United States Office of Air Quality EPA-450/4-80-021
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards September 1980
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
v>EPA Emission Inventories for
Urban Airshed Model
Application in
Tulsa, Oklahoma
-------
REGION 2 LIBRARY
-------
EPA-450/4-80-021
Emission Inventories for Urban
Airshed Model Application
in Tulsa, Oklahoma
by
Engineering-Science
McLean, Virginia 22102
Contract No. 68-02-2584
EPA Project Officer: Tom Lahre
LIBRARY
U.S. EN7IP.C":-7-'i'AL.?ROISCIIQMAGEHCY
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1980
-------
This document is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current EPA contractors
and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from
the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Engineering-Science, 125 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91006,
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2584. The contents of this report
are reproduced herein as received from Engineering-Science. The opinions,
findings and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not neces-
sarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/4/80-021
-------
TA LE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I
II
Title
INTRODUCTION
III
IV
ANNUALIZED AREA SOURCE INVENTORIES
Introduction
1. Highway Motor Vehicles
Aircraft
Rail Locomotive
Vessels
Agricultural Equipment
Construction Equipment
Small Gasoline Engines
Gasoline Handling
Dry Cleaning
Degreasing, Surface Coating, and Miscellaneous
Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use
Cutback Asphalt Paving
Pesticides Applications
Oil Wells and Gas Wells
On-Site Incineration
Open Burning
Natural Gas Use
Forest Fires
Agricultural Burning
Structural Fires
Natural Gas L
VI
VII
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. Oily Waste Disposal
ANNUALIZED POINT SOURCE I WENTORIES
Introduction
Base Year Inventory Devslopment
Projection Year Inventory Development
VOC AND NOX SPLIT FACTOR '"ILE GENERATION
Point Source Component Splits
Area Source Component Splits
TEMPORAL FACTOR FILES
Introduction
\rea Sources
Point Sources
ALDEHYDE CORRECTION PROCEDURE
PREPARATION OF EMISSIONS PACKETS FOR THE AIRSHED MODEL
1-1
II-l
11-1
11-36
11-38
11-45
11-47
11-49
11-52
11-55
11-57
11-58
11-59
11-60
11-62
11-64
11-66
11-67
11-69
11-70
11-72
11-74
11-74
11-76
III-l
III-l
III-2
III-7
IV-1
IV-5
IV-10
V-l
V-l
V-l
V-6
VI-1
VII-1
APPENDIX A NEDS FORMS/ACTIVITY PARAMETERS
APPENDIX B VOC/NOX SPLIT FACTOR FILE
APPENDIX C TEMPORAL FACTOR FILES
APPENDIX D TULSA CITY-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AREA SOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX E TULSA COUNTY REGULATION 15
APPENDIX F MOBILE 1 HIGHWAY EMISSION FACTORS
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
II-l Categories of Area Sources II-2
II-2A Area Source Emissions Summary - Tulsa County II-4
II-2A , Area Source Emissions Summary - Okmulgee County 11-8
II-2A Area Source Emissions Summary - Creek County IT-12
II-2A Area Source Emissions Summary - Osage County 11-16
II-2A Area Source Emissions Summary - City of Muskogee 11-20
II-2\ Area Source Emissions Summary - City of Bartlesville 11-24
II-2V Area Source Emissions Summary - Washington County 11-28
II-2! Area Source Emissions Summary - County Totals 11-32
II-3 Population of Counties and Cities in the Tulsa Inventory
Area 11-33
II-4 Populations of Major Tov,ns in Tulsa Inventory Area 11-33
II-5 Study-Area Portions of County Populations 11-35
II-6 New Highways Planned for 1982 11-37
II-7A Distribution of Operating Mode and Average Speed for
Tulsa Environs 11-39
II-7B Distribution of VMT by Vehicle Class for Different
Road Types 11-39
II-7C Composite Emission ^actors for Highway Motor Vehicles,
gm/mile 11-40
II-8 Aircraft Emissions in 1977 11-41
II-9 Growth Factors for Urcraft Categories 11-42
11-10 Estimated 1977 Locoiotive Fuel Consumption 11-46
11-11 Rail Locomotive Com losite Emission Factors 11-46
11-12 Composite Emission 'actors for Recreational Vessels 11-48
11-13 Farm Machinery Usag.3 Data 11-50
11-14 Harvested Cropland Growth Factors 11-50
11-15 Agricultural Equipment Emission Factors 11-51
11-16 Construction Equipment Emission Factors 11-54
11-17 Small Gasoline Engine Data 11-56
11-18 Small Gasoline Engines Emission Factors 11-57
11-19 Estimated Pesticide Use in Tulsa County for 1977 11-63
11-20 Typical Insecticide Component Fractions 11-63
11-21 Number of Oil Wells and Gas Wells in the Tulsa Study Area 11-65
11-22 Open Burning Emission Factors 11-68
11-23 Natural Gas Emissior Factors 11-71
11-24 Forest Fire Emissioi Factors 11-73
11-25 Agricultural Burnin , Emission Factors 11-73
11-26 Structural Fire Emission Factors 11-75
11-27 Chromatographic Analysis of Natural Gas in the Tulsa Area 11-77
11-28 Soil Farming Data in the Tulsa Inventory Area 11-79
III-l Inventory Area Point Sources Submitting Questionnaire
Responses III-5
III-2 OBERS Growth Factors Used in Projection Year Inventories III-9
III-3 County Population/Employment Projections 111-10
III-H 1982 and 1987 Refinery Controls in the Tulsa County 111-12
III-5 1982 and 1987 Storage Tank Controls by Plant 111-13
II1-6 New Storage Tanks f >r the Inventory Area III-l3
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Tj tie
III-7 New Coal-Fired Boilers for Electric Utilities in North-
east Oklahoma AQC'l 111-15
III-8 1977 Point Source Enissions Summary in Tons Per Year 111-16
III-9 1982 Point Source Emissions Summary in Tons Per Year 111-18
111-10 1987 Point Source Emissions Summary in Tons Per Year 111-20
IV-1 Classification of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions IV-2
IV-2 Equations for Computing Airshed Model Organic Categories IV-4
IV-3 KVB Component Splits Used in the Tulsa Inventory IV-6
IV-4 KVB Storage Tank Evaporation Component Splits IV-9
IV-5 Summer of 1977 Gasoline Compositions in Tulsa IV-12
IV-6 Summer of 1977 Leaded Gasoline Composition in Tulsa IV-13
IV-7 Unleaded Test Gasoline Composition IV-13
IV-8 Adjusted Exhaust Composition of Vehicles Equipped with
Catalysts Burning Unleaded Fuel IV-15
IV-9 Combined Leaded and Unleaded Fuel Exhaust Composition
for 1977 IV-15
IV-10 Relative Proportion of Exhaust Versus Evaporative Mobile
Source Emissions IV-16
IV-11 Area Source VOC Splits IV-18
VI-1 Tulsa HC Emissions Aldehyde Adjustment VI-3
VII-1 Grid Values Packet Format VII-2
VII-2 Emissions Values Packet Format VII-3
VII-3 Fields Common to Grid and Emissions Values Packets VII-4
VII-4 Point Sources Packet Format VII-5
VII-5 Time Interval Packet Format VII-6
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title
1-1 Tulsa Inventory Area 1-2
1-2 ES Procedure 1-4
II-l Aircraft Emissions Allocations at Tulsa International
Airport 11-44
III-l Point Source Methodology Base Year III-3
VII-1 Preparation of Gridded Area Source Master File VII-7
VII-2 Preparation of Airshed Model Data Packet for Area
Sources VII-8
VII-3 Preparation of Airshed Model Data Packet for Highway
Vehicles VII-9
VII-4 Preparation of Airshed Model Data Packet for Major
Point Sources VII-10
VII-5 Preparation of Airshed Model Data Packet for Minor
Point Sources VII-11
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Jrotection Agency (EPA) is attempting to validate and test the Urban Air-
shed photochemical chemical oxidant model in several cities around the country.
Such a model is extremely important in developing accurate source receptor
relationships for reactive pollutants that are discharged to the atmosphere.
EPA's model validation program will compare the model predictions with measured
ambient da(;a and with simpler models ;uch as EKMA. In addition, the signifi-
cance of selected control strategies vill also be examined. The purpose of
this study is to create accurate emissions inventories for application to the
Urban Airshed Model.
Engineering-Science (ES), under luthorization of EPA Contract No. 68-02-
2584, completed three inve itories for the Tulsa, Oklahoma area. The study
area is 124 km by 50 km an! lies within the boundaries of the Northeast Okla-
homa AQCR (see Figure 1-1).
A 1977 base year inventory was completed under Work Assignment No. 5 and
projected inventories for 1982 and 1987 were completed under Work Assignments
No. 8 and 12. The inventories included all major and minor point sources
within the study area and major point sources in the remainder of the AQCR.
Area source emissions were compiled for the study area and for the cities of
Bartlesville and Muskogee.
ES, in conjunction with EPA, the Tulsa City-County Health Department
(TCCHD), and the Oklahoma State Department of Health, set the boundaries of
the inventory area based on several relevant criteria. First, the typical
wind in the oxidant season is from the southern quadrant, and it is more im-
portant to inventory upwind sources. The Okmulgee Refinery, located several
miles south of Tulsa, is a large source which may affect oxidant concentra-
tions in Tulsa. Also, the inventory area encompasses all of the ambient moni-
toring sites from the Tulsa oxident study, which was conducted in the summer
of 1977 to provide monitoring data for model validation. Utilizing these cri-
tet La produced an area that has east and west boundaries that are essentially
coincident with those of Tulsa County, while the southern boundary is just
1-1
-------
Inventory Area Boundary
1 County Boundaries
DCS Grid Boundaries
TULSA INVENTORY AREA
-------
south of Okmulgee and the northern boundary is just south of the Bartlesville
city limits.
The annualized inventories were spatially and temporally refined by pol-
lutant to generate the input data required by the Airshed Model. This re-
quired determining hourly emissions for a weekday representative of the oxi-
dant season in Tulsa. Eleven categories of pollutants were inventoried: NO,
N02, paraffins, olefins, carbonyls, a'omatics, ethylene, non-reactive VOC,
sulfur oxidas, particulates, and carbon monoxide. The pollutants were inven-
toried .for both mobile and stationary sources, and then allocated to a grid
system of 1550 two km by two km grids, as illustrated in Figure 1-1.
The general procedure utilized in the study (1977 base year, 1982, and
1987) is shown in Figure 1-2. Annualized emission data in Emission Inventory
Subsystem/ Permits and Registration (EIS/P&R) format for both point and area
sources and other data files were input to the Engineering-Science Air Qual-
ity (ESAQ) system, which produced the data packets required for modeling.
These data files included the temporal factor files, pollutant factors, and
the emission factors for area sources. Also included were the data concerning
highway vehicle sources within Tulsa County and metropolitan Osage County pro-
vided by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC). The TMAPC
study is documented in Tulsa Metropolitan Area Highway Vehicle Emission Inven-
tory EPA publication No. 450/4-79-029.
The organization of this report reflects the above methodology. Chapters
II and III document the generation of the EIS/P&R master file for area sources
and point sources; Chapters IV and V address the VOC and NOX component splits
and the temporal factors respectively; Chapter VI deals with the aldehyde cor-
rection procedure for VOC emissions; and Chapter VII describes the creation
of the data packets required for the generation of Airshed Model input.
1-3
-------
FIGURE 1-2
UJ
LU
O
UJ
1-4
-------
CHAPTER II
ANNUALIZED AREA SOURCE INVENTORIES
INTRODUCTION
Area source emissions have been divided into 21 categories (Table II-l).
This chapter deals with each separately. Other area sources, such as frost
control and coal refuse burning, have been determined to be negligible for
the n'ulsa area.
The first section for each category describes the activity parameter upon
which emissions were based. Appendix A contains the area source input forms
for each county which have the actual activity figures used for each category.
Three sets of forms are provided; one set for the base year inventory (1977)
and one set for each of the projection year inventories (1982 and 1987). All
contain annual figures. Besides Tulsa County and the other four counties in
the study area, the cities of Bartlesville and Muskogee are represented, so
that there are seven forms for each annual inventory.
As shown in Figure 1-1, small portions of several other counties are in-
cluded in the study area. In order to simplify the data input procedures,
these areas were treated as if ':hey were part of the nearest larger inventor-
ied county (i.e., Creek, Osage, Washington, or Okmulgee).
The basic procedure for arriving at gridded annual emissions involved
the manipulation of several individual data sets. First of all, the afore-
mentioned county activity parameters were allocated to subcounty areas (the
grid system). Then, the emission factor file was applied to generate annual
emissions. Later, growth factors were applied to the county activity para-
meters in )rder to produce similar files for the 1982 and 1987 projections.
The orocess was repeated for each inventory year.
In the development of the area source inventory, ES made use of all
available inventorying data that had been accumulated previously. In their
Area Source Emissions Inventory 'or Tulsa, Oklahoma, (Appendix D), TCCHD pro-
vided the basis for the development of the activity parameters for several of
the area source categories. These categories were: gasoline marketing, oil
and gas production, dry cleaning, cutback asphalt usage, on-site incineration,
natural gas combustion, recreational vessel use, residential open burning,
and soil farming. Many growth factors for the projection years came from the
II-l
-------
TABLE II-l
CATEGORIES OF AREA SOURCES
1. Highway Motor Vehicles
2. Aircraft
3. Rail Locomotive
A. Vessels
5. Agricultural Equipment
6. Construction Equipment
7. Small Gasoline Engines
8. Gasoline Handling
9. Dry Cleaning
10. Degreasing, Surface Coating, ani Miscellaneous Commercial/
Consumer Solvent Use
11. Cutback Asphalt Paving
12. Pesticides Applications
13. Oil Wells and Gas Wells
14. On-Site Incineration
15. Open Burning
16. Natural Gas Use
17. Forest Fires
18. Agricultural Burning
lc>. Structural Fires
1 ). Natural Gas Leaks
1L. Oily Waste Disposal (Soil Farming)
II-2
-------
the Oklahoma State Department of Health and the Oklahoma Employment Security
Commissioi as well as TCCHD. The result of the inventorying effort is an
emissions summary for each of the inventory years. This summary is presented
on a county-by-county basis in Table IT-2A. Totals for each county are listed
in Table II-2B.
The next three sections for each category address projection data, emis-
sion factors, and allocation methodologies. Each section contains the documen-
tation upon which the figures were based, as well as any other assumptions used
in t leir calculation. Some basic data appropriate for several categories will
be discussed in the introduction.
Approximately one-third of the 1,550 grid cells lie within the Tulsa Met-
ropolitan Area Planning Commission's (TMAPC) traffic zones. TMAPC was respon-
sible for calculating highway motor vehicle emissions in this area. Also,
through use of the Projected Land Use Model (PLUM), TMAPC supplied ES with
base year and projection year traffic zone data including population, popula-
tion-serving employment, total employment, number of dwelling units, and farm-
land acreage. Through the AQZTOGR computer program, ES was able to translate
the data from a traffic zone format to Oklahoma Coordinate System (OCS) grid
cells. Fo service stations and dry cleaners, ES made use of surveys taken
by TCCHD (see Appendix D). A second AQZTOGR program was used to transform
the c'ata from TCCHD square mile grids to OCS grids.
Allocation Parameters
The base year (1977) population figures used in this study were taken
from the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates.
The participants in the program were the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC). Population projections to
1982 and interpolations between 1977 and 1985, and 1985 and 1990, respective-
ly. Table I1-3 shows these figures for each county and city included in the
area source inventory.
In order to achieve the degree of resolution needed outside Tulsa County
for breaking down population estimates to subcounty units, further calcula-
tions were necessary. First of all, the number of inhabitants in each town
within the study area was found in using the same sources as those used for
the counties. Table II-4 lists all significant settlements in the study area
and their base year populations. Available projection year figures were in-
cluded.
II-3
-------
TABLE II-2A
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
TULSA COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
Residential Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Industrial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
On-Site Incineration
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Residential Open Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
rarm Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
77
153
5
613
61
48
96
3
574
38
116
197
7
1,394
35
20
28
7
9
9
112
593
7
42
209
1
561
1
25
35
1982
81
161
5
646
65
50
99
3
596
40
142
241
8
1,700
42
15
22
5
6
6
94
499
6
35
176
1
606
1
27
38
1987
84
168
5
672
67
69
138
4
829
55
168
285
10
2,015
51
12
17
4
5
5
73
389
5
27
137
1
588
1
26
36
II-4
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOIHCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
TULSA COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
Co is true t ion Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Small Gasoline Engines
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Farm Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Construction Equipment Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rail Locomotive
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Military Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
1
310
0
9
13
7
2,438
3
27
288
8
20
5
56
12
197
737
257
3,473
301
21
110
48
314
90
1
66
3
12
37
1982
1
381
0
10
15
7
2,515
3
28
297
8
22
6
61
13
242
906
316
4,268
370
21
110
48
314
90
1
66
3
12
37
1987
1
453
1
12
18
7
2,638
4
29
311
8
21
5
59
13
288
1,078
376
5,081
440
21
110
48
314
90
1
66
3
12
37
II-5
-------
TABLK II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
TULSA
CATEGORY
Civil Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Vessels
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Sludge Farming
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Wells
Volatile Organic Compound ;
Gas Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Cutback Asphalt
Volatile Organic Compounds
Natural Gas Leaks
Volatile Organic Compounds
Dry f leaning
Volatile Organic Compounds
Pest Lcides
Volatile Organic Compounds
COUNTY
1977
3
1,676
2
8
5'»
24
1,198
42
488
561
38
0
1
11
24
185
21
624
216
591
22
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
3
1,897
2
10
67
28
1,405
49
572
658
48
0
1
14
24
185
21
315
180
614
26
1987
4
2,231
3
11
79
30
897
54
454
268
57
0
1
17
24
194
21
21
117
639
32
II-6
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
TULSA COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
1977
1982
1987
Solvent Evaporation
Volatile Organic Compounds 3,751 4,690 5,364
2,886 3,577 4,436
(Data supplied by TMAPC)
(Data supplied by TMAPC)
(Data supplied by TMAPC)
Gas Marketing
Volatile Organic Compounds
Freeway Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rural Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Jrban Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Forest Fires
Particulates 000
Carbon Monoxide 000
Oxi les of Nitrogen 000
Volatile Organic Comp Hinds 000
Agricultural Burning
Particulates 22 22 22
Carbon Monoxide 126 126 126
Volatile Organic Compounds 22 22 22
Structural Fires
Particulates 462 480 500
Carbon Monoxide 1,359 1,412 1,470
Oxides of Nitrogen 54 56 59
Volatile Organic Comp )unds 109 113 118
II-7
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
OKMULGEE
CATEGORY
Residential Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Natural Gas
Part Lculates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Industrial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
On-Slte Incineration
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Cotr pounds
Residential Open Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 arm Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
COUNTY
1977
7
14
0
58
6
4
9
0
53
4
7
12
0
84
2
0
0
0
0
0
84
448
5
32
158
0
352
0
16
22
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
8
15
0
60
6
5
9
0
55
4
9
14
1
103
3
0
0
0
0
0
87
464
5
33
164
0
345
0
15
22
1987
8
16
0
63
6
6
13
0
77
5
10
17
1
121
3
0
0
0
0
0
91
484
6
34
171
0
332
0
15
21
II-8
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
OKMULGEE
CATEGORY
( onstruction Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Smal . Gasoline Engines
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
F irm Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Construction Equipment Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rail Locomotive
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Military Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
COUNTY
1977
0
90
0
3
4
0
153
0
1
18
5
13
3
36
8
5
21
7
101
9
3
16
7
46
13
0
0
0
0
0
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
0
111
0
3
4
0
158
0
2
18
5
12
3
35
8
7
26
9
125
11
3
16
7
46
13
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
132
0
4
5
0
164
0
2
19
5
12
3
34
7
8
31
11
148
13
3
16
7
46
13
0
0
0
0
0
II-9
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
OKMULGEE
CATEGORY
Civil Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Vessels
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Sludge Farming
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Gas 7ells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Cutback Asphalt
Volatile Organic Compounds
Natural Gas Leaks
Volatile Organic Compounds
Dry Cleaning
Volatile Organic Compound?
