.
SUNY - Buffalo
School 65
Up son Company
Harrison Radiator Div.
Harrison Radiator Div.
B-l
1.04
1.04
1.05
1. 15
1.05
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.50
0.91
1.45
1.25
1.00
0.00
1.05
1.08
1.15
1. 50
1. 10
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.15
1.05
1. 50
1.02
1.01
1.37
1.37
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.05
2.00
2.00
1.09
1.09
1. 10
1. 10
1. 12
1. 00
0.91
1.00
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.61
0.85
2.00
1.40
1.00
0.00
1. 10
1. 15
1.25
1.60
1.17
0.62
0.80
1.00
1.05
1.00
1. 15
1.05
1.60
1.06
1.02
1.37
1.37
0.94
1.00
1.00
1. 10
2. 00
2. 00
-------
Summary of Facility Growth Factors (cont. )
Growth Growth
Facility Name Factor Factor
1982 1990
Airco Speer Carbon Graphite
Pyron Co.
Union Carbide Carbon Products Div. (National)
Union Carbide Carbon Products Div. (Aches on)
Union Carbide Carbon Products Div. (Republic)
Carborundum Co. (Electro-Minerals)
Globar Plant (Carborundum)
General Abrasive Co.
Goodyear Niagara Falls Chemical
Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
Hooker Chemical Corp.
Hooker Chemicals and Plastics
Industrial Chemical Dept. (Dupont)
Linde Div. (Union Carbide)
Nabisco, Inc.
Niagara Stone, Div.
Prestolite Div. Eltra Corp.
Nitec Paper Corp.
Carborundum - Bonded Abrasives Division
Durez Div. (Hooker Chem. )
R. T. Jones Lumber Company
1.25
1.07
1.00
1. 00
1.00
1.06
1.40
1.06
1. 00
1. 20
1.10
1.10
1. 00
0.95
1.80
1.20
2.08
1.20
0.65
1.11
1. 18
1.35
1. 15
1. 00
1.00
1.00
1. 12
2.00
1. 12
1. 05
1.40
1. 10
1. 10
1.00
0.93
2.80
1.42
2.08
1.38
0.35
1.25
1.40
B-2
-------
INTERVIEW FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (AIR QUALITY)
GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR AREA FACILITIES
1. Principal Activities at Facility:
2. Does Facility Processes Relate to SO2 or TSP generation?
3. Number of Units for Primary Process (i.e., steel produced, bushels of
grain mijled, barrels of crude oil refined)
4. Representative Number of Units Processed from Years 1970 - 1977 Year
by Year. (If diversified, List on separate sheet. )
5. SO2 generation data on gallons of oil or natural gas consumed on yearly
basis from 1970 - 1977.
a. Are there any plans to convert to coal at this plant?_
6. The number of people employed for years 1970 - 1977 on a yearly basis.
7. Quality of the Labor Market and availability of long-term labor pool, labor
management cooperation.
8. Number of shifts worked (possibility of additional shifts).
9. Any possibilities of aquiring additional property adjacent to site to increase
operation?
10. OSHA - the sensitivity of the plant to bring the operation into compliance
with new regulations especially as it relates to capitol equipment.
11. Cost of Water Pollution Control:
a. How do these costs impact on the operation of the plant?
1 b. Does the plant pretreat? Does the cost of pretreatment
prohibit the addition of nev. product lines or expansion of current lines?
C-l
-------
Interview for State Implementation Plan (Air Quality)
Growth Projections for Area Facilities Page 2
12. Is this plant competitive with other plants in the company in regards to
production cost?
13. Age of Invested Capilal:
a. Physical plant buildings:
b. Pollution control equipment:
c. Processing equipment:
14. Possibility of introducing new product lines or investments in new capital
equipment.