Pesticides
Volatile Organic Compound ;
COUNTY
1977
0
195
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
445
20
14
23
13
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
0
220
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
445
23
11
24
16
1987
0
259
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
154
466
26
7
25
19
11-10
-------
TABLE I1-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
OKMULGEE COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
1977
1982
1987
ScIvent Evaporation
Volatile Organic Compounds 235
Gas Marketing
Volatile Organic Compt unds 13
294
17
336
20
Freeway Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rural Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Urban Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Forest Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Slash Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Volatile Organic Compounds
Structural Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
361
1,587
15
324
267
27
1,441
8
213
237
6
734
2
40
87
0
0
0
0
10
56
10
19
56
2
4
372
1,347
14
282
166
28
1,109
8
177
145
6
571
2
33
61
0
0
0
0
10
56
10
21
60
2
4
397
911
16
232
90
30
714
9
154
81
7
381
2
28
39
0
0
0
0
10
56
10
22
65
3
5
11-11
-------
TABLE I1-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CREEK COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
Residential Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Industrial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbo i Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
On-Site Incineration
'articulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
fxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Residential Open Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Farm Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
10
19
1
77
8
6
10
0
71
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
421
5
30
148
0
191
0
8
12
1982
10
21
1
82
8
7
12
0
87
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
450
5
32
159
0
191
0
8
12
1987
11
22
1
89
9
9
17
1
103
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
484
6
34
171
0
189
0
8
12
11-12
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CREEK COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
Construction Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Small Gasoline Engines
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compo mds
Farm Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
C< nstruction Equipment Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
>ulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rail Locomotive
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Military Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
0
40
0
1
2
0
121
0
1
14
3
6
2
18
4
3
9
3
44
38
3
16
7
46
13
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
49
0
1
2
0
130
0
1
16
3
6
2
18
4
3
12
4
55
48
3
16
7
46
13
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
58
0
2
2
0
140
0
2
16
2
6
2
18
4
4
14
5
65
57
3
16
7
46
13
0
0
0
0
0
11-13
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CREEK
CATEGORY
Civil Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Com] ounds
Commercial Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Vessels
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Sludge Farming
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Gas Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Cutback Asphalt
Volatile Organic Compounds
Natural Gas Leaks
Volatile Organic Compounds
Dry Cleaning
Volatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides
Volatile Organic Compjunds
COUNTY
1977
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
92
0
2
27
912
265
57
22
11
30
5
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
115
0
2
34
912
265
57
25
9
32
6
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
0
2
40
912
278
60
28
6
34
7
1-14
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMESSIONS SUMMARY
CREEK COUNTY
CATEGORY
1977
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
1987
Solvent Evaporation
Volatile Organic Compounds 186
Gas Marketing
Volatile Organic Compounds 15
233
19
266
23
Freeway Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rural Roads
P.irticulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Urban Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Comp< unds
Forest Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Slash Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Volatile Organic Compounds
Structural Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
130
571
5
117
96
46
2,401
14
355
396
17
2,079
5
114
248
18
151
4
26
0
0
0
15
44
2
4
134
484
5
102
60
46
1,848
14
294
272
17
1,618
5
94
173
18
151
4
26
0
0
0
16
46
2
4
143
328
6
83
33
50
1,191
15
257
134
19
1,078
6
81
112
18
151
4
26
0
0
0
17
50
2
4
11-15
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
OSAGE COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
Residential Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Industrial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
On-Site Incineration
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Residential Open Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compr unds
Farm Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
7
13
0
53
5
4
8
0
49
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
635
8
45
224
0
249
0
11
16
1982
7
14
0
55
6
4
8
0
51
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
658
8
46
232
0
236
0
10
15
1987
7
14
0
57
6
6
12
0
71
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
128
683
8
48
241
0
214
0
10
13
11-16
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
OSAGE COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
Construction. Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Small Gasoline Engines
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Farm Diesel
1'articulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Construction Equipment Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rail Locomotive
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compoi nds
Military Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
0
49
0
1
2
0
65
0
1
8
3
9
2
25
5
3
12
4
55
5
4
23
10
65
19
0
0
0
0
0
1982
0
60
0
2
2
0
68
0
1
8
3
8
2
24
5
4
14
5
68
6
4
23
10
65
19
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
72
0
2
3
0
70
0
1
8
3
8
2
22
5
5
17
6
80
7
4
23
10
65
19
0
0
0
0
0
11-17
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
OSAGE
CATEGORY
Civil Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Vessels
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Sludge Farming
Volatile Organic Compounds
Oil Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
G.is Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Cutback Asphalt
Volatile Organic Compo mds
Natural Gas Leaks
Volatile Organic Compo mds
Dry Cleaning
Volatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides
Volatile Organic Compounds
COUNTY
1977
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
4
58
0
292
19
4
6
16
12
SUMMARY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
1
5
73
0
339
21
5
5
16
16
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301
1
6
88
0
393
26
6
3
17
23
11-18
-------
TABLE I1-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
OSAGE COUNTY
CATEGORY
1977
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
1987
Solvent Evaporation
Volatile Organic Compounds
Gas Marketing
Volatile Organic Compounds
100
126
142
10
Freeway Roads*
Particulates
Carhon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compo inds
Rural Roads*
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Urban Roads*
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrog m
Volatile Organic Compounds
Forest Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Slash Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Volatile Organic Compounds
Structural Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
29
129
1
26
22
10
515
3
76
85
2
246
1
14
29
19
158
4
27
60
348
60
8
24
1
2
30
110
1
23
14
10
397
3
63
52
2
163
0
9
17
19
158
4
27
60
348
60
8
23
1
2
32
75
1
19
7
11
256
3
55
29
2
128
1
10
13
19
158
4
27
60
348
60
8
25
1
2
* Part of highway vehicle emissions for Osage City are covered
by TMAPC inventory. These estimates are for that are outside
TMAPC's jurisdiction.
11-19
-------
TABLE I1-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF MUSKOGEE
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
Residential Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Iidustrial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
On-Site Incineration
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
8
16
-
63
6
5
10
0
58
4
20
34
1
241
6
3
4
1
1
1
1982
9
17
1
69
7
6
12
0
71
5
24
42
1
294
7
2
4
1
1
1
1987
9
19
1
76
8
7
14
0
84
6
29
49
2
349
9
2
2
1
1
1
Residential Open Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Farm Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monqxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compt inds
11-20
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF MUSKOGEE
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY 1977 1982 1987
Construction Gasoline
Particulates 000
Carbon Monoxide 56 70 83
Sulfur Oxides 000
Oxides of Nitrogen 222
Volatile Organic Compounds 233
Small Gasoline Engines
Particulates 111
Carbon Monoxide 235 257 288
Sulfur Oxides - 1 1
Oxides of Nitrogen 333
/olatile Organic Compounds 28 31 33
Farm Diesel
Particulates -
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen -
Volatile Organic Compounds -
Construction Equipment Diesel
Particulates 445
Carbon Monoxide 13 17 20
Sulfur Oxides 567
Oxides of Nitrogen 63 78 93
Volatile Organic Compounds 578
Rail Locomotive -
Particulates -
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen -
Volatile Organic Compounds -
Military Aircraft
PartLculates -
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen - - -
Volatile Organic Compounds -
11-21
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF MUSKOGEE
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY 1977 1982 1987
Civil Aircraft
Participates -
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen -
Volatile Organic Compounds -
Commercial Aircraft
Particulates -
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen -
Volatile Organic Compounds -
\Bssels
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen - -
Volatile Organic Compounds -
Oil Sludge Farming
Volatile Organic Compounds _ _ _
Oil Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds -
Gas Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds _ _ _
Cutback Asphalt
Volatile Organic Compounds 99 112 127
Natural Gas Leaks
Volatile Organic Compounds 21 18 12
Dry Cleaning
Volatile Organic Compounds 50 54 60
Pesticides
Volatile Organic Compounds - _
11-22
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF MUSKOGEE
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY 1977 1982 1987
Solvent Evaporation
Volatile Organic Compounds 361 453 518
Gas Marketing
Volatile Organic Compounds 392 486 603
Freeway Roads
Particulates 654 674 496
Carbon Monoxide 2,870 2,242 1,139
Sulfur Oxides 26 25 20
Oxides of Nitrogm 587 512 289
Volatile Organic Compounds 484 301 113
Rural Roads
Particulates 19 19 15
Carbon Monoxide 1,011 780 347
Sulfur Oxides 654
Oxides of Nitrogen 149 124 75
Volatile Organic Compounds 167 102 39
Urban Roads
Particulates 249 255 192
Carbon Monoxide 30,661 24,044 10,995
Sulfur Oxides 78 78 60
Oxides of Nitrogen 1,684 1,388 822
Volatile Organic Compounds 3,655 2,563 1,136
Forest Fires
Particulates - - -
Carbon Monoxide -
Oxides of Nitrogen - - -
Volatile Organic Compounds - - -
Slash Burning
Particulates -
Carbon Monoxide - -
Volatile Organic Compounds - - -
Structural Fires
Part xulates
Carb m Monoxide
Oxid >s of Nitrogen
Vola ile Organic Compo mds
29
89
3
7
32
94
4
7
35
102
4
8
11-23
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF BARTLESVILLE
CATEGORY
1977
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
1987
Residential Natural Gas
Particulates 6
Carbon Monoxide 12
Sulfur Oxides 0
Oxides of Nitrogen 47
Volatile Organic Compounds 5
Commercial Natural Gas
Particulates 4
Carbon Monoxide 7
Sulfur Oxides 0
Oxides of Nitrogen 43
Volatile Organic Compounds 3
Industrial Natural Gas
Part iculates -
Carbon Monoxide
Sul ur Oxides
Oxi< es of Nitrogen
Vol; tile Organic Compounds
On-Sit.e Incineration
Par'-iculates 2
Car >on Monoxide 4
Sul ur Oxides 1
Oxi les of Nitrogen 1
Vol.! tile Organic Compounds 1
Residential Open Burning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
?arm Gasoline
PartLculates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
6
12
0
49
5
4
9
0
53
4
2
2
1
1
1
6
12
0
50
5
5
10
0
62
4
1
2
1
1
1
11-24
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF BARTLESVILLE
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
1977
1982
1987
Cinstruction Gasoline
Particulates 0
Carbon Monoxide 113
Sulfur Oxides 0
Oxides of Nitrogen 3
Volatile Organic Compounds 5
Small Gasoline Engines
Particulates 0
Carbon Monoxide 175
Sulfur Oxides 0
Oxides of Nitrogen 2
Volatile Organic Compounds 21
Farm Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volitile Organic Compounds
Const-uction Equipment Diesel
Pariiculates 7
Carbon Monoxide 27
Sulfur Oxides 9
Oxides of Nitrogen 127
Volatile Organic Compounds 11
Riil Locomotive
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds -
Military Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compo mds
0
139
0
4
6
0
182
0
2
22
9
33
12
156
14
0
166
0
5
7
1
189
0
2
22
11
39
14
186
16
11-25
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF BARTLES 'ILLE
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY
1977
1982
1987
C Ivil Aircraft
Particulates -
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen -
Volatile Organic Compounds _ _ _
Commercial Aircraft
Particulates -
Carbon Monoxide -
iulfur Oxides - - -
Oxides of NLtrogei -
(rolatile Organic Compounds _ _ _
Ve ;sels
'arbon Monoxide _ _ _
Sulfur Oxides - - -
Oxides of Nitrogen - -
Volatile Organic Compounds -
Oil Sludge Farming
Volatile Organic Compounds _ _ _
Oil Wells
Vol<'tile Organic Compounds 13 13 14
Gas Wells
VoL tile Organic Compo mds _ _ _
Cutback Asphalt
Volatile Organic Compounds 81 92 104
i atural Gas Leaks
Volatile Organic Compo mds l'< 13 8
Dry Cleaning
Volatile Organic Compounds 48 50 51
Pesticides
Volatile Organic Compounds -
1-26
-------
TABLE I1-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF BARTLESVILLE
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY 1977 1982 1987
Solvent Evaporation
Volatile Organic Compounds 268 336 383
Gas Marketing
Volatile Organic Compounds 323 402 497
Freeway Roads
Particulates _ _ _
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen - - -
Volatile Organic Compouids -
Rural Roads
Particulates -
Carbon Monoxide -
Sulfur Oxides -
Oxides of Nitrogen -
Volatile Organ .c Compounds - -
Urban Roads
Particulars 270 274 297
Carbon Mon>xide 33,164 25,822 17,201
Sulfur Oxi.les 84 84 94
Oxides of Nitrogen 1,822 1,491 1,286
Volatile Organic Compounds 3,954 2,753 1,778
Forest Fires
Varticulates _ _ _
Carbon Monoxide -
Oxides of Nitrogen - - -
Volatile Organic Compounds - -
S ash Burning
Particulates - -
Carbon Monoxide - -
Volatile Organic Compounds - - -
Structural Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
22
64
3
5
26
77
3
6
23
69
3
5
11-27
-------
TABLE II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
CATEGORY
Residential Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Natural Gas
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Inlustrial Natural Gas
['articulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
On-Site Incineration
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Residential Open T.urning
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
F irm Gasoline
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
9
18
1
73
7
6
11
0
67
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:
281
:\
20
90
0
208
0
9
13
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
9
18
1
74
7
7
14
0
82
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
284
3
20
100
1
221
0
10
14
1987
9
19
1
74
7
8
16
0
97
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
287
3
20
101
1
229
0
10
14
11-28
-------
TABLE I1-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
CATEGORY
Construction Gasolire
Particulates
'>arbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Small Gasoline Engines
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Farm Diesel
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Construction Equipment Diese]
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rail Locomotive
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Military Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
0
4
0
1
2
0
41
0
0
5
3
7
2
18
4
2
9
3
42
4
2
13
6
37
11
0
0
0
0
0
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
0
5
0
1
2
0
42
0
0
5
3
7
2
19
4
3
11
4
53
5
2
13
6
37
11
0
0
0
0
0
1987
0
5
0
2
2
0
43
0
0
5
3
7
2
20
4
3
13
5
61
5
2
13
6
37
11
0
0
0
0
0
11-29
-------
TABL^ II-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURCE EMISSION; SUMMARY
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
CATEGORY
Civil Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Commercial Aircraft
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Vessels
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile- Organic Compounds
Oil Sludge Farming
Volatile Organic Compounds
OL1 Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Gas Wells
Volatile Organic Compounds
Cutback Asphalt
Volatile Organic Compounds
Natural Gas Leaks
Volatile Organic Compounds
Dry Cleaning
Volatile Organic Com] ounds
'esticides
Volatile Organic Compounds
1977
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
20 +
2
9
3
10
8
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
1982
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
204
2
11
3
10
10
1987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
2
12
2
10
13
11-30
-------
TABLE I1-2A (Continued)
AREA SOURTE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
WAS4INGTON COUNTY
EMISSIONS (TPY)
YEAR
CATEGORY 1977 1982 1987
Solvent Evaporation
Volatile Organic Compounds 58 72 84
Gas Marketing
Volatile Organic Compounds 7 8 10
Freewa/ Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Rural Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Urban Roads
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
Forest Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compo inds
SI ash Burning
^articulates
Carbon Monoxide
Volatile Organic Compounds
Structural Fires
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Volatile Organic Compounds
0
0
0
0
0
31
1,622
9
240
267
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
70
12
5
14
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
31
1,249
9
199
163
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
70
12
5
16
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
34
805
10
174
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
70
12
5
16
1
1
11-31
-------
TABLE II-2B
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
COUNTY TOTALS
EMISSIONS (TPY)
COUNTY
Tulsa
Okmulgee
Creek
Osage
Musko;,ee
(City)
Bartlesville
(City)
Washington
YEAR
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
PART
1,120
1,194
1,289
538
561
597
330
342
367
269
275
285
992
1,032
791
311
321
344
123
126
131
CO
9,706
9,852
10,732
5,197
4,543
3,603
6,171
5,149
3,822
2,683
2,539
2,404
34,999
27,579
13,058
33,543
26,276
17,688
2,399
1,950
1,52)
so*
390
455
523
47
49
55
42
43
49
29
30
32
117
118
96
94
97
109
24
25
27
NO*
7,099
8,342
9,606
1,010
972
962
954
892
860
430
427
451
2,854
2,546
1,798
2,048
1,759
1,595
508
496
496
VOC
10,210
11,695
12,612
1,765
1,623
1,550
2,541
2,391
2,250
1,025
1,077
1,153
5,288
4,157
2,684
4,753
3,717
2,895
730
649
606
11-32
-------
TABLE I1-3
POPULATIONS OF COUNTIES AND CITIES IN THE TULSA INVENTORY AREA
AREA
Creek County
Okmulgee County
Osage County
Tulsa County
Washington County
Bartlesville (city)
Muskogee (city)
1977
PC PULATION
53,200
37,400
33,800
428,700
42,700
30,700
41,300
1982
POPULATION
56,600
38,600
34,900
445,500
43,100
32,000
45,200
1987
POPULATION
60,400
40,200
36,100
463,400
43,600
33,100
49,000
TABLE I1-4
POPULATIONS OF MAJOR TOWNS IN TULSA INVENTORY AREA
COUNTIES
Osage County
Avant
Barnsdall
Nelagoney
Skiatook
Washington County
Ochelata
Ramona
Okmulgee County
Morris
Preston
Beggs
Okmulgee
Creek County
Slick
Mounds
Sapulpa
Kellyville
Oakhurst
1977
450
1,600
100
3,900
350
600
1,400
250
L,550
6,400
200
1,000
6,700
950
2,000
1982
470
1,620
4,770
370
620
1,510
1,750
17,080
250
1,200
17,500
1,120
__.
1987
520
1,670
5,550
420
670
1,660
2,050
17,850
260
1,500
18,600
1,450
.«^
11-33
-------
Next the total county populations were reduced by the number of people
living outside the study-area portions of the counties. For example, the
city of Bartlesville lies outside the rectangular study area, yet is part of
Washington County. Therefore, the starting point for determining the study-
area population was subtracting i he Bartlesville population of 30,700. Table
11-5 lists each county in the study area and their base-year study-area popu-
lations.