15. Any Solid Waste Disposal Problems?
a. Location waste storage and type:
L). Transport of waste (methods):
c. Incineration facilities:
16. If your plant incinerates,
a. Hours of operation:
b. Control of emissions:
c. Purpose of incineration:
(1) reduce mass
(2) dispose of toxics _
(3) energy generation
17. Any plans for energy conservation?
18. Will you modify process lines to aid in energy conservation?
19. Are there any problems that would hamper activities at this plant that would
restrict production or limit growth?
20. Have governmental regulations or taxing systems hindered the operation of
this particular plant versus others in your system? If so, how? (taxes,
environmental, safety (OSHA)) :
21. Have transportation costs and regulations affected the production at this plant?
22. If this plant could grow (expand product, add new products) vould it? If not,
why wouldn't it?
C-2
-------
INTERVIEW FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION-ELAIJ.(AIR QUALITY)
GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR LANDING STRIPS
1. a. Name of Landing Strip:
Location: Town:
b. Owners Name:
Address:
2. How long has this airstrip been in operation?
3. Is landing strip paved or unpaved?
Are there plans to pave in future, if so, when?
4. How many landings and takeoffs have there been since 1970 on a yearly basis?
Tf this information is unavailable, how many in 1975?
5. Do you expect an increase in 1982 over your 1975 number of landings and
takeoffs? If so, how much? (in %) In 1990?
6. Any hanger facilities?
7. How many planes are kept at field?
8. How many planes kept outside?
How many planes kept outside in winter?
9. What type of plane is kept at field? (civil, commercial)
How many seats in largest?
10. If there are cargo flights, who runs?
The percentage of total landing strip use, compared to other landings and
takeoffs is?
11. Do you intend to stay in business? If not, will business be
taken over and used as airport?
Any expansion plans?
12. Any other information that might be of help?
C-3
-------
REFERENCES
Published Data
1. Buffalo Area Chamber of Commerce, "Industrial Directory,
Metropolitan Buffalo", 1976-1977.
2. Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board, "Economic
Development in the Erie-Niagara Region". June 1975
3. . , "Water Quality Management Program, Report #5, Popula-
tion/Socio-Economic Analysis - Present and Future", October 1978.
4. , "Water Quality Management Program, Report #6, Land
Use - Present and Future", October 1978.
5. New York State Department of Transportation (Planning Division),
"Automotive Energy Forecasts: Impact of Price, Availability and
Efficiency", December, 1977.
6. , Highway inventory, by municipality (unpublished data),
September, 1977.
7. Niagara Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, "Industrial Directory -
Products arid Personnel", January, 1978.
8. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, "Regional Airport Study,
Erie and Niagara Counties, New York, Part three A: Feasibility of
Using Existing Airports", September 1976.
9. United Staf.es Army Corps of Engineers, "Corps Conference of Social
Scientists, September 20 - 24, 1976, Memphis, Tennessee - Concurrent
Session III, Water Transportation Planning".
10. United States Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration), "Terminal Area Forecast, 1978-1988", January 1977.
Written Correspondence on Point Source Facility Growth Patterns
1. Mr. K. Hackett, Clarence A. Hackett, Incorporated.
2. Mr. D. Pyanoski, Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company, Incorporated.
3, Mr. F. Capenhurst, FMC Corporation
R-l
-------
Written Correspondence on Point Source Facility Growth Patterns (cont. )