To finally estimate the numter of people in each DCS grid, a rural popu-
lation density was found for eacV county. After the cities and towns in Table
II-3 had been accounted for, the remaining population in the study area was
spread uniformly over the rural areas. By inspecting the 1:24,000 USGS topo-
graphic m<-.ps for evidence of developments or housing units, it was determined
whether tlie rural density figure should be increased for a particular grid.
Since traffic zone data was available for the entire area of Tulsa County,
this procedure was necessary for only the four other counties.
Other general surrogate parameters used in area source allocations in-
clude dwelling units, total employment, and commercial employment. Each of
these parameters was broken down for the traffic zones in the PLUM output.
Since the traffic zone area included all of the Tulsa County and metropolitan
Osage County, PLUM accounted for allocating the great majority of the inven-
tory area's emissions allocated by these parameters. The following section
describes tie general methods used to expand the data base to those mostly
rural areas outside the traffic zones but still within the inventory area.
For dwelling units outside Tulsa County, the major source was Detailed
Housing Chai acteristics, publish* i as a part of the 1970 census of housing
by the- U.S. Department of Commerce. County totals were disaggregated on the
basis of population. Similarly, employment statistics were obtained from
OESC on a county basis.
dther allocation parameters are of a more specific nature. They are
discussed in the allocation section of each category.
In many cases, ES found aftei investigation that projection year alloca-
tions were the same as the base year allocations. Unless specifically stated
otherwise '.n the allocation section for a particular category, the projection
year alloc. tion parameters were identical to the base year.
11-34
-------
TABLE II-5
STUDY-AREA PORTIONS OF COUNTY POPULATIONS
COUNTY
TOTAL 1977
POPULATION
IN STUDY AREA
(AREA BASIS)
STUDY-AREA
POPULATION
Creek
Okmulgee
Osage
Washington
Tulsa
53,200
37,400
33,800
42,700
428,700
40
50
30
50
100
21,300
26,900
11,400
7,000
428,700
11-35
-------
1. HIGHWA^ MOTOR VEHICLES
TMAPC provided gridded hourly emissions for that portion of the inventory
area withi i the traffic zones. This includes all of Tulsa County and metropol-
itan Osage County, which contains a great majority of all VMT for the study
area.
For areas outside the traffic zones, various data were collected from
the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). Maps detailing average
1977 daily traffic volumes for the State Highway System, County Roads, and
City Streets were consulted. The figures obtained from these maps were then
matched '.o road segments found on U.S. Geological Survey maps (1:24,000 scale)
which had been marked with appropriate grid boundaries. Having segment length
and ADT, enabled the calculation of VMT by grid. Three road classifications
were used for classifying emissions: limited access roads; rural roads (prin-
cipal arterials); and urban or local roads.
Separate maps obtained from ODOT were used to calculate VMT for the
cities -of Bartlesville and Muskogee. The same three road classifications
i !* '
were used.
Pro,ections
As was the case for the bas ; year, 1982 and 1987 VMT were calculated by
TMAPC for the area within the tr.iffic zones. For the other areas, a factor
of 2-1/2% increase per year was recommended by both TMAPC and ODOT. The
2-1/2% per an turn increase was applied to VMT in all base year grids. Also,
highway construction plans for 1982 introduced some additional VMT. These
grids are shown in Table II-6.
Conversations with Carl Mil ler of the Oklahoma Department of Transpor-
tations indicated that beyond 1 '82, no new roads are being planned. Contri-
buting factors to this decision include the energy shortage and inflation in
the cost of petroleum products. Therefore, no new highways were included in
the 1987 inveatory for this category. However, the total VMT in 1982 was in-
creased by 2-L/2% per year to obtain the 1987 inventory.
Emission Factors
The Mobile 1 computerized nodel for estimating highway vehicle emissions
was utilized for all three inventories. TMAPC was responsible for traffic
zona data. Input data for the other sections of the inventory area were
11-36
-------
TABLE I1-6
NEW HIGHWAYS PLANNED FOR 1982
DESCRIPTION
Pawhuska Bypass
1-1/2 mi south of Sapulpa
Sapulpa west to U.S. 66
GRID #
758370
758368
758366
758364
770294
768296
ROAD CLASS
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
1982 DAILY VMT*
(hundreds)
16
16
16
16
48
48
* Assumed to be new rather than displaced VMT.
11-37
-------
supplied by ODOT. This informal on included average speeds and vehicle mix
by road class, and percent cold and hot starts. Tables 1I-7A and 1I-7B list
this input data. An OKidant season ambient temperature of 85°F was assumed.
Three separate runs were made, one each for the calendar years 1977, 1982,
and 1987. Emission factors in grams/VMT for carbon monoxide, VOC, and nit-
rogen oxides were estimated by t.his method. They are shown in Appendix F.
ES obtained SOX and TSP emission factors from AP-42. Table II-7C shows
emission factors for each pollutant by inventory year.
Allocation
Allocation was made to individual grids by VMT. The specific unit used
was hundreds of daily VMT for each road class. Allocation for 1982 was
changed from 1977 through the addition of the highways indicated in Table
II-6. Allocation factors for 1987 were the same as 1982, since no new roads
were expected.
2. AIRCRAFT
The county activity parameter associated with aircraft emissions is
landing and takeoff cycles (LTO's) by aircraft type. In the inventory area,
the largest airports are the Tulsa International and the Richard L. Jones
(formerly Riverside) Airports. Base year data were acquired through tele-
pho.ie conversations with the airport managers at these airports and at three
others: The Tulsa Downtown Airport (formerly North Tulsa Airport), the Harvey
Young Airport, and the Okmulgee Airport. Table II-8 shows the breakdown of
LTO cycles for each airport by type of aircraft.
Projections
All projection data were taken from "Airport Master Plan, Vol. 3, Assess-
ments". This reference, printed by tie Tulsa International Airport Authority,
gives projections for LTO operations by type of aircraft for 1980, 1985, and
1995. Sortin;; the data into the classifications used on the NEDS coding sheet
resulted in t IB growth factors shown in Table II-9. Each factor is expressed
relative to t le base year and was calculated through linear interpolation.
Although the "Airport Master Plan" document refers to Tulsa International
Airport only, the growth factors that were generated are assumed to be valid
for each of the smaller airports in the inventory area.
11-38
-------
TABLE II-7A
DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATING MODE AND AVERAGE SPEED
I OR TULSA ENVIRONS
PERCENTAGE
Highway
Principal Artery
Local
COLD
START
5
10
21
HOT
START
5
10
27
STABLE
MODE
90
80
52
1977
55
45
20
SPEED MPH
1982
52
43
20
1987
49
42
20
TABLE II-7B
DISTRIBUTION OF VMT BY VEHICLE CLASS
FOR DIFFERENT ROAD TYPES
VEHICLE CLASS
ROAD TYPE
Freeway and Highway
Principal Arterial (Rural)
CBD, Collector, Local (Urban)
LDV
%
73.8
82.8
78.2
LDT-1 %
L6000
18.0
14.0
12.8
LDT-2 %
L8500
3.0
2.0
3.6
HDG
%
2.0
0.5
1.7
HDD
%
3.0
0.5
0.7
MC
%
0.2
0.2
3.0
11-39
-------
TABLE II-7C
COMPOSITE
EMISSION FACTORS
FOR HIGHWAY
MOTOR VEHICLES,
GM/MILE
YEAR
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
1977
1982
1987
POLLUTANT
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
NOx
NOX
NOX
sox
sox
sox
TSP
TSP
TSP
LIMITED
ACCESS
4.12
2,27
1.09
24.46
18.37
10.97
5.00
3.85
2.79
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.56
0.51
0.48
RURAL
4.33
2.34
1.15
26.27
17.90
10.18
3.88
2.85
2.20
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.50
0.45
0.43
URBAN
7.40
4.56
2.60
62.07
42.77
25.15
3.41
2.47
1.88
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.50
0.45
0.43
11-40
-------
TABLE II-8
AIRCRAFT
EMISSION, 1977 C.Y.
EMISSION FACTORS
(Ibs/LTO-engine)
AVERAGE LTO
AIRCRAFT TYPE # ENGINES CYCLES PARTICULATE SO*
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIR CARRIER
Long -Range Jet (707)
Medium-Range (DC 9, 727)
AIR TAXI
Piston Transport
Turboprop
MILITARY
Milit iry Jet
Milit iry Piston
Relic )pter
GENERAL AVIATION
Business Jet
Turboprop
Piston
RICHARD L. JONES AIRPORT
GENERAL AVIATION
V. Itinerant
Business Jet
Single-Engine piston
Twin-Engine piston
B. Local
Single-Engine piston
AIR TAXIS
Turboprop
MILITARY (helicopters)
TULSA DOWNTOWN AIRPARK (formerly
Single-Engine Piston
4
2.75
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
North
1
4,690
18,759
480
4,320
3,574
150
38
23,836
35,754
11,918
786
66,790
11,001
77,601
230
7
Tulsa Airport
21,600
1.21
0.41
0.56
0.20
0.31
0.28
0.25
0.11
0.20
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.25
)
0.02
1.56
1.01
0.28
0.18
0.76
0.14
0.18
0,37
0.18
0.014
0.37
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.18
0.18
0.014
CO
47.4
17.0
304.0
3.1
15.1
152.0
5.7
15.8
3.1
12.2
15.8
12.2
12.2
12.2
3.1
5.7
12.2
VOC
41.2
4.9
40.7
1.1
9.93
20.4
0.52
3.6
1.1
0.40
3.6
0.40
0.40
0.40
1.1
0.52
0.40
NO*
7.9
10.2
0.40
1.2
3.29
0.20
0.57
1.6
1.2
0.047
1.6
0.047
0.047
0.047
1.2
0.57
0.047
11-41
-------
TABLE II-8 (Continued)
AIRCRAFT EMISSION, 1977 C.Y.
AIRCRAFT TYPE
EMISSION FACTORS
(Ibs/LTO-engine)
AVERAGE LTO
if ENGINES CYCLES PARTICIPATE
SO,
CO VOC
HARVEY YOUNG AIRPORT
Single-engine piston
OKMULGEE AIRPORT
5,400
0.02
0.014 12.2 0.40 O.OV7
Business Jet
Double-engine
S:' ngle-engine
piston
piston
2
2
1
1
2
25
,095
,920
,550
0.
0.
0.
11
02
02
0.
0.
0.
37
014
014
15.8
12.2
12.2
3.6
0.40
0.40
1.6
0.047
0.047
TABLE II-9
GROWTH FACTORS FOR
\IRCRAFT CATEGORIES
AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION
Military
Civil
Commercial
1982 FACTOR* 1987 FACTOR*
1.000
1.132
1.172
1.000
1.330
1.290
* Projected from a 1977 basis.
11-42
-------
Emission Factors
All emission factors were taken directly from AP-42. They are listed
according to aircraft type, as shown in Table II-8. Idle times were assumed
to be the same as those assumed in AP-42.
The emission factors for jet aircraft were modified for the 1987 projec-
tion year to reflect new regulations that are expected to go into effect be-
fore 1985. These regulations are found in Environmental Protection Agency
Regulation on Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines
published by the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. According to Dr. Hunt of
the EPA Mobile Source Lab, Ann Arbor Michigan; these regulations imply a 90%
reduction in VOC emissions, a 60% reduction in CO, and a 40% reduction in
NOX. These percentage reductions apply to aircraft which account for 70% of
all aircraft emissions in the Tulsa inventory area. They were assumed to ful-
ly affect the 1987 inventory for jet aircraft only.
Allocation
It was initially assumed that emissions would be evenly distributed to
all grids in which each airport is located. However, considering the nature
of Che higher emissions at Tulsa International Airport due to medium- and
long-range jet activity, a more detailed study was deemed appropriate. Jack
Hardy of air traffic control was able to provide information concerning land-
ing pattf rns. Using the criteria of a 3500-foot "emissions ceiling" as de-
tailed i Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Volatile
Organic Compounds, a total of 56 grids were assigned one of the three aircraft
emissions classifications. The factors considered for this allocation include:
1) windrose patterns, 2) air traffic patterns, 3) runway locations, and 4) the
distance corresponding to the 3500-foot ceiling. Specifically, the windrose
is heavily weighted from the south, "his is the reason that the major runway
(10,000 feet in length) runs north-south and services 70-80% of all jet flights.
Since this runway is located on the eastern half of the airport area, alloca-
tion was weighted in favor of the grids in this area. The 3500-foot level
was estimated to be reached within 12 kilometers of the center of the airport.
Also, using a 45-degree intercept to the guide slope, more approaches were
made from the north-east direction (30-40%) than the other three directions.
Figure II-l shows how emissions were allocated at Tulsa International Airport
using these criteria.
11-43
-------
FIGURE II-l
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS ALLOCATIONS AT TULSA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Emissions are equally partitioned into three zones
Zone 1 - Airport Location (4 grids)
Zone 2 - Near Periphery (16 grids)
Zone 3 - Outside Periphery (36 grids)
Scale: 1 Grid Length = 2 km
11-44
-------
Since the other airports in the inventory area do not service the larger
jets, allocations were made to grids covering the airport location only. Also,
no new airports are expected to be constructed within the time frame of the
projection year inventories.
3. RAIL LOCOMOTIVE
The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. is the leading locomotive freight
company n the Tulsa area. There is no locomotive passenger service available.
Other railway companies dealing in the Tulsa area were identified through The
Official Railway Guide, and all were contacted for fuel-consumption data.
Table 11-10 contains the estimated annual 1977 fuel consumption obtained by
these contacts. These figures were extrapolated to other counties in the
study area by using track length ratios.
Project cms
Martin Pomphrey of SLFF Co. indicated that the best estimate of future
railroad locomotive activity wou d be to simply assume no change from present
levels. Although one of the minor freight companies expressed an interest in
adding a new shift by 1982, present activity levels were assumed for both 1982
and 1987. Verification was found in the OBERS projections from the U.S. De-
par tnent of Commerce. This reference predicts no change in railroad earnings
for the Tulsa area until 1990, when a gradual decrease in earnings will begin.
Emission Factors
Two sets of emission factors have been used to find one "weighted average"
set of factors that would be applicable to the Tulsa area. Fifteen percent of
the fuel consumption corresponded to the emission factors for a "supercharged
two-stri ce switch engine."
This type of fuel consumption applied to KATY and Midland Valley rail ope-
rations. The remainder was attributed to average locomotive emission factors
based on national statistics. The actual factors used are listed in Table II-
11. AP-4; was the source of all data.
Allocation
Most of the fuel consumption is due to switching operations. Since
switching is done in various locations all over the inventory area, emissions
were allocated by length of track. U.S. Geological Survey quad maps were used
11-45
-------
TABLE 11-10
ESTIMATED 1977 LOCOMOTIVE FUEL CONSUMPTION
RAILWAY CO. ANNUAL FUEL USE (Tulsa Co.)
St. Louis-San Francisco Co. 1,365,000 gal
Missouri-Kansas-Texas (KATY) 187,500 gal
Missouri-Pacific (Midland Valley) 62,600 gal
Sand Springs 52,000 gal
Atchlson Topeka and Sante Fe 32,500 gal
TABLE 11-11
RAIL LOCOMOTIVE COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
POLLUTANT TYPE EMISSION FACTOR
Particulate 25 lb/1000 gal fuel
SOX 57 lb/1000 gal fuel
CO 123 lb/1000 gal fuel
HC 121 lb/1000 gal fuel
NOX 352 lb/1000 gal fuel
11-46
-------
to relat track length to grid numbers. Due to the fact that no change in
railroad operations was expected from 1977 through 1987, the base and projec-
tion yea- allocation factors remained the same.
4. VESSELS
Since the Port of Catoosa is located outside the inventory area (Wagoner
County), all vessel usage included in the study was recreational in nature.
Two lakes were inventoried, Lak<-. Heyburn and Keystone Lake. Both are located
on the western edge of the inventory area.
Emissions from vessels depend upon fuel use by type of vessel. From
Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Volatile Organic
Compounds an average of 2.0 gallons per hour of boat use was assumed. This
figure coincides with a ratio of outboard to inboard vessels of 2-1. This
ratio was estimated by Grady Barrons of TCCHD, as *rere the figures for number
of vessels. For Keystone Lake, a total of 95,410 boat-days per year was cal-
culated from the estimated number of boats. Multiplying by TCCHD's factor of
2 hours per boat-day (motor-rum ing hours) and by the 2.0 gallons per hour
figure, it was calculated that 380,000 gallons of fuel were used in Keystone
Lake for 1977. Since only half of Keystone Lake is in the inventory area,
the figure of 190,000 gallons of fuel was used for the total annual fuel use.
Lake Heyburn was estimated to hrve about one-third the emissions of Keystone
Lake, since it has one-third the water surface area. Therefore, a figure of
63,000 gallons was used.
Projections
TCCHD officials estimated i 25% increase over 1977 recreational fuel use
for 1982. Fo 1987, a figure 50£ higher than 1977 was suggested,
Emission Factors
Emissions were calculated from AP-42 using the assumption that one-third
of the recreational vessels were inboard and the remainder outboard. These
figures are shown in Table 11-12.
Allocati m
Allocation for this category was determined by estimating vessel miles
travelled in each grid. U.S. Geological Survey quad maps were consulted as
to the amount of lake within each appropriate grid.
11-47
-------
TABLE 11-12
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR RECREATIONAL VESSELS
EMISSIONS
POLLUTANT (lb/100 gal)
SOX 0.64
CO 261.3
HC 76.2
NOX 4.8
TSP negligible
11-48
-------
5. AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT
The basic source for much of the data developed for this category is the
1974 Oklahoma Census of Agriculture. Using historical trends, all data were
linearly projected to the base year as well as the projection years.
For each type of fuel-consuming machine, the number in use in each county
was estimated. Combining this number with the average gallons per year con-
sumption figure from The EPA Procedures document, an estimate of total number
of gallons used for both gasoline and diesel types was made. Table 11-13
shows the type of fuel used by each type of machinery inventoried.
For each county other than Tulsa, totals had to be adjusted to account
for the portions of the county not included in the study area. The factors
used were estimated from a U.S. Census map showing land in farms for the State
of Oklahoma. The estimated percentages of county farmland within the inventory
area are: Osage Co, 30%; Okmulgee Co, 50%; Creek Co, 30%; and Washington Co,
40%.
Projections
Emissions from agricultural equipment were assumed to be proportional to
the area of harvested cropland. Projection figures were calculated by extra-
po.l iting county trends from 1969 to 1974. Also factored into the projections
was state data from 1964 to 1974. Both trends were equally weighted in pro-
jecting harvested cropland. Table 11-14 shows the resulting growth factors
by county.
Kir Lssion Factors
Emission factors were broken down by type of machinery. Table 11-15
shows all factors used, which were taken directly from AP-42. For purposes
of input to the emission factor file, a weighted average emission factor was
calculated between the tractor and non-tractor classifications for both die-
sel and gasoline categories.
Allocation
All emissions were allocated to subcounty grids by harvested cropland.
For those areas within TMA'C's traffic zones, data were provided through the
PLUK model output. These data were acquired for all three inventory years.
11-49
-------
TABLE 11-13
FARM MACHINERY USAGE DATA
TYPE OF MACHINERY
Tractors
Combines
Balers
Harvesters
General Purpose
ANNUAL USE
(hr/yr)
*
71
24
120
50
DIESEL FUEL (%) GASOLINE (%)
65 30**
43 57
100
100
50 50
* 490 hr/yr diesel, 291 hr/yr gasoline
** About 5% is liquid petroleum gas.
Source: EPA-450/2-77-028
TABLE 11-14
HARVESTED CROPLAND GROWTH FACTORS
COUNTY
1977 TO 1982 G'lOWTH FACTOR
1977 TO 1987 GROWTH FACTOR
Osage
Washir jton
Okmul 2 e
Creek
Tulsa*
0.943
1.061
0.980
1.000
1.081
0.858
1.105
0.942
0.990
1.048
* Source was PLUM model output from TMAPO.
11-50
-------
TABLE 11-15
AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTORS
Emission Factors lb/1000 gallons fuel
GASOLINE
POLLUTANT
CO
Exhaust VOC
Crankcase VOC
Evaporative VOC*
NOX
Aldehydes
sox
Particulates
TRACTOR
3260
125
25.1
34.4
151
6.84
5.31
8.00
NON-TRACTOR
4100
135
27.1
3.53
98.5
4.14
5.28
6.86
DIESEL
TRACTOR
119
60.7
-
-
335
12.1
31.2
45.7
NON-TRACTOR
139
57.1
-
-
307
10.2
31.1
51.3
* Units expressed as Ibs/unit-year.
11-51
-------
For the sections of the inventory area outside the traffic zones, an es-
timate of the amount of farmland in each grid was made by utilizing the U.S.
Geological Survey quadrangle maps.
6. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Emissions from construction equipment were divided into three subcategor-
ies: residential construction, commercial and industrial construction, and
highway construction and repair projects. Each was analyzed independently.
Emissions were assumed to be proportional to project value.
The county activity parameters (gallons of fuel consumed) were found
from apportioning state off-highway fuel consumption to each county. From
Energy Data Reports, a publication of the U.S. Department of Energy, it was
estimate^ that 2,219,000 barrels of diesel oil was sold in Oklahoma in 1977
for use In construction equipment and agricultural equipment. State figures
from the Oklahoma Census of Agriculture indicate that about 43% of this total
went for agricultural use, leaving 57%, 53 million gallons, for statewide con-
struction equipment fuel use. Each county's portion was assumed to be propor-
tional tr its statewide share of heavy construction contractor employees (SIC
16). Th s data was taken from County Business Patterns 1976, published by
the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Once county diesel fuel use for construction equipment was estimated, it
was assumed that gasoline use for this category was 10% of the diesel use fi-
gure. This agrees with national figures found in Procedures for the Prepara-
tion of Emission Inventories for Volatile Organic Compounds.
Projections
OBERS projections provided future-year data for employment and dollar
earnings from contract construction. This dita was cross-checked with his-
torical trends in single and multiple-family dwelling units, building per-
mits issued, and building contracts and highway contracts. The data shows
that although construction within the city of Tulsa has generally been de-
clining in the 1970's, (especially dwelling unit construction), the opposite
is true for Tulsa County and the study area in general. The growth factors
that were used reflect the OBERS projections. They are: 1) an increase of
22.9% from 1977 to 1982; and 2) ?n increase of 46.3% from 1977 to 1987.
11-52
-------
These figures are also consistent with those obtained from the Oklahoma State
Department of Health.
Emission Factors
The source of information for emission factor calculation was AP-42.
Each of tVie ten major types of heavy-duty construction equipment was analyzed.
The annual operation in hours per year for each piece of equipment was used
to produce a composite emission factor. For example, according to AP-42 scra-
pers operate 2000 hours per year, while motor graders operate only 830 hours
per year. The set of emission factors for scrapers was therefore weighed
about 2.4 times more in the calculation of the overall emission factor. This
procedure was done for both dies-'-l powered equipment and gasoline users, so
that two composite factors were found. These are shown in Table 11-16. The
V0( emission factors for gasoline equipment include both evaporative and ex-
ha\ st sources.
Allocation
Construction equipment emissions were allocated to grids by location and
project value. Specific locations of residential construction, commercial
and industrial construction sites, and highway projects were found from Busi-
ness Highlights magazine, as were project values. This source, which is the
official publication of the Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, (MTCC),
contains data for Brokcm Arrow and other areas within the inventory area.
A. Residential Construction
Since 77% of the residential construction in the Tulsa SMSA (six-county
aria) is located in Tulsa and Broken Arrow, it was assumed that 90% of the
residential construction in the inventory area takes place there. The total
va ue of residential construction for Tulsa County in 1977 was estimated by
Elaine Barton, of MTCC, as $189 million. Most of this figure was allocated
to grids in the cities of Tulsa and Broken Arrow. Other locations included
northern Tulsa Co. (near the site of the Cherokee Industrial District), the
Owasso periphery, and the Skiatook periphery. To a lesser extent, some grids
were included near the towns of Collinsville, Sperry, and Okmulgee, where re-
sidential construction was assumed to occur. Grids were classified either
as major sites of residential construction ($830 thousand dollars per grid),
or minor sites ($350 thousand per grid).
11-53
-------
TABLE 11-16
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTORS
GASOLINE DIESEL
EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
POLLUTANT (lb/l(P gallons) (lb/104 gallons)
Carbon Monoxide
VOC
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Particulates
3766
51.6
108.7
5.28
7.10
895.8
366.2
4222
312
239
11-54
-------
B. Commercial and Industrial Construction
Copies of Business Highlights from the first three quarters of 1977 were
anal/zed for project value as well as location. In the "Construction Score-
boar!" section of each issue, a detailed summary provides this information
for the following categories: Tinufacturing/Industrial/Warehouse, Retail/
Commercial, and Miscellaneous. Only projects which started construction be-
fore the fourth quarter of 1977 were considered. Allocations were made by
matching project value and the given addresses to grids.
C. Highway Construction Projects
A list of the major highway projects that were ongoing during 1977 in
the Tulsa area was obtained from the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
The data that were provided included the overall project value, the location
of the project, the type of work involved, and the estimated period of con-
struction. The project value figure was calculated by dividing the total
project value by the number of years of project duration. In this manner,
only the project amount expended in 1977 was considered.
7. SMALL GASOLINE ENGINES
Information contained in AP-42 indicates that 89% of small gasoline on-
gines are used in lawn and garden equipment. There are two types of engines
available for this purpose: two-stroke and four-stroke. A call to a local
dealer revealed that over 80% of the lawn and garden equipment sold today is
four-stroke. This is primarily because they are less expensive.
Tab e 11-17 shows the approximate breakdown of small engines by use, and
also the r approximate annual fuel consumption from AP-42.
Using the information from the above table, the weighted average gallon
per unit-year, 12.7 gallons, was found. In order to account for meteorologi-
cal differences between Tulsa and other parts of the nation, a temperature
correction was applied to this figure. From Procedures, the average number
of days in the year when the minimum temperature is greater than 32°F in the
study area should be divided by the same figure for the national average.
For Tulsa, this factor becomes 285/250. When applied to the 12.7 gallons
per unit-ysar, the resulting figure :,s now 14.5 gallons per unit-year.
11-55
-------
TABLE 11-17
SMALL GASOLINE ENGINE DATA
TYPE
Four-stroke miscellaneous
Two-stroke lawn and
F lur-stroke lawn and
garden
garden
PERCENT
IN USE
11
15
74
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
FUEL USE
12.3 gal/unit
20.6
10.8
11-56
-------
From AP-42, there are about 0.21 units per person nationwide. Therefore:
14.5 gal/unit x 0.21 units/person = 3.0 gallons/capita/yr
Projections
Fuel usage for this category was projected according to population
figures provided in the introduction to this chapter.
Emission Factors
A weighted average according to fuel use of the three types of engines
was calculated. The results are shown below in Table 11-18.
TABLE 11-18
SMALL GASOLINE ENGINES EMISSION FACTORS
SOV TSP CO HC NOV UNITS
5.14 10.4 3792 448 41.9 lb/103 gallons
Allocation
All emissions from this category were allocated by dwelling units. This
was done separately for 1977, 1982, aid 1987, as outlined in the introduction
to this chapter.
8. GASOLINE HANDLING
Although data from the Oklahoma Tax Commission indicated that about 260
million gallons of gasoline were sold in Tulsa County in 1977, local officials
indicated that this figure was too low. The Tulsa City-County Health Depart-
ment used a figure of 309 million gallons for their State Implementation Plan.
This figure was based on an estimate by the Oklahoma Marketers Association.
ES confirmed the 309 million figure with data from Sun Oil Company's bulk
terminal, which provides about 80 percent of the gasoline sold in Tulsa Coun-
ty. There are no bulk plants in the Tulsa study area.
For the other counties in the inventory area, and also the cities of
Bartlesville and Muskogee, gas sales were estimated using VMT figures. One
gallon oi gasoline was assumed to be sold for every 14 vehicle miles travel-
led, as recommended by TCCHD.
11-57
-------
Projections
An annual increase of 4.4% per year was assumed for both the 1982 inven-
tory and the 1987 inventory. This figure was recommended by the Oklahoma
Employment Security Commission and also by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Anal-
ysis (U.S. Census). The figure of 4.4% per year was also used by the Tulsa
City-County Health Department for their State Implementation Plan.
Emission Factors
Data from the survey taken by TCCHD indicates that 15.5% of service sta-
tion :anks do not have submerged fill drop tubes. From AP-42, the emission
factor for submerged fill is about 18 pounds of VOC vapor per thousand gal-
lons, whereas splash fill has a f ictor of 22.4 pounds per thousand gallons.
For the Tulsa area, therefore, a :actor of 18.7 pounds per thousand gallons,
a weighted average was used.
No o her type of pollutant besides VOC aie emitted in this process. Al-
so, it should be noted that these factors included the filling of the under-
ground tank, spillage, underground tank breathing, and vehicle refueling.
Allocation
For Tulsa County, by far the area containing the most emissions for this
category, allocation was accomplished by service station location. This was
made possible 1>y the survey done by TCCHD. Since the data were available
only in square-mile grids, a computer program (AQZTOGR) was applied to trans-
form the data to the two-kilometer DCS grids.
For the other counties within the inventory area, allocation was made
by commen ial employment.
9. DRY CLEANING
TCCHD conducted a dry cleaning establishment survey in Tulsa County for
calendar year 1977. The questiornaires, which achieved a 90% response, were
used to calculate pounds of emisi ions (see Appendix D, Item 10). Two types
of operations were considered: typical and controlled. The vast majority
of operations were typical (uncontrolled).
For the other counties in the inventory area, dry cleaning emissions
were estimated from Tulsa's figure using total employment ratios.
1-58
-------
Projections
All projections for the 1982 and 1987 inventories were based on popula-
tion.
Emission Factors
As previously indicated, the emission factors incorporated into the
activity parameter were taken from AP-42 supplement 7, as developed by TCCHD.
Allocation
Since detailed location data were available for Tulsa County, alloca-
tions were made by individual grid locations of dry cleaning establishments.
The information was translated from square-mile grids to DCS grids using
AQZ10GR computerized transformation equations (see Chapter 2, Introduction).
In those areas outside Tulsa County, dry cleaning emissions were allo-
cated according to commercial employment.
10. DECREASING, SURFACE COATING, AND MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL/CONSUMER SOL-
VENT USE
These three categories were combined on the area source NEDS form. Their
total figures appear in the evaporation category under "Solvent Purchased".
Using data acquired from TCCHD, it was determined that 4.0 pounds per cap-
ita emissions were attributable to liquid cold cleaning (degreasing). This
figure was based on a national average.
Trade paint, as defined by the National Paint and Coating Association,
refers to paint, enamel, varnish, etc., used by individuals and contractors
for exterior and interior surface coating. A figure of 2.1 gallons per capita
was recommended by the Association. Also, 2.0 gallons per capita is the fi-
gure used by the U.S. Census of Manufacturers. Assuming a density of about
10.0 pounds per gallon for both solvent based and water based paint, this
produces a figure of about 20 pounds per capita of paint use. Using a 17.5%
volatility factor from Procedures, an emissions total of about 3.5 pounds
per capita can be used for trade paint.
Detailed information concerning solvent usage is presented in End Uses
of Solvents Containing Volatile Organic Compound, (EPA 450/3-79-032) published
by The Research Corporation of New England. In Part III, "Application to Emis-
sion Inventories", a miscellaneous commercial/consumer solvent use figure of
11-59
-------
10 pounds per capita, excluding surface coating and degreasing, was recommen-
ded. This information was based on a detailed national balance of nationwide
solvent use in the U.S.
Combining the per capita em ssions totals from all three components of
this category, a total of 17.5 pounds per capita emissions can be assumed for
the entire category of miscellaneous solvent use. Some industrial degreasing,
especially vapor degreasing, is dealt with in the point source inventory. Al-
so, 5.5 tons of emissions were added to grid 790290 for the base year inventory,
due to a highway bridge-painting project on the Arkansas River in 1977.
Projections
The Oklahoma State Department of Health projected degreasing to increase
5.6% per year until 1982. This figure was extended to 1987 for purposes of
this inventory. For architectural coating and other solvent use, projections
were based on total employment figures.
Emission factors
The factor used for this category was 2000 pounds per ton. The assump-
tion made for the degreasing category was that all the solvent used evaporates.
For surface coating, the 17.5% volatility factor was incorporated into the ac-
tivity parameter. Due to the evaporative nature of this category, no other
pollutant is emitted other than t le various splits of volatile organic com-
pounds.
Allocation
All alLocations for this category were made to total employment.
11. CUTBACK ASPHALT PAVING
Data supplied by the Tulsa County Engineer's office shows that a total
of five companies reported using cutback asphalt for 1977 in Tulsa County.
Their total gallon usage of cutba:k is as follows:
1. Anchor-Amulco 522,215
2. Standard Industries 192,970
3. Tvlsa Rock Co. 183,000
4. Cummins Construction Co. 2),316
5. Monarch Asphalt 7,500
11-60
-------
Hydrocarbon emissions were calculated using the following assumptions:
1) the density of cutback asphalt in Tulsa County is 7.82 pounds per gallon;
2) the fraction of diluent (VOC) in the cutback averages 35% by volume and
3) the pei centage of diluent to evaporate averages 25% for slow cure, 70% for
medium cure, and 80% for rapid cure. Of the 931,000 gallon total, 893,000
gallons were classified by the Tulsa County Engineer as medium cure. Emis-
sions were based on factors obtained from EPA 450/2-77-037, Control of VOC
from the Use of Cutback Asphalt. The total VOC emission figure for Tulsa
Co. was extrapolated to other inventoried areas using total VMT ratios.
Projections
The use of cutback asphalt is expected to decrease in Tulsa County over
the next several years. The Tulsa County Highway Department is moving to
emulsified asphalt for chip sealing in order to comply with State Regulation
No. 15, "Control of Emissions of Organic Materials". Approximately 893,000
gallons of medium cure cutback was used in 1977 (96% of the total). Yet,
only 510,000 gallons were projected for 1978.