4. Mr. R. Klemecko, J. ri. Williams Company.
5. Mr. Lindbergh, American Malting Incorporated
6. Mr. J. Kiernan, Buffalo Evening -News
7. Mr. R. O'Hara, South Park Conservatory
8. t City of Buffalo, West Side Incinerator
9. Mr. K. Whelan, Commodore Perry Homes - Municipal Housing Authority
JO. Mr. R. Bauer, Westvaco Corporation (H & D Division)
11. Mr. K. Kauppi, International Multifoods Corporation
32. Mrs. L. Lattner, Marine Drive Apartments
13. Mr. A. Rebmon, Mercy Hospital
14. Mr, J, Close, Shenango, Incorporated
15. Mr. Woi", Trico Products Corporation (Plants #2 and #3)
16. Mr. J. Mohr, Worthington - CEI, Incorporated
17. Mr. Baxter, Buffalo Board of Education
18. Mr. K. Boos, Upson Company
19. Mr. Vincent, General Abrasive Company
20. Mr. R. Evans, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
21. Mr. D. Roberson, DuPont, E.I. Denemours and Company,
Incorporated (Industrial Chemicals Division)
22. Mr. J. Miller, Nabisco, Incorporated
23. Mr. R. Lowery, Eltra Corporation (Prestolite Division
24. Mr. Croglio, R T Jones Lumber Company
R-2
-------
Other Written Correspondence
1. Buechi, Peter J., Senior Hydraulic Engineer, New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, Mining operations in the Erie-
Niagara Region
2. Cohen, Nathan, United State? Department of Transportation, Mandated
future engine efficiencies.
3. Colpoys, J. T. , General Manager for Transportation and Maintenance,
Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Fut o trends in railroad
activity.
4. Finster, John, Niagara Frontier Transportation Committee, Existing
and projected vehicle miles traveled by traffic analysis zones.
5. Franke, Robert P., Materials Engineer, Niagara Stone Division of
Medina Sandstone Quarry, Incorporated, Trends in mining operations.
6. Herbstritt, D. F., Traffic Manager, the Buffalo Slag Company, Incor-
porated, Trends in mining operations.
7, Kroll, Kenneth, United States Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, Aviation trends at Niagara Falls International
Airport.
8. Laisy, Albert W. , Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Co., Future trends in railroad activity.
9. Redden, J. T. , Superintendent, Norfolk and Western Railway Company,
Future trends in railroad activity.
10. Stevens, Lawrence R., Rail Transportation Specialist, New York State
Department of Transportation, Trends in railroad activity.
11. Wilson, Dorsen, Highway Superintendent, Niagara County Department
of Public Works, Unpaved road mileage.
Personal Communications on Point Source Growth Patterns
1. Mr. J. Bellafaire, Chevrolet (River Rd. and Kenmore Plants)
2. Mr. D. Brady, Plant Engineer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation
3. Mr. J. Crane, President, Tonawanda Coke Corporation
R-3
-------
Personal Communications on Point Source Growth Patterns (cont. )
4. Mr. P. Depatris, Carborundum Company (Globar Plant)
5. Mr. B. Carreno, Environmental Control Division, Hooker Chemicals
and Plastics Corporation (Niagara Falls Plant)
6. Mr. Emley, Anaconda Brass Company
7. Mr. G. Frazell, Vice President and General Manager, Hanna Furnace
Company
8. Mr. J. Gburek, General Manager, Durez Division, Hooker Chemicals
9. Mr. R. Gritsko, Mobil Oil Company
10. Mr. J. Kirsch, General Motors Corporation (Axyle Plant)
11. Mr. J. Kneeland, Vice President and General Manager, Nitec Paper
Corporation
12. Mr. K. Mahar, Environmental Control Manager, Donner Hanna Coke
Corporation
13. Mr. J. Mohr, Worthington CEI, Incorporated
14. Mr. S. MoLnar, General Manager, Electro-Minerals Division,
Carborundum Company
15. Mr. Mull ins, Superintendent of Maintenance, Heating Plant, State
University of New York at Buffalo (Main St. Campus)
16. Mr. J. Nasil, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Huntley generating
station)
17. Mr. J. Potwara, Plant Engineer, Republic Steel Corporation
18. Mr. M. Reele, Manager, Division of Environmental Control, Great
Lakes Carbon Corporation
19. Mr. G. Rees, Plant Manager, Linde Division, Union Carbide Company
20. Mr. J. Richardson, Chevrolet (Irene St. Plant)
21. Mr. Ridgeway, Director of Energy and Environmental Systems, Airco
Speer Carbon Graphite Company
R-4
-------
Personal Communications on Point Source Growth Patterns (cont. )
22. Mr. A. Rudolf, Pyron Company
23. Mr. J. ScaLise, Environmental Supervisor, Ashland Oil Corporation
(Tonawanda Refinery)
24. Mr. F. Schiffhauer, Plant Manager, Allied Chemical Corporation
25. Mr. C. Smith, General Manager, Bonded Abrasives Division,
Carborundum Company
26. Mr. Wlodarzak, Supervisor of Environmental Services, Buffalo Color
Corporation
27. Mr. Wolf, Legal Counsel, Trico Products
Other Personal Communications
1. Cohen, Nathan, United States Department of Transportation, Mandated
future engine efficiencies.
2. Franko, David J., Manager for Special Projects, Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority, Shipping trends at Port of Buffalo and
aviation trends at regional airports.
3. Galley, Eugene, Base Commander, Niagara Falls Air Force Base,
trends in military aircraft activity.
4. Hedrick, Lawrence F., Manager, Niagara Falls International Airport,
Trends in aircraft activity.
5, Pelone, Michael, Economics Section, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Shipping trends in Port of Buffalo
6. Rebadow, Richard F., Manager, Greater Buffalo International Airport,
Trends in aircraft activity.
7. Stawarz, Michael, Senior Sanitary Engineer, New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, Data on trends for on-site
incineration.
R-5
-------
H
CO
O
CQ
O
-i
r-l
<
2
O
I-H
O
W
W
I I
H
J5
^
O
U
<
rt
<
O
^
2
Q
2
<
W
I I
rt
W
IH
O
U
CU
IH
rH
Q
-
IH
^
r
rt
b
^r
O
cu
r4
IH
o
4->
o
cu
Q
-4-*
3
Ci
CU
Q
£
£
rt
^
rt
_d
u
rH
rt
^
rH
CJ
u
d
d
0
u
^A
cu
rj
U
*.
'.3
^H
CU
ffl
cu
H
d
d
cu
cu
Ci
rt
)H
bo
O
d
cu
H-J
CO
rt
"H
IH
rt
CU
IH
O
0)
(0
c?
o
'd
rt
PQ
b
rt
U
o
cu
cu
rt
^
cu
u
IH
o
I*
d
0)
iF
"o
C)
fO
rrt
. vH
(J
JH
rt
s
^
O
H->
U
CU
rH
rH
Q
o
~j-i
>-*>
)H
rt
CU
SH
O
0)
CO
«*
c*
cu'
cu
co
cu
d
rt
rH
Q
. DIVISION
ENGINEERING
VISION
PLANNING DI
o
-4~)
rt
r-f
O
o
Ifl
W
W
OH*
o"
H
U
co
rt
*Franklin J. Di
0
o
cu
J_(
fH
Q
d
rt
CO
rH
en
CO
d*
H
cu
co
'>
rt
Q
Lneer
J Sanitary Engi
rH
2
rt
rH
CU
d.
rci, Offset Machine Oj
Marsha Colata
>H
CU
d
d
rt
IH
cu ^
d *H
d .2
_rt o
S 2
^ J?
0 <
rH
s ^
rn C
Philip Atkin, J
Thomas Deari
st/Water
rH
"rt
oj
ier, Graphic Artist
Assistant Environmen
*Joseph Dobmei
Scott Ems Lie,
IH
cu
_d
OH
rt
M
bo
o
*-< 0)
CU -M
d co
c
rt ^
OH ^
H-> CJ
d w
rt JH
*» O
10 .rH
» g
,-CO
t
. jd
N U
(J .rH
rH rH
r? ^
cu '5
'rS rC
rt cu
0 S
KS
^5
cu
cu
Ix
_o
Graphic Artist
Planner ,'ormer emp
*Bruno Colder,
*Franc Grabar,
._
cu
d
c
IH 2
rt
CU i
OH
C
Senior Pla
Associate
Dale Morris,
James Rasey,
.
cu
S
'So
d
W
(/) Oj
. ^H 4*)
a. 7.;
JS W
Karen Grugan,
Henry Jawor,
cu
d
!H d
cu rt
d E
J3 .H
OH .2
------- |