The Tulsa City-County Health Department has projected 1982 figures at
58% less than the base year. This number was used for input to the Oklahoma
Sta e Implementation Plan (SIP) and was also used for this study. Data from
officials at TCCHD indicates that by 1987 the emissions from this category
can be considered negligible. For the process called seal coating (chip
seal), cationic emulsified asphalts can be used in place of cutback asphalt.
This is the major use of cutback asphalt in Tulsa County. However, for the
penetration coat operation, no substitute can be used. This operation, ac-
cording to the County Engineer's office, involves the use of cutback asphalt
in penetracion of subgrade or rock base for asphaltic concrete overlay. Only
a small amount is necessary to form the required moisture seal, so usage is
estimated at less than 20,000 gallons per year. Extrapolating the use of
this to 1987 (using an annual VMT growth rate of 2.5%):
20,000 gallons x 7.82 Ibs/gal x .298 (fraction of diluent by weight)
x 0.70 (medium cure evaporation) x 1.28 (10-yr growth factor)
= 21 tons/yr emissions
This figure was used for the Tilsa County 1987 inventory.
The growth factor of 2.5 percert per year was also for the outlying
counties in the study area. Since emission totals are very low for these
11-61
-------
areas, no effort to decrease the amount of cutback asphalt used can be ex-
pected.
Emission Factors
The emission factors were included in the county activity parameter for
this category. All factors weri basc.d on EPA-450/2-77-037, Control of VOC
from the Use of Cutback Asphalt.
Allocation
For all areas other than Tulsa County, emissions for this source cate-
gory were allocated by vehicle piles travelled on rural and urban roads.
Limited access roads were not included. For Tulsa County, such data were not
readily available in gridded form, so emissions were allocated to population.
12. PESTICIDES APPLICATIONS
From telephone conversations with Jerry Legg of the Oklahoma State De-
partment of Aj.riculture, an estimate of the types and amounts of pesticides
used in the siiudy area was made.
Three pesticides are the most common. They are Lannate (chemical name
methomyl); Sevin (carbaryl); and 2,4-D. Methomyl and carbaryl are insecti-
cides; 2,4-D can be used as eithtr an insecticide or a herbicide. Also men-
tioned was weed oil, which, as defined in Procedures (EPA-450/2-77-028), is
unburned motor oil and/or petroleum distillates such as diesel fuels. Weed
oil can be considered a general herbicide.
Table 11-19 shows the estimated amounts of each pesticide used in Tulsa
County for 1977 and is based on the assumption that the density of the liquid
pesticides is 7.8 pounds per gallon.
Table 11-20 was made from the analysis of a typical insecticide, provided
by Capital, Inc. Since pesticide data available from the other counties in
the study area was minimal, the data from Tulsa County was extrapolated to
other counties by the amount of farm acreage in each.
Projections
From :onversations with the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture, it
was estimated that a growth factor of 10% per year would not be unreasonable.
However, information from the Tulsa County agricultural extension office did
11-62
-------
TABLE 11-19
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USE IN TULSA COUNTY FOR 1977
Methomyl 4,000 Ibs
Carbaryl 8,600 Ibs
2,4-D 5,780 Ibs
Weed Oil 18,300 Ibs
Other pesticides 18,300 Ibs
TABLE 11-20
TYPICAL INSECTICIDE COMPONENT FRACTIONS
Petroleum distillate 83.75%
Essential oils 0.25
0-Iso-isprotoxy phenol 1.0
Inactive ingredients 15.0
11-63
-------
not support this projection. Rather, it forecast that the annual growth fac-
tor woulci be 1 or 2% as an absolute maximum. To resolve this, historical
data was reviewed from the Oklahoma Census of Agriculture. For Tulsa County,
insecticide usii increased about 11% in the five year period from 1969 to 1974,
while herbicide increased 18%. The figures were slightly less for Okmulgee
County but much more for Osage County. Give i the wide range of information,
it was decided to use an annual growth facto" of 4% for all counties except
Osage. Here the annual growth factor was estimated to be 7%.
Emission Factors
The criteria from Procedures were applied to the active/inert components
from Table 11-20. That is, 90% of the active ingredients were assumed to be
volatile, as was 10% of the inert ingredients. This resulted in a combined
emission factor of 0.78 pounds per pound of pesticide.
Allocation
Emissions for this categor} were allocated to farmland acreage separately
for 1977, 1982, and 1987.
13. OIL WELLS AND GAS WELLS
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission supplied data concerning total gas
and oil production in Tulsa County. Besides conventional oil production,
there are various forms of secondary oil recovery. This involves injecting
the wells with other liquids in order to extract additional oil. TCCHD, in
their April 1979 area source emissions inventory report (Appendix D, Item 3),
presented emissions data for both natural gas production and the various
forms of oil recovery. These figures were used for input to the Oklahoma
SIP; they were also used in this study.
The county activity parameter used for this category was number of oil
or gas wells. The county figures obtained from the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission were multiplied by the estimated percentages of wells within the
study area portion of the county. Table 11-21 shows these percentages and
the resulting estimates of number of wells.
Projections
Data from the Corporation Commission and from local officials at TCCHD
indicate that the best estimate of oil and gas production projections would
11-64
-------
TAB^E 11-21
NUMBER OF OIL WELLS AND GAS WELLS IN THE TULSA STUDY AREA
COUNTY
Tulsa
Okmulgee
Osa^e
Was lington
Creak
Bartlesville
(city & vicinity)
1977 TOTAL WELLS
OIL GAS
1382 "
1985 187
8394 31
3043 2
4955 61
100 0
TOTAL IN STUDY AREA
% IN STUDY AREA
100
55
26
50
40
100
OIL
1382
1092
2186
1522
1982
100
GAS
9
103
8
1
24
0
Source: Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
11-65
-------
be to assume no growth to 1982 and a slight increase for the 1987 estimate.
By 1987, more methods of extraction will become economically feasible due to
skyrocketing energy costs. However, no new oil or gas fields have been dis-
covered in the study area, with the exception of Osage County where three
new fields will soon become available for oil production. Therefore, emis-
sions for 1982 were the same as base year, while 1987 was projected at a
figure 5% higher than 1977. For Osage County, a continuous increase of 3%
per year will be used, as recommended by TCCHD.
Emission Factors
The emission factors used for this category were: 4,760 pounds per gas
well per year, and 267.6 pounds per oil well per year. These factors were de-
rived from EPA 450/3-78-004, which recommended the factors 40 pounds per thou-
sand barrels of oil for standard production, 7.7 pounds per thousand barrels
for secondary oil recovery (water injection), and 175 pounds per million cub-
ic feet of gas.
Allocation
The number of oil and gas wells in each grid were determined from U.S.G.S.
quadrangle maps. Due to the stable nrture of gas and oil field location, pro-
jection year allocation was kept the fame as that for the base year.
14. ON-SITE INCINERATION
An incinerator survey was conducted by TCCHD. Results indicated that
there were 25 incinerators operating during calendar year 1977 which burned
a total of 5,749 tons of refuse. The survey included banks, schools, hospi-
tals, food stores, and other businesses. The data from the other counties
indicated that no incinerators were in use, even in the more urban areas
such as the city of Okmulgee. However, calls to the county health depart-
ments in Bartlesville and Muskogee revealed that some local groceries and
hospitals did have incinerators in use. Since tonnage burned was unavail-
able, typical values of 200 tons per fear for a grocery store and 50 tons
burned per year for a hospital were used. These figures were averaged from
the 1GCHD Report in Appendix D, Item 9.
Proje ctions
Since 1977, two incinerators in Tulsa County have been shut down. Ac-
cording to off cials at TCCHD, the trend of one less incinerator per year
11-66
-------
should continue. The suggested growth factors were 0.75 for 1977-1982 and
0.60 for 1977 to 1987. These factors were also applied to the few incinera-
tors located outside Tulsa County.
Emission Factors
All emission factors were taken directly from AP-42. They are expressed
as pounds per ton of refuse burned: Particulate - 7.0, SOX - 2.5, CO - 10,
VOC - 3.0, and NOX - 3.0.
Allocation
Allocation was performed se >arately for each inventory year by grid loca-
tion of &i ch incinerator.
15. OPEN BURNING
The category of open burning is characterized by higher emissions in the
more rural areas and very low emissions in urban areas. This is due to the
prevalences of city ordinances against open burning, as well as routine trash
collection services.
In order to estimate open burning emissions for the rural portions of the
inventory, refuse production must be estimated. Data from Tulsa City-County
Health Department indicates that an average of 11.7 pounds refuse/dwelling
unit/day is produced. This results in about 1,640 pounds of trash/person/year.
Considering that 60% is burned (according to TCCHD), a figure of 985 pounds/
person/yea can be attributed to the residential open burning category for
rural Tulsa County. This figure also used to estimate the contribution of
open burning to non-Tulsa County rural areas in the study area.
For metropolitan Tulsa, TCCHD recommended a figure corresponding to 2.9
pounds/person/year.
Projections
Estimates from TCCHD indicate that open burning will decrease at the
rate of 3% per year, due to stricter enforcement of existing regulations.
For the ither counties in the study area, it was assumed that the amount of
open bur ling will vary according to population.
Emission Factors
AP- »2's "Emission Factors for Open Burning of Nonagricultural Material"
was used for this category. Table 11-22 lists these factors.
11-67
-------
TABLE 11-22
OPEN BURNING EMISSION FACTORS
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Organics
Nitrogen Oxides
16 pounds per ton refuse burned
1 pound per ton
85 pounds per ton
30 pounds per ton
6 pounds per ton
11-68
-------
Allocation
The allocation factors developed for open burning reflect the difference
between rural and urban areas. The data from TCCHD were hand allocated to
grids on the basis of their population. This procedure was followed for the
other counties, also. In general, residences in rural areas contribute more
emissions for this category than urban residences4
16. NATURAL GAS USE
Natural Gas is the only significant fuel used for heating in the Tulsa
inventory irea. The Tulsa City Building Inspector and the city boiler in-
spector indicate that there is no coal use in the area.
The Oklahoma Natural Gas Company supplied 1977 figures for natural gas
usage into separate categories of residential, commercial, and industrial
use. The area represented by these figures was the Tulsa AQMA, which encom-
passes all of Tulsa County and other sections to the east and west. From
population totals, it was assumed that 90% of the AQMA residential fuel use
was in Tulsa County. Residential fuel totals for other areas were based on
Tulsa Co. data using dwelling unit ratios.
From employment figures, it was estimated that 92% of the AQMA commer-
cial natural gas usage could be attributed to Tulsa County, whereas 99% of
the industrial usage was apportioned in the same manner.
Commercial employment ratios were used to extrapolate the Tulsa County
commercial natural gas use figures to other portions of the study area.
Also, it wis determined that all industrial natural gas use was accounted
for In the point sources for the following areas: Creek County, Osage County,
Bartlesville, and Washington County. For Tulsa County, the total of 53,550
MMcf was reduced by the 30,326 'IMcf accounted for in the point sources. Like-
wise, Okmulgee County was reduced from 1,460 MMcf to 1,400. The city of Musk-
ogee retained all of its industrial 4,020 MMcf in the area source inventory.
Projections
Residential natural gas usage was projected according to population.
Commercial use was projected according to commercial employment. That por-
tion of industrial natural gas usage in the area source inventory was projec-
ted by ma lufacturing earnings according to OBERS data. This resulted in a
factor of 1.220 for the 1977-1982 period and 1.446 for the period 1977-1987.
11-69
-------
Emission Factors
All emission factors were taken from AP-42. They are shown in Table II-
23. For the industrial category, th<3 lower figure from AP-42 was used in the
range given for NOX emission factors. This is because the larger boilers (with
greater emission rates) were accounted for in the point source inventory.
Allocation
Residential natural gas use was allocated according to the number of dwell-
ing units, whereas commercial u.;age was allocated proportionally to commercial
employment. For area source industrial gas usage, allocation was made to total
employment. ES developed separate sets of allocation data for the base year
and each projection year.
17. FOREST FIRES
Although local officials ir. Northeastern Oklahoma do not refer to their
open land as "forest", there does exist timberland in the area that can be
destroyed by fire. Kyle Good of the Osage County Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Office estimates that 10,000 acres of timberland was destroyed
in Osage County in 1977. Although about 22% of the county acreage lies with-
in the st-.udy area, it was estimated from U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps that only
2.5% of -he bu-ned acreage was located inside the inventory area, since most
of Osage's timberland lies in the northern and western sections of the county.
The only other county reporting forest fires was Creek County. Most fire
calls in eastern Creek (study area) are answe-red by the Bristow Fire Depart-
ment. OffLcals there estimate that there wei e 24 timber fires in 1977, and
that the average acreage burned was about 25. Since the town of Bristow is
actually located outside the study area, it was estimated that about 40% of
the timber fires could be allocated to areas within our inventory boundary.
From the above information, it can be calculated that Osage County was
attributed 250 acres of forest fires and Creek County 240 acres. From AP-42,
it was estimated that nine tons of timber were burned per acre.
Projections
Since counties other than Osage or Creec have little or no "forest",
they will be assumed to remain at zero for this category. Because no devel-
opment is exptcted in the wooded acr>is of Osage and Creek Counties, the same
11-70
-------
TABLE 11-23
NATURAL GAS EMISSION FACTORS
EMISSION FACTORS, Ib/MMcf
POLLUTANT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
Particulates 10 10 10
Sulfur Oxides 0.6 0.6 0.6
Carbon Monoxide 20 20 17
Hydrocarbons 'i.O 8.0 3.0
Nitrogen Oxides 8 ) 120 120
11-71
-------
figures will be assumed for the projection years as those determined for the
base year.
Emission Factors
Table 11-24 shows emission factors which were obtained directly from
AP-42.
Allocations
Allocation was made as shown on U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps to those grids
of Osage and Creek Counties which contained timberland. An allocation value
of two was assigned to grids with wooded acres in known areas of forest fires.
A value of one was assigned to wooded areas bordering forest fire locations.
18. AGRICULTURAL BURNING
This category includes two types of field burning: 1) accidental grass
or field fires which cannot be classified as forest fires; and 2) the pre-
meditated burning of fields for clearing purposes. A good example of the
first type occurred in Okmulgee County. According to Don Robinson, county
agricultural agent, a large fire consumed 400 acres of grassland northern
Okmulgee County in July 1977. Other instances of smaller grass fires were
reported in Washington County and rural Tulsa County.
From AP-42, a value of three tons of growth per acre was used. This
corresponds to the "unspecified weeds" loading factor value. It also is the
median value lor wheat and corn burning, as well as corresponding to other
field crops.
All data concerning the two types of field burning was acquired through
telephone conversations with agricultural extension agents or fire departments.
Projection's
The nature of wildfires defies projection. Since purposeful field burn-
ing is expected to generally remain the same, the 1982 and 1987 inventories
contain the same figures as the base year.
Emission Factors
The emission factors for this* category were taken from AP-42. An aver-
age was calculated from two categories, Grasses and Unspecified Weeds. They
are listed in Table 11-25.
11-72
-------
TABLE 11-24
FOREST FIRE EMISSION FACTORS
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
17 Ib/ton
140
24
4
Negligible
TABLE 11-25
AGRICULTURAL BURNING EMISSION FACTORS
POLLUTANT
GRASSES
UNSPECIFIED WEEDS
FACTORS USED
Particulate 16
Carbon Monoxide 101
Organics 19
15
85
12
16 Ib/ton
93 Ib/ton
16 Ib/ton
11-73
-------
Allocation
Emissions were allocated to individual grids by their amount of farmland
in acres, since this parameter best reflects the rural nature of the category.
19. STRUCTURAL FIRES
Structural fire data in Tulsa County was available from the City of Tulsa
Fire Department Report for calendar year 1977. The data from the city was ex-
trapolated to the county level on the basis of dwelling units. Those structures
counted in the report include the following, which are listed in order by the
number of fire alarms attributed to them: residential, mercantile, manufactur-
ing, storage, institutional, hotel or motel, theater, and lumber yard.
For areas outside Tulsa Ccunty, the national average of four fires per
1,000 population was used. This figure was taken from EPA-450/2-77-028, Proce-
dures, Volume 1.
Pro jections
The number of structural f ;res was projected according to dwelling units
for both 1982 and 1987 inventor es.
Emission Factors
An average 1,500 square fo<>t dwelling contains 16.8 tons of wood. To
this estimate, four tons of furnishings can be added. Since 1,844 of the
2,170 structural fires in Tulsa County were residential in nature, the 20.8
tons of wood turned per fire was incorporated into the emission factor (pounds
pef fire). They are shown in Table 11-26.
Allocation
The emissions from this category were allocated to grids according to
the dwelling units distribution for each inventory year.
20. NATURAL GAS LEAKS
Information obtained from the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company indicated
that leakage amounts to 1.15% of all delivered gas. This leakage occurs at
the fittings or in the instrumentation.
In order to quantify the leakage for estimating emissions, the amount
leaked was converted to weight using the density of natural gas (0.042 pounds
11-74
-------
TABLE 11-26
STRUCTURAL FIRE EMISSION FACTORS
POLLUTANT
AP-42 VALUE
EMISSION FACTOR
Particulate
Sulfur Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Ca -bon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
14 Ib/ton 353.6 Ibs/fire
NEGLIGIBLE
4 Ib/ton 83.2 Ibs/fire
50 Ib/ton 1,040 Ibs/fire
2 Ib/ton 41.6 Ibs/fire
11-75
-------
per cubic fooi at ambient temperature and pressure), and then multiplied by
the percentage; by weight of the volatile organic compounds in the gas. Sub-
stances such as nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide, and methane were assumed to be
non-reactive and were not considered in the calculations. A gas chromotogra-
phic analysis, done by Pantechs ".aboratories of Pampa, Texas, was supplied
to ES by the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. This analysis is shown in Table
11-27.
Projections
Gas company officials have been making efforts to discover and seal ex-
isting leaks. Although leak reduction has yet to be quantified, it appears
that the trend is toward fewer leaks. As energy costs increase, finding
leaks will become more cost-effective. Therefore, it was estimated that 1982
leaks will be 20% lower than that for the base year, and the 1987 inventory
will be reduced a total of 50%. These reductions were offset by increased
natural gas use, which was assumed to occur in proportion to population.
Emission Factors
Due to the nature of the initial calculations the emission factor used
was 100 pounds VOC per 100 pounds of natural gas. This is because only the
volatile components were considered in the activity parameter calculations.
As evidenced by the chromatographic analysis, no other pollutant besides
VOC can be considered significant.
Allocation
Natural gas leakage was allocated to subcounty units by population for
each of the i iventory years.
21. OILY WASTE DISPOSAL
Oily waste disposal, or soil farming, is a method of disposal for oily
waste from refinery processes. The waste, which is mostly heavy crude oil,
water, and dirt, is unloaded into retention sends and allowed to settle.
Thi oil component is skimmed off the top and transferred to storage tanks
wbire it is allowed to settle again. The major operator in the area, Wade
Farnum, spreads the sludges over a 113 acre area. The spreading is rotated
on a total area of 240 acres.
11-76
-------
TABLE 11-27
CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
OF NATURAL GAS
IN THE TULSA AREA
COMPONENT
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
-Butane
M -Butane
I-Pentane
N-Pentane
Hexanes +
H2S
MOL %
1.92
0.71
91.41
4.45
0.98
0.11
0.25
0.06
0.06
0.05
NIL
REACTIVITY
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
-
11-77
-------
Other types of waste which are soil farmed to a lesser extent include
tetraethyl lead sludge and other leaded sludges, bio-sludge, and tank bottom
sludge. Each involves some type of VOC emissions during the evaporative pro-
cess.
Table 11-28 gives the locations and extent of all soil farming in the
inventory area.
Projections
Although Farnum's operation will cease in 1979, it is expected to be
taken over by Sun Oil Co. Local officials at TCCHD have suggested that fu-
ture year inventories retain the same amounts of oil sludge farmed as the
base year. Therefore, the 1982 and 1987 inventories will remain the same as
the base year for this category.
Emission Factors
Two assumptions were made in the calculation of the emission factor.
First, the oil in questior is very heavy, therefore, a figure of 8.0 pounds
per gallon was assumed. Second, as per TCCHD, a 3% annual oil evaporation
rate was assumed.
Therefore:
8 Ib/gal = 336 Ib/barrel = 33,600 lbs/100 barrels
33,600 x 0.03 = 1,008 Ibs emissions/100 barrels
This factor was rounded to 1,000 lbs/100 barrels.
Allocation
As identified in Table 11-28, allocations were made to specific grid lo-
cation of the soil farm sites. All sites are located in either Creek County
or Tulsa County, while the great majority of emissions come from Creek County.
11-78
-------
TABLE 11-28
SOIL FARMING DATA IN THE TULSA INVENTORY AREA
WASTE
Oil Sludge (soil)
Oily Sludge (pour)
Bio-Sludge
Tetraethyl lead sludge
Tank Bot :om Sludge
Oily Sludge
Leaded Sludge
GRID LOCATION
774,286
774,286
780,310
780,310
780,310
778,312
778,312
AREA FARMED BBLS/YR %
113 acres 260,975
3.67 acres 104,025
5.5 acres 52,000
48
20 acres 13,095
0.1 acres 6
2.8 acres 104,025
OIL CONTENT
50
50
0.26
25
35
25
50
Source: TCCHD report (Appendix D, Item 7).
11-79
-------
CHAPTER III
ANNUALIZED POINT SOURCE INVENTORIES
INTRODUC 'ION
The original approach upon which the study */as based depended upon the
use of existing emission inventories to the fullest possible extent. The re-
finement of existing emission inventory data concentrated on sources of vola-
tile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides within the 6,200 square kilometer
study area that had actual emissions greater than 25 tons per year. Data for
other pollutants and all other sources within the Northeast Oklahoma Air Qual-
ity Contro- Region were in most casen accepted as originally provided by the
respective agency. In addition, ES cnly addressed inventory parameters that
were thought to be essential for the photochemical oxidant modeling effort.
These parameters included: stack location; actual stack emissions; percent
annual throughput; normal hours per ilay, days per week, and weeks per year
of operation; stack emission characteristics (for stacks to be modeled as
elevated points); estimated control efficiency; Source Classification Code;
and operating rate. Although ES developed inventories for 1977, 1982, and
1987, most of the effort was placed in the base year inventory. The 1977
inventory was considered the most important for three reasons. First, it
was to be used for the model validation effort. Second, it represented his-
toric data and thus was the most accurate available. Third, accurate growth
projection could only follow from an accurate assessment of base year condi-
tions .
In the sections that follow, base year inventory development and subse-
quently projection year inventory development are discussed. For the base
year, the documentation is arranged chronologically in accordance with inven-
tory development. For the projections, the treatment of general growth is
first discussed followed by source or plant specific growth. Power plants,
refineries, and storage tanks are the most significant VOC and NOX emitters
in the inventory area and as such are singled-out in the remainder of this
chapter. Tables III-8 through 111-10, which summarize base and projection
year emissions for the plants in the AQCR, clearly show the predominance >f
these three t-pes of emitters.
III-l
-------
BASE YEAR INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT
Existing Inventories
After investigating the available emission inventory data, ES determined
that the 1976 Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) inventory was most
suitable for use in this study. At first, ES considered using the existing
inventory data base for Oklahoma available in the National Emissions Data
System (NEDS). However, both OSDH and EPA Region VI personnel indicated
that the NEDS information was not reliable, as the preliminary ES review sug-
gested, Because some annual updates had been performed out of sequence. An
additionil factor leading to the choice of the 1976 OSDH master file was that
the Tulsa City-County Health Department develops annual updates using the
OSDH file as a base. Such updates for 1977 would be used by ES to develop a
preliminary 1977 master file for Tulsa County.
A flow diagram identifying the steps taken to generate the final 1977
EIS/P&R master file is shown in Figure III-l. Because the OSDH master file
format differed slightly from NEDS, ES developed a short computer program to
transform the file to the NEDS format. The resulting NEDS file for 1976 was
then converted to EIS/P&R format using a standard routine built into the
Engineering-Science Air Quality (ESAQ) system. The resulting EIS/P&R file
did not contain emission factors sin:e emission factors are not included in
NEDS inventory data. Therefore, ES could not easily verify that appropriate
emission factors were utilized in th^ OSDH file. The following sections des-
cribe the methods and data applied by ES in updating the existing OSDH inven-
tory.
Annual Questionnaires
The Tulsa City-County Health Department (TCCHD) annually generates NEDS
updates for the OSDH master file of point sources within Tulsa County. The
update information is supplied by plant representatives on questionnaires de-
veloped by OSDH. Coding forms containing the 1977 updates were provided to
ES. These were keypunched, converted to EIS/P&R format, and processed through
the update program to generate a preliminary 1977 file. ES acquired copies
of questionnaire responses for the four major plants outside Tulsa County but
within the study area and where appropriate, coded EIS/P&R update transaction
and updated the 1976 file. The Agri^o Chemical Co. plant was not included in
the inventory. It was a relatively lew plant, not contained in the 1976 file,
III-2
-------
FIGURE III-l
POINT SOURCE METHODOLOGY
BASE
Q
U
E
S
T
I
0
N
N
A
I
R
E
S
1977 NEDS
UPDATES TULSA CO.
1977 EIS/PiR
OUTSIDE TULSA CO.
*
1
/INIT
PLANT VISITS
1977 STORAGE
TANK INVENTORY
ADDITIONAL UPDATES
FROM FILE REVIEW
III-3
-------
for vhich sufficient questionnaire information could not be be provided by
OSDH. A list of plants whose questionnaire responses were received by ES is
shown in Table III-l.
Plant Visits
Because many of the questic ~mair<; responses were incomplete or inconsis-
tent, vi1 its were made to the 14 plants with the most significant VOC or NOX
emission (identified in Table ] F.I-1). During the visits, sufficient infor-
mation w s gathered to supplemei t or verify data provided by the 1977 ques-
tionnaire. Based on the inform?tion, additional E1S/P&R update transactions
were coded. A supplementary questionnaire, covering the oxidant season, was
transmitted to the plants with the annual questionnaire by TCCHD. Included
on the oxidant season questionnaire were requests for operating and emissions
data as well as available information on pollutant component emissions for
VOC and NOX and on projected operation in 1982 and 1987. The aforementioned
plant visits were also used to collect additional data or clarify information
for the oxidant season questionaires.
Coordinates
ES than conducted a rather detailed review of the initial master file
for 1977. A problem with UTM coordinates was first identified. Several were
missing but many more had coordinates that did not correspond to the indicated
UTM zone. The inconsistency was caused by the zone boundary dividing the City
of Tulsa. In fact, at least one plait was located in two UTM zones. ES work-
ed with both TCCHD and OSDH to rectify the inconsistencies to obtain the miss-
ing coordinates and then updated the master file. A few mobile asphalt units
could not be assigned locations, but their emissions were relatively insigni-
ficant. Geomet, Incorporated, the developer of the DCS coordinate system,
calculated the OCS coordinates from the UTM data provided by ES. EIS/P&R up-
date transactions for the OCS coordinates were coded and utilized to update
the 1977 master file. The UTM zone was changed to 99 as an indicator that
location was not given in the UTM system.
Operating Schedules
ES discovered that operating schedule data were missing for many sources.
Da a on percent operation by season and hours per day, days per week, and
wei^ks per year of operation were required for sources not covered by the
temporal factor file. The methodology used to apply the EIS/P&R operating
III-A
-------
TABLE III-l
INVENTORY AREA POINT SOURCES
SUBMITTING QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
COMPANY
NATURE OF
SOURCE
PLANT
VISIT
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
(OOLOGAH)
OKC Refining Okmulgee
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
(Tulsa)
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
(Riverside)
Armco Steel
Fibercast
Me Donnell-Douglas
Conoco (Cherokee)
Explorer Pipeline
American Airlines
Rockwell International
(North Mingo)
RockwelL International
(North Memorial)
Williams Pipeline Co.
Texaco, Inc.
Gulf
Texaco Sales Terminal
Sun Oil Co.
Agrico Chenical Co.
Martin Marietta Cement Co.
Texaco Tank Farm
Sun Terminal
Sun Pipeline
Utility
Refinery
Utility
Utility
Steel Works
Miscellaneous Plastics
Aircraft Assembly
Petroleum Pipeline
Petroleum Pipeline
Aircraft Assembly
Aircraft Assembly
Aircraft Assembly
Petroleum Pipeline
Refinery
Petroleum Pipeline
Petroleum Loading
Refinery
Chemical Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
Tank Farm
Petroleum Loading
Petroleum Pipeline
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
III-5
-------
schedule data is described in Chapter VII. ES collected the missing informa-
tion on operating schedule and updated the 1977 file with it.
Refineries
Durin; the detailed review of the emissions for the three refineries in
the study area, ES found that outdated emission factors had in some cases
been used and also that fugitive emissions were not included for the refining
operations in Tulsa County. ES utilized emission factors recommended in Com-
pilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA publication AP-42) to estimate
emissions for these sources and subsequently update the master file.
Storage Tanks
It was determined during the update process that a great deal of incon-
siitency existed in the data available for storage tanks. Emission rates,
throughputs, and tank capacities often varied from the OSDH 1976 master file
to the information contained in the questionnaires or obtained from the plant
visits. ES discovered that in many cases, outdated AP-42 Supplement 5 emis-
s on factors (revised by Supplement 7) had been used. Different products
were identified as being stored in the. same tank, and several fixed roof
tanks had apparently been conver ed to a floating-roof type. These inconsis-
tencies necessitated the use of a separate storage tank survey connducted by
OSDH representative of calendar year 1977. Sufficient information was in
general collected during the survey to enable the calculation of emission
factors and emissions. Besides emissions, ES also updated throughputs, tank
capacities, and SCCs when necessary. All tanks with emissions of 25 tpy or
greater were added to the file. Changes were generated or records added for
approximately 200 storage tanks in the study area. Assumptions made during
the development of these transactions were:
o vapor pressures were taken from AP-42 at ambient temperatures unless
specified otherwise by the company;
o if tanks contained more than one product during the year, the most
volatile was assumed to be stored during the oxidant season (when
storage periods were unspecified);
o annual meteorological coi ditions (e.g., wind velocity, diurnal tem-
perature variations, etc.) were taken from 30 year averages at Tulsa
International Airport;
III-6
-------
o any other data missing from the survey forms or questionnaire respon-
ses, such as molecular weight, seal factor, paint factor, density,
etc., was taken from AP-42; and
o if no temporal variations were given, it was assumed that 25% of the
annual throughput occurred during the oxidant season.
In a few cases that company data were considered insufficient or inaccurate,
an estimate was made based on AP-42 and engineering judgement.
ES provided copies of the final 1977 E1S/P&R master file to both TCCHD
and OSDH for documentation of the updates mode to the file and for their re-
view. ES reviewed the refinery data point by point with TCCHD. However, no
additional comments on the completeness or accuracy of the master file have
been received to date.
PROJECTION YEAR INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT
After the base year EIS/P&R master file was completed, the file was dup-
licated so that it could be updated to generate 1982 and 1987 inventories.
The primary source for projection year information was the oxidant season
supplements to the annual questionnaires, in conjunction with the plant in-
terview . In general, the following sequence of priorities was used in the
generat .on of the projection factors for existing sources:
o Plant Interviews;
o Plant Questionnaire Responses;
o OBERS projection data; and
o Employment or Populatici data, depending on the area of interest.
At times, the OBERS data vas given priority over the plant questionnaire
responses. This was done when it was apparent that very little effort was
made in trying to determine futare production rates, as when the projection
factor 1.0 was used for points throughout the entire plant. However, ques-
tionnaire responses were g:'ven priority in a majority of cases.
The annual questionnaire supplements requested future projection levels
for existing sources and also asked about plans for new plants or expansions
in the inventory area. When responses were inadequate, a follow-up call was
made to selected plants to verify proposed projections. The data obtained
in this manner was given the highest priority.
III-7
-------
Data from the individual plants was supplemented with projections ob-
tained from such reference sources as the Tulsa City-County Health Department,
the State of Oklahoma, and Radian Co. On a category-by-category basis, ES
used each of these sources to cross-check the projections and arrive at the
most logical growth factors for input to the ESAQ system.
OBERS Data
The OBERS data used for point sources was the 1972-E set of projections
for the three counties in the Tulsa SMSA: Tulsa, Osage, and Creek. As can
be seen in Figure 1-1, a great deal of the inventory area is covered by these
counties. The data in OBERS is listed according to two-digit SIC code. Those
used in this study are shown in Table III-2.
Local Population and Employment Data
As a default to all other data sources, county or city population projec-
tions were used to project point source emissions. It should be noted that
these factors were used only for miror sources. They are listed in Table
III-3. For Tulsa County, the default factor was taken from the industry em-
ployment category of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission's PLUM
output (Projected Land Use Model).
Refinery Emission Projections
Several data sources were contacted in the effort to project refinery
emissions for 1982 and 1987. In general, each of the refineries in the Tulsa
inventory area (Sun Oil Co., Te::aco, Inc., and OKC Refining Co.) indicated
that little or no growth was expected through 1987.
Sources at the American Petroleum Institute (API), however, indicated
that although no expansion of refining capacity was forecasted for the Tulsa
area, nationwide refineries will add an average of 2.4% per year more capa-
city through 1982. This fact, plus the projections of increased earnings
from OBERS (+0.73%/yr) and the State of Oklahoma (+l.l%/yr) indicate that
the 'e will be some growth experienced in refining operations in the Tulsa
area. This is especially evident in light of the 4.4%/yr increase in gaso-
lino sales projected by OSDH for the 1977 to 1982 period.
TCCHD applied a growth factor which approximates a 1.2% increase per
year through 1982 to estimate emissions for the 1979 SIP revision. This
would apply to refineries within Tulsa County only (Sun Oil Co. and Texaco,
III-8
-------
TABLE III-2
OBERS GROWTH FACTORS USED IN PROJECTION YEAR INVENTORIES
1982 1987
SIC CODE AND DESCRIPTION GROWTH FACTOR1 GROWTH FACTOR1
14 - Nonmetallic Mining, except fuels 1.071 1.167
20 - Food and Kindred Products 1.086 1.182
26 - Paper and Allied Products 1.172 1.379
28 - Chemicals and Allied Products 1.095 1.190
33 - Primary Metals Manufacturing 1.128 1.271
34 - Fabricated Metals and Ordinance 1.179 1.389
37 - Trinsportation Equipment Manufacture 1.117 1.249
1 Based on 1977.
III-9
-------
TABLE III-3
COUNTY
COUNTY
Ottowa
Mayes
Muskogee (city)
Muskogc.e
Okmulgee (city)
Rogers County
Osage
Creek
Washington
Okmulgee
Tulsa2
POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT
CODE
2280
1900
1980
2000
2220
2620
2260
0760
3140
2240
3020
PROJECTIONS1
1982
1.029
1.144
1.056
1.094
1.043
1.136
1.033
1.064
1.009
1.032
1.137
1987
1.037
1.272
1.106
1.196
1.091
1.249
1.075
1.135
1.021
1.075
1.301
1 Based on 1977.
2 From PLUM (Industrial Employment).
111-10
-------
Inc.)- The 1.0%/yr growth facto- chosed for the purposes of this study is
identical to that projected by t le Oklahoma Employment Security Commission,
which is based on employment. Therefore, this factor was used in the projec-
tions for all three refineries located in the study area.
Before the end of 1979, it is expected that Tulsa County Regulation 15,
"Control of Emissions or Organic Materials", will be passed. This regulation
mirrors the equivalent State of Oklahoma regulation, although it is more strin-
gent in some areas. TCCHD plans to enforce this regulation, and emission cal-
culations have been made to reflect 1982 compliance by the refinery industry.
Accordingly, the projection year inventory has been modified to reflect the
control efficiencies for Tulsa County refineries shown in Table III-4. Regu-
lation 15 has been reprinted in Appendix E.
Storage Tank Projections
County Regulation 15 also . pplies to the storage of gasoline and crude
oil. All those tanks within Tulsa County that were not equipped with float-
ing roofs will be required to convert to meet the requirements of the regula-
tion.
TCCHD calculated the total emissions for all tanks within Tulsa County,
using a growth factor of 1.0606 from 1977 to 1982. For 1987, a factor of
1.157 was recommended. Although the basis for these factors was Tulsa County
population, the resulting 1.2% annual increase corresponds well with refining
operations in general. Therefore, these factors were used when direct infor-
mation from the companies was lacking.
The aforementioned growth factors were used for all storage tanks inven-
toried. Ii order to comply with Regulation L5, the control efficiencies found
in Table ICI-5 were added to the gasoline and crude oil tanks with fixed roofs.
Therefore, only those plants storing these products under fixed roofs appear in
this table.
New floating-roof tanks are being planned for 1979 and 1980 by Gulf and
by Texaco, Inc. Calculations st )w that the emissions for each tank would be
as shown in Table III-6. Since .iach new tank emits less than 25 tons/yr,
they are not considered in the projection year inventories.
Power Plant Projections
Data concerning new power plants was obtained from OSDH and from DOE/
FERC-0004/1, "Status of Coal Supply Contracts for New Electric Generating
III-ll
-------
TABLE II1-4
1982 AND 1987 REFINERY CONTROLS IN THE TULSA COUNTY
PROCESS '~ " CONTROL
Vacuum Producing Systems 90.5%
Vapor blow-down 98.4%
Water Separators 95.2%
Pumps and Compressors 56.7%
Miscellaneous Fugitive 52.4%
Source: Tulsa City-County Health Department.
111-12
-------
TABLE III-5
1982 AND 1987 STORAGE TANK CONTROLS BY PLANT
~ COMPANY ~ ~ % CONTROL
Arco 71.4
Bigheart Pipeline 55.7
Kerr-McGee 68.4
Sun Tank Farm 51.6
Sun Pipeline 13.0
Texaco Tank Farm 75.0
Source: Tulsa City-County Health Department.
TABLE III-6
NEW STORAGE TANKS FOR THE INVENTORY AREA
COMPANY
Gulf Co.
Texaco, Inc.
# TANKS VOC
10
3 Two @
One @
3.
3.
19.
EMISSIONS
9
3
4
tons/yr
tons/yr
tons/yr
each
each
Source: Questionnaire Responses.
111-13
-------
Un ts", published by the U.S. Department of Energy. The new coal-fired units
noted in Table III-7 are being planned for operation before 1982.
Data concerning coal use was given for the year 1981 and 1986. For pur-
poses of our inventory, it was assumed that these years corresponded to 1982
and 1987, respectively. The total amount of coal use projected for these new
units are 8.9 million tons for 1982 and 7.9 million tons for 1987.
For existing units, all projections were obtained from interviews with
plant officials,
Poinc Source Emissions Summary
Table III-8 shows base year emissions by county for all plants that are
significant emitters of oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds in
the Northeast Oklahoma AQCR. Total emissions for all point sources located
within each county are summarized in the tables immediately after the indivi-
dual plants (if any). Similarly, Tables III-9 and 111-10 summarize point
source emissions data for 1982 and 1987, respectively.
111-14
-------
TABLE II1-7
NEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN
NORTHEAST OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
UTILITY
Gas &
Gas &
Public Service
COMPANY
Electric
Electric
Co. of Oklahoma
PLANT
Muskogee
Muskogee
Northeastern
AQCR
UNIT #
4
5
3
CAPACITY
(MW)
515
515
450
DUE ON
STREAM
Early
Feb.
June
1978
1978
1979
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
Grand River Dam Authority
(Oologah)
Northeastern
(Oologah)
Steam Plant
450
490
June 1979
June 1979
111-15
-------
TABLE III-8
1977 POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMMARY
IN TONS PER YEAR
CREEK COUNTY
Kerr-McGee
* County Total
MAYES COUNTY
Gr; ad River Dam
Cherokee Nitrogen
* County Total
MUSKOGEE COUNTY
Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Brockway Glass Co.
* County Total
OKMULGEE COUNTY
OKC Refining Co.
Midcontinent Pipeline
* County Total
OS AGE COUNTY
Petrolite Div. of Baresco
* Count y Total
ROGERS COUNTY
Public Serv. Okl. Oologah
Martin Marietta Co.
* County Total
TULSA COUNTY
Sun Oil Refinery
Texaco Pefinery
Public terv. Okl. Tulsa
Armco Steel Corp.
Explorer Pipeline Co.
Sun Tank Farm
Texaco Tank Farm
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Cherokee Pipeline
TSP
3
144
0
303
14,291
84
86
607
187
0
378
14
291
74
194
268
2,081
264
74
82
0
0
0
3
0
so*
0
0
0
0
114
3
84
87
2 603
0
2,603
187
187
8
1,392
1,400
9,622
4,943
4
0
0
0
0
8
0
NOX
186
191
1,658
126
1,881
2,215
320
2,594
376
0
387
148
148
10,364
721
11,085
9,629
1,467
2,556
0
0
0
0
117
0
HC
115
115
170
1
181
228
1
245
3,746
288
4,621
260
352
15
0
15
12,382
5,361
7
387
671
4,017
4,079
319
138
CO
0
0
0
7
18
2
6
13
28,487
0
28,748
0
0
251
2
253
553
63,033
125
2,650
0
0
0
14
0
111-16
-------
TABLE III-8 (Continued)
1977 POINT
TULSA COUNTY (Cont)
Texac o Terminal
Sun Terminal
Ford Glass Plant
Public Serv. Okl. Jenks
Fibercast Co.
McDonnell-Douglas
Kerr-McGea Refining
* County Total
WASHINGTON COUNTY
National Zinc Co.
* County Total
OTTOWA COUNTY
* County Total
PAWNEE COUNTY
* Coun y Total
1977 Grand Total
SOURCE
IN TONS
TSP
0
0
351
319
0
0
0
4,376
1,765
1,960
18
58
22,391
EMISSIONS
PER YEAR
SOX
0
0
1,606
160
0
0
0
17,376
5,785
5,785
92
0
27,644
SUMMARY
NOV
0
0
1,162
11,808
3
0
0
26,880
150
150
68
0
43,384
HC
332
640
3
34
122
115
233
29,162
58
58
2
0
34,751
CO
0
0
8
526
0
0
0
66,926
0
0
4
0
95,962
111-17
-------
TABLE III-9
1982 POINT
SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMMARY
IN TONS PER YEAR
CREEK COUNTY
Kerr-McGee
* County Total
MAYES COUNTY
Grand River Dam
Cherokee Nitrogen
* County Total
MUSKOGEE COUNTY
Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Brockway Glass Co.
* County Total
OKMULGEE COUNTY
OKC Refining Co.
Midcontinent Pipeline
* County Total
OS AGE COUNTY
Petrolite Div. of Baresco
* County Total
ROGERS COUNTY
Public Serv. Okl. Oologah
Martin Marietta Co.
* County Total
TULSA COUNTY
Sun Oil Refinery
Texaco Refinery
Public Serv. Okl. Tulsa
Armco Steel Corp.
Explorer Pipeline Co.
Sun Tank Farm
Texaco Tank Farm
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Cherokee Pipeline
TSP
3
163
514
331
16,611
660
97
1,231
196
0
409
14
'ill
1,012
220
1,282
2,182
111
52
87
0
0
0
3
0
so*
0
0
18,053
0
18,174
18,813
96
18,909
2,736
0
2,736
187
187
36,908
1,582
38,490
10,113
5,197
3
0
0
0
0
8
0
, NOX
186
191
19,997
138
19,242
29,215
363
29,642
395
0
407
148
148
46,778
821
47,599
10,118
1,542
1,875
0
0
0
0
124
0
HC
115
115
481
1
493
682
1
700
3937
306
4,849
260
358
627
0
627
2,513
4,112
6
410
1,125
2,036
826
336
146
CO
0
0
952
7
968
1,502
7
1,,514
29,939
0
30,208
0
0
2,275
2
2,277
579
66,246
89
2,812
0
0
0
14
0
111-18
-------
TABLS III-9 (Continued)
1982 POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
SUMMARY
IN TONS PER YEAR
TULSA COUNTY (Cont)
Texaco Terminal
Sun Terminal
Ford Glass Plant
Public Serv. Okl. Jenks
Fibercast Co.
McDonnels-Douglas
Kerr-McGee Refining
* County Total
WASHINGTON COUNTY
National Zinc Co.
* County Total
OTTOWA COUNTY
* County Total
PAWNEE COUNTY
* County Total
1982 Grand Total
TSP
0
0
399
319
0
0
0
4,620
1,973
2,183
18
62
26,841
SOX
0
0
1,826
160
0
0
0
18,438
6,577
6,577
92
0
103,605
NOV
0
0
1,321
11,808
3
0
0
26,946
173
173
68
0
124,418
HC
348
673
3
34
139
128
78
13,089
58
58
2
0
20,291
CO
0
0
9
526
0
0
0
70,293
0
0
4
0
105,264
111-19
-------
TABLE I11-10
1987 POINT
SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMMARY
IN TONS PER YEAR
CREEK COUNTY
Kerr-McGee
* County Total
MAYES COUNTY
Grand River Dam
Cherokee Nitrogen
* County Total
MUSKOGEE COUNTY
Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Brockway Glass Co.
* County Total
OKMULGEE COUNTY
OKC Refining Co.
Midcontinent Pipeline
* County Total
OS AGE COUNTY
Petrolite Div. of Baresco
* County Total
ROGERS COUNTY
Public Serv. Okl. Oologah
Martin Marietta Co.
* County Total
TULSA BOUNTY
Sun Oil Refinery
Texaco Refinery
Public Serv. Okl. Tulsa
Armco Steel Corp.
Explorer Pipeline Co.
Sun Tank Farm
Texaco Tank Farm
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Cherokee Pipeline
TSP
3
186
522
361
18,863
660
111
1,292
206
0
445
15
339
770
244
1.014
2,303
288
52
95
0
0
0
3
0
sox
0
0
18,054
0
18,187
18,813
109
18,922
2,876
0
2,876
196
196
27,368
1,810
29,178
10,629
5,462
3
0
0
0
0
9
0
NO*
198
203
19,209
149
19,476
29,215
416
29,699
415
0
426
156
156
37,364
938
38,302
10,643
1,618
1,875
0
0
0
0
136
0
HC
123
123
503
1
516
682
1
701
4,140
333
5,104
272
378
469
0
469
2,643
4,324
6
447
1,197
2,233
862
367
159
CO
0
0
953
9
973
1,502
8
1,516
31,477
0
31,758
0
0
1,751
2
1,753
616
69,652
89
3,066
0
0
0
16
0
111-20
-------
TABLE 111-10 (Continued)
1987 POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
SUMMARY
IN TONS PER YEAR
TULSA COUNTY (Cont)
Texaco Terminal
Sun Terminal
Ford Glass Plant
Public Serv. Okl. Jenks
Fibercast Co.
McDonnels-Douglas
Kerr-McGee Refining
* County Total
WASHINGTON COUNTY
National Zinc Co.
* County Total
OTTOWA COUNTY
* County Total
PAWNEE COUNTY
* County Total
L987 Grand Total
TSP
0
0
457
319
0
0
0
4,966
2,203
2,432
20
68
29,625
SOX
0
0
2,089
160
0
0
0
19,582
7,526
7,526
96
0
96,563
NO*
0
0
1,511
11,808
3
0
0
27,766
196
196
70
0
116,294
HC
367
707
4
34
158
143
82
13,914
81
81
2
0
21,288
CO
0
0
10
526
0
0
0
73,996
0
0
4
0
110,000
111-21
-------
CHAPTER IV
VOC AND NOV SPLIT FACTOR FILE GENERATION
In order to provide the pollutant detail required by the Airshed Model,
a pollutant split factor table was generated. This table contains individual
records showing the typical component makeup of volatile organic compounds
and oxides of nitrogen emissions for all appropriate processes. The compo-
nentF tabulated for VOC emissions were:
o paraffins;
o olefins;
o aromatic s;
o carbonyls;
o ethylene; and
o non-reactive VOC.
With respect to non-reactiv<3 VOC, the Federal Register of July 8, 1978,
presents tables which list such :ompounds of low and negligible reactivity.
The named compounds include methane, ethane, acetone, methanol, and acety-
lene. Unless otherwise noted, these compounds were classified as non-reac-
tive. Benzene; methyl chloride; chloroform; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; ethylene
dichloride; and 1,1,2-trichloroethane were also classified as non-reactive,
as per the VOC Species Data Manual (EPA-450/3-78-119). Other non-reactive
VOC, as specified by EPA's Source-Receptor Analysis Branch (SRAB) include
methyl acetate, dimethyl formamide; dichloromethane; carbon tetrabromide;
ethyl chloride; 1,1 dichloroethane; perchloroethylene; methylene bromide;
and trimethylfluorosilane.
Components tabulated for nitrogen oxides emissions were:
o nitric oxide, NO; and
o nitrogen dioxide, N02«
The VOC information in the component file table was used to calculate
emissions that fall under two distinct sets of reactivity classifications.
One 5e t was used to determine VOC components according to the SAI classifi-
cation scheme, the other set according the the RAPS classification scheme.
The methodologies used for both types of classification appear in Table IV-1.
The fractions given by the component factor table in percent by weight and
IV-1
-------
TABLE IV-1
CLASSIFICATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS3
SAI NAME
EQUATION
PAR
OLE
ARO
CARS
ETH
mass paraffins + mass olefins0 MW olefin - 28
14.5 14 MW olefin
+ mass aromatics x MW aromatics - 78
14 MW aromatics
+ mass carbonyls x MW carbonyls - 30
14 MW carbonyls
mass olefinsc
MW olefins
mass aromatics
MW aromatics
mass carbonyls
MW carbonyls
mass ethylene
28
RAPS SCHEME (units are grams)
RAPSPARA = mass paraffins
RAPSOLEF = mass olefins + mass ethylene
RAPSCARB = mass carbonyls
RAPSAROM = mass aromatics
a all percentages by weight
MW = molecular weight
b Mass = percent by weight x total VOC emissions
c Mass of olefins excluding ethylene
IV-2
-------
the average molecular weight of each component were used to compute emission
rates for a given source.
In cases where a RAPS profile was used (as contained in EPA 600/4-78-028,
RAPS Organic Emission Inventory, June 1978), the profile was modified as ne-
cessary to include ketones with carbonyls and alkyl acetylenes with unreactives.
In addition, average molecular weights are computed for the RAPS profiles using
the following equation:
weight%.
avg. MW category = =- (avg. profile MW)
mole%.
In cases where an AP-42 value for aldehyde was used in conjunction with a KVB
or RAPS profile, the weight percents of each category were adjusted up or down
so that all categories (including unreactives) add to 100 percent.
Acetates and alcohols are two groups of volatile organic compounds which
require special treatment when computing the Airshed Model organics classes.
This is necessary due to their lirge presence in the important surface coating
source categories. These categories have been included in the "miscellaneous"
category in the VOC Species Manual. Actually, acetates contain one carbonyl
bond which is properly included in the Airshed Model carbonyl category. The
remaining single-bonded carbons were included in the paraffin category. Simi-
larly, each carbon bond in the alcohols was included with paraffins. In addi-
tion, diolefins were treated as two separate double bonds. (However, diole-
fins, unlike alcohols and acetates, represent only a small fraction of VOC
emissions). The equations in Table IV-2 may be used for treating these com-
pounds when computing the Airshed Model carbon bond categories.
It should be noted that th< equations in Table IV-2 are substantially
different from those in Table IV-1. Table IV-2 accounts for alcohols, act-
tates, and diolefins explicitly while Table IV-1 does not. (Also, olefins
are defined in Table IV-2 to include ethylene).
Rather than modifying the c >mputer program to handle these organics
classes as inputs, it was possible to modify the paraffin and carbonyl
weight percents (and the carbonyl average molecular weight) to account for
then. Then, the proper Airshed Model categories were generated using the
existing program. The profiles avfected are for SCCs 4-02-999-99, 4-02-
005-01, 4-02-005-99, 4-02-008-99, 4-02-009-01, and 9-10-051-00. For gen-
eral solvent evaporation (9-10-051-00) bond weights rather than average
T.V-3
-------
TABLE IV-2
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING
AIRSHED MODEL ORGANIC CATEGORIES
AIRSHED CATEGORY NAME
EQUATION
PAR
mass olefin x MW olefin - 28 _ 2 x mass diolefin
14 MW olefin MW diolefin
+ mass carbonyls x MW carbonyls - 30
14 MW carbonyls
+ mass aromatics x MW aromatics - 78
14 MW aromatics
mass alcohols x MW alcohols - 18
14
MW alcohols
mass acetates x MW acetates - 46
14
MW acetates
+ mass paraffins
14.5
OLE
mass olefin + mass diolefin _ mass ethylene
MW olefin MW diolefin 28
ARO
mass aromatics
MK aromatics
GARB
ETH
mas 3 carbonyls + mass acetates
MW carbonyls MW acetates
mass ethylene
28
17-4
-------
category molecular weights were listed. The weight percent for this profile
actually represents bond weight percents. This was necessary to account for
the large occurrence of several not readily classified compounds which were
bes : treated using a direct bouc breakdown.
The final component factor files for volatile organic compounds and ni-
trogen oxides can be found in Appendix B. The documentation for these compo-
nent breakdowns appears in the following sections.
POINT SOURCE COMPONENT SPLITS
Volatile Organic Compounds
Each process known to be an emitter of volatile organic compounds (or
oxides of nitrogen) was listed according to its NEDS source classification
code (SCC). Although several other references addressing VOC components were
reviewed, the primary source for the splits was EPA 450/3-78-119, Volatile Or-
ganic Compound (VOC) Species Data Manual assembled under contract to EPA by
KVB. This reference contains numerous tables which contain VOC breakdowns for
a great number of processes emitting volatile organics. Each table is accom-
panied by a data confidence level (DCL). This figure is an estimate of the
accuracy of the data, varying from one for a high degree of confidence to
five for "highly judgemental results which could vary from source to source".
Table 1V-3 identifies those SCCs whose VOC splits were taken directly from
the KVB document.
Since the KVB document did not address all the processes found in the
point source inventory, alternative data sources or methods were used. Ini-
tially, literature sources such as EPA 600/4-78-028, "RAPS Point and Area
Source Organic Emission Inventory" were utilized in an attempt to locate a
process not included in the KVB publication. Then, if no such process was
found, a KVB table dealing with a similar process was used. This procedure
was applied to category average molecular weights, as well as the percent by
weight data. The goal of this part of the inventorying effort was to find
the best information available at the present time.
For several of the SCCs listed in Table IV-3, multiple tables were pre-
sented by KVB. The methodology for selecting the proper split involved relat-
ing the specific processes as found in the point source master file to the
KVB tables. Accordingly, for SCC 30600803, KVB table 3-06-008P, "Petroleum
IV-5
-------
TABLE IV-3
KVB COMPONENT SPLITS USED IN THE TULSA INVENTORY
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
External Combustion Boilers
Internal Combustion Engines
Mineral Products Processes
Petroleum Industry Proces ses
Point Source
Solvent Evaporation
Petroleum Products Storage
sec
10100402
10100501
10100601
10100603
10200401
10200402
10200501
10200601
10200602
10200603
10200701
20100201
20200102
20200201
20200202
30500201
30600201
30600501
30600701
30600801
30600802
30600803
30600804
30600999
30601301
W100202
40100203
40100205
40200101
40200501
40200599
40200899
40200901
40300101
40300102
40300103
40300104
40300105
40300201
40300202
40300203
40300204
40300205
40300208
DCL*
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
*KVB Data Confidence Level (see following page)
IV-6
-------
TABLE IV-3 (Continued)
KVB COMPONENT SPLITS USED IN THE TULSA INVENTORY
DCL DEFINITION
2 - Above Average - Data reasonably representative of the entire population.
3 - Average - Reasonable data more or less representative of the popu-
lation.
4 - Below Average - Based on little data not sufficient enough to be totally
representative of the population.
IV-7
-------
Industry Refinery Miscellaneous, Pump Seals, Composite" was used. Since un-
specified pump seal losses was the only description given in the master file,
the composite table was used instead of the other LI tables, which were spe-
cifically oriented to gasoline, gis-oil stock, distillate, naptha, natural
gas, or refinery gas emissions. The same criteria were used in generating
the splits for pipe/valve flange emissions (SCO 30600801).
For SCC 40200501, KVB table 4-02-005D was chosen. This referred to ena-
mel surface coating in the aircraft industry. For each of the SCCs which
began with the digits 304 (industrial process - secondary metals), KVB table
3-03-008B (iron sintering) was used for the VOC split.
SCC code 30600104 refers to a petroleum industry process heater, and the
KVB table for natural gas external combustion boiler was used (table 1-01-006).
For the VOC split of SGC code 40299999, Table 4-02-005C was used. This
is the composite table for surface coating evaporation for wood furniture.
Splits f :>r SCC parrafin code 30600602 (refinery vacuum jets) were found using
"Screening Study for Vacuum Distillation Units in Petroleum Refineries" (EPA
450/3-76-090).
Each of the SCC code listings that begins with 403 refers to evaporation
froa storage tanks. Table IV-4 shows each 403 listing and the corresponding
KVi table used for the VOC split. The KVB splits apply to both breathing and
woiking losses. Table 4-03-OOlB accounts for storage losses for a refinery's
fli idized catalytic cracking unit (FCC). The SCC's which apply to gasoline
storage (40300101, -103, -201, -102) were split according to special data ob-
tiined from E.I. duPont de Nemoui s & Co., Inc. A gasoline composition in
volume percent which was specific to the Tulsa area for the summer of 1977
was converted to weight percent using KVB molecular weights. The resulting
split was chosen over KVB's because it contained a more representative aro-
matic percentage. The KVB data is based on a gasoline composition specific
to the California area. This composition is high in aroinatics because the
crude oil used to refine gasoline in California is higher than the rest of
the nation. Although the DuPont data is for the gasoline itself rather than
gasoline vapor, it was considered to be the best data available at the pre-
sent time.
Table 4-03-001E was also used for SCC codes 40600104 and 40600130. Tab-
le 4-03-001A was used for SCC 40600126, while 4-03-OOlB applied to 40600105.
1V-8
-------
TABLK IV-A
KVli STORAGE TANK EVAPORATION COMPONENT SPLITS
SCC
KVB TABLE
PRODUCT STORED
A )300102
40300104
40300105
40300106
A0300107
A0300151
A0300152
A0300203
A030020A
A0300205
40300207
A0300208
A0399999
A-03-001D
A-03-001D
A-03-001E
A-03-001D
A-03-001D
A-03-001D
A-03-001E
A-03-001E
A-03-001E
A-03-001E
A-03-001E
A-03-001F
4-03-001E
Crude Oil Composite
Crude Oil Composite
Commercial Jet Fuel
Kerosene
Distillate Fuel
Kerosene
Distillate Fuel
Crude Oil
Crude Oil
Jet Fuel
Kerosene
Benzene
Miscellaneous
IV-9
-------
Some process emissions besides those already mentioned were split accord-
ing to KVB Table 1-01-006, external combustion boiler for natural gas. These
include th>se sources with SCC codes 30501401 and 39000699. The SCC code which
applied to the coal-fired boileis added to the projection year inventory (1-01-
002-99) was split according to the fuel combustion classification found in RAPS
table A-l, and modified to agree with AP-42 table 1.1-2.
For SCC codes 30600805, 30600806, and 30600808, table 3-06-008N, fugitive
LPG emissions from relief values in refining operations, was used.
Nitrogen Oxides
For point sources, the component splits for nitrogen oxides vary from 98%/
2% TO/N02 for processes with low excess air (efficient combustion), to 85%/15%
for less efficient combustion processes. Examples of the former include SCCs
101)0402, 10200401, and 10200402. These are large external combustion boilers
which utilize residual oil. Sources emitting 15% nitrogen dioxide are exempli-
fied by several processes in the refining industry. Their specific codes are:
30600104 (natural gas process heaters); 30600201 and 30600301 (fluidized cata-
lytic cracking and thermal catalytic cracking, respectively), and 30600999
(flares).
Since no information was aviilable on nitrogen oxide components from any
of the plants in the inventory area and very little literature dealing direct-
ly with the subject was found, the basic source of the data was consultation
with experts in this field. Each of the N0/N0£ splits was made after consul-
tation with individuals from governmental agencies as well as from the private
sector. These individuals include: Robert Hall and Dale Denny of the Research
and Development Department of the Industrial Engineering Research Lab, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina; James Southerland of the Air Management Techno-
logy Branch, Research Triangle Park; and Basil Dimitriades, Environmental Re-
search Lab, also at Research Triangle Park.
Since duct and stack conditions affect NO/N02 ratios, ES attempted to col-
lect data representative of actual stack exit conditions.
AREA SOURCE COMPONENT SPLITS
Two data sources were used in the compilation of the VOC and NOX compon-
ent factors for area sources. The first was KVB's VOC Species Data Manual,
IV-10
-------
the other was EPA 600/4-78-028, "RAPS Point and \rea Source Organic Emission
Inventory".
Volatile Organic Compounds
The data reported in the V( C Species Manual (EPA 45U/3-78-119) was used
to derive the mobile source VOC profiles. Catalyst and noncatalyst exhaust
profiles were combined to obtain a siugle exhaust profile on the basis of
1977 sales of unleaded and leaded gasoline. This in turn was combined with
an evaporative emission profile on the basis of tiie ratio of exhaust to eva-
porative emission factors. This was done separately for freeway roads, rural
roads, and urban roads. Profiles for 1982 and 1987 were derived on the basis
of projected use of unleaded futl and on projected changes in the ratio of ex-
haust to evaporative emission factors.
Data obtained from a survey of commercial gasoline composition in Tulsa
during the summer of 1977 are shown in Table IV-5. This information was sup-
plied by Joseph Faassen of E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Petroleum
Chemical division, Wilmington, Delaware. The average values for unleaded fuel
and leaded regular fuel each represent the arithmetic mean of five samples
while those for premiun leaded represent the arithmetic mean of four samples.
The regular and premium leaded fuel compositions were then combined on the bas-
is of gasoline sales. For the third quarter of 1977, Oklahoma gasoline sales
were t>9.5/c leaded regular, 8.1% leaded premium, and 22.4% unleaded (Ethyl Cor-
poration, 1977). Table IV-6 shows the resulting overall leaded gasoline com-
position.
The aromatic fuel composition in Table IV-6 is nearly identical to that
reported for Table 6-06-02ID of the VOC Species Data Manual. This table was
tiierefore used without modification to represent exhaust emissions from non-
catalyst vehii-.les running on leaded fuel. Table 6-06-021B was chosen to re-
present exhaust emissions from catalyst equipped vehicles running on unleaded
fuel. The composition of the corresponding test fuel is shown in Table IV-7.
The composition of unleaded fuel in Tulsa is somewhat different, so the ex-
haust profile was adjusted by the ratio of the fuel composition values for
Tulsa (Table IV-5) to those of the test fuel (Table IV-7). The aromatics,
including unreactive benzene, were adjusted by the ratio 18.8/26.2, the ole-
fins, including ethylene, by 7.4/6.5, and the paraffins by 73.4/67.3. Thus,
a linear relationship was assumed to exist between the fuel composition and
IV-11
-------
TABLE IV-5
SUMMER OF 1977 GASOLINE COMPOSITIONS IN TULSA
(i'aassen, 1979)
PERCENT BY VOLUME
GRADE COMPONENT AVERAGE LOW HIGH
Unleaded Regular Aromatlcs 18.8 11 22
Olefins 7.4 5 11
Saturates 73.4 67 82
Leaded Regular Aromatics 22.0 18 25
Olefins 7.0 4 10
Saturates 71.0 68 74
Leaded Premium Aromatics 15.2 10 22
Olefins 7.5 6 10
Saturates 77.2 71 83
1V-12
-------
TABLE IV-6
SUMMER OF 1977 LEADED GASOLINE COMPOSITION IN TULSA
COMPONENT PERCENT BY VOLUME
Aromatics 21.3
Olefins 7.1
Saturates 71.6
TABLE IV-7
UNLEADED TEST GASOLINE COMPOSITION
(Black and High, 1977)
COMPONENT PERCENT BY VOLUME
Aromatics 26.2
Olefins 6.5
Paraffins 67.3
IV-13
-------
the exhaust composition, at least over a narrow range. No adjustments were
made Cor aldehydes, ethane, or methane, their presence being assumed inde-
pendent of gasoline composition. The resulting normalized profile for un-
leaded fuel is shown in Table 1V-8.
The catalyst exhaust profilr (Table IV-8) and the noncatalyst exhaust
profile (K.VB table 6-06-021D) wet e then combined into a single profile on
th'. basis of unleaded and leaded gasoline sales (i.e., 77.6% leaded, 22.4%
unleaded) as shown in Table IV-9. Projections of future use of unleaded
gasoline from LSEPA Office of Enforcement indicate that an additive six per-
cent per v ear increase is expected. Since national use of unleaded gas ave-
raged 34 ] ercent in 1978, unleaded gas is expected to constitute 58 percent
of the na ional fuel mix in 1982 and 88 percent in 1987.
For ';he evaporative portion of the highway mobile source emissions, KVB
table 6-0)-021F was used. >Jo adjustment for gasoline composition was possi-
ble because the composition of the test fuel was not known. Although the
data were presumably obtained us _ng a gasoline high in aromatics typical of
California, more recent unpublished findings from USEPA Environmental Science
Research Library using improved inalytical techniques indicate that aromatics
are typically even higher than riported in KVB table 6-06-021F. Therefore,
the iata used here slightly underestimates the aromatic composition of the
evaporative emissions.
Using the 1977 exhaust profile (Table IV-9) and the evaporative profile
(KVB table 6-06-02IF), joint profiles were obtained. The evaporative emis-
sions versus exhaust emissions were determined on the basis of MOBILE 1 emis-
sion factors for various road types. Exhaust/evaporative percentages are sum-
marized in Table IV-10. This table was generated from MOBILE 1 output (Appen-
dix F), which was derived from input data collected for the Tulsa AQCR by the
Oklahoma Department of Transportation. The input data were specific for each
road type and included percent hot and cold starts, vehicle mix, and average
vehicle speed as previously shown in Tables II-7A and II-7B. The resulting
VOC profiles (Appendix B) are specific for each of the three roads types.
However, for the portion of the study area within TMAPC traffic zones, only
total VMT and emissions by grid were available (as shown in Figure VII-3).
Therefore, it was necessary to use a single profile in this case. After con-
sulting with TMAPC, the profile for rural roads (SCC 91106200) was chosen.
IV-14
-------
TABLE IV-8
ADJUSTED EXHAUST COMPOSITION OF VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH
COMPONENT
Paraffins
Olefins
Ethylene
Aromatics
Carbonyls
Unreactives
COMPONENT
Paraffins
Olefins
Ethylene
Aromatics
Carbonyls
Unreactives
CATALYSTS BURNING UNLEADED FUEL
MOLECULAR PERCENT BY
WEIGHT WEIGHT
80.') 38.2
57.0 17.0
28.0 11.2
99.2 10.7
30.0 4.6
18.2
99.9
TABLE IV- 9
COMBINED LEADED AND UNLEADED FUEL
EXHAUST COMPOSITION FOR 1977
MOLECULAR PERCENT BY
WEIGHT WEIGHT
90.4 30.1
52.8 16.8
28.0 11.6
98.6 16.8
30.0 4.0
20.7
100.0
PERCENT BY
VOLUME
19.9
12.5
16.8
4.5
6.5
39.9
100.1
PERCENT BY
VOLUME
14.8
14.0
18.0
7.5
5.8
39.9
100.0
IV-15
-------
TABLE IV-10
RELATIVE PROPORTION OF EXHAUST VERSUS
EVAPORATIVE MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
ROAD PERCENT PERCENT
YEAR CLASS EVAPORATIVE EXHAUST
1977 Freeway 49 51
Rural 47 53
Urban 30 70
1982 Freeway 44 56
Rural 41 59
Urban 22 78
1987 Freeway 33 67
Rural 30 70
Urban 13 87
IV-16
-------
This choice was based on the fact that the MOBILE 1 percent hot and cold
starts, vehicle mix, and average vehicle speed inputs for rural roads best
represented conditions within the TMAPC traffic zones.
For those categories dealing with natural gas combustion, KVB recommend-
ed using 100% methane. Since a gas chromatograph analysis of the natural gas
used in Tulsa was available, that analysis was instead used to develop. Me-
thane was 96.2% by weight, with the remainder composed of various paraffins.
The implicit assumption was that each component of the gas burns with the
same efficiency. For emissions from gas wells and natural gas leaks, the
same splits were used as those for residential, commercial, and industrial
natural gas use.
For the solvent evaporation category (9-10-051-00), it was determined
that 23 percent of the emissions were from degreasing (cold cleaning), 20
percent from architectural surface coating, and 57 percent from general do-
mestic solvent use. A joint profile was constructed by weighing individual
profiles. For degreasing, a national mix of cold cleaning solvents reported
in "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning" (EPA
450/2-77-022) was used. Each solvent was assigned to one of the organics
classes and then a molecular weight for a solvent typical of the class was
selected.
The component split for aircraft emissions was a composite developed by
averaging two sources: the RAPS document for airport emissions, and Organic
Compounds in Turbine Combustion Exhaust, Conkle, et. al. This reference, copy-
righted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, presented
VOC splits for JP-4 fuel exhaust. Since the large majority of emissions are
due to jet aircraft, this source was deemed appropriate for use in the air-
craft VOC split. Average molecular weights were taken from the KVB table for
off-highway gasoline vehicles. Table IV-11 references the sources for all
other area source categories.
Nitrogen Oxides
As was the case for point sources, very little published data was found
concerning area source nitrogen oxide splits. In general, a 95%/5% ratio
(by weight as N02) is considered acceptable for most categories. This ratio
split was used for several of tht combustion categories. The highest NO/N02
ratio (97%/3%) was assigned to the aircraft category, because aircraft engines
» IV-17
-------
TABLE IV-11
AREA 50URCE VOC SPLITS
sec
90401300
90600700
90600800
90600900
90700700
90700800
90702400
90904430
9 '000600
91000800
91000900
91005100
91005200
91308100
91308200
9 1 308400
DESCRIPTION
On-site incineration
commercial /institutional
Farm equipnent/gasoline
Construction equipment/
gaso] ine
Smal] gasoline engines
Farm equipment/diesel
Construction equipment/
diesel
Rail locomotive/diesel
exhaust
Vessels/gasoline
Cutback asphalt (refin-
ery valve/distillate)
Drycleaning (48% petro-
leum/51% perchlorathy-
lene)
Pesticides (domestic &
commercial)
Solvent evaporation
(23% degreasing/20%
arch-surface coat/
57% domestic)
Gasoline marketing
(gasolne vapor com-
posite)
Forest fires
Slash/ agricultural
burning (landscape
pruning)
Structural fires
SOURCE
RAPS3
KVB1
AP-42
KVB1
AP-42
KVB1
AP-42
KVB1
AP-42
KVB1
AP-42
RAPS1
AP-42
KVB
KVB
KVB
KVB
KVB
VDU2
KVB
KVB
KVB
RAPS3
TABLE #
A-18
6-06-021D
3.2.6-2
6-06-021D
3.2.7-2
6-06-021D
3.2.5-1
6-07-021
3.2.6-2
6-07-021
2.3.7-1
A -22
3.2.2-1
6-06-021D
3-06-008F
4-01-001B
4-01-001C
6-35-705
6-35-103 &
702
2-2
6-06-021C
6-13-081
5-01-002
A-18
1 Modified to adjust aldehydes to AP-42 wt%.
2 Degreasing profile based on national averages from EPA 450/2-77-
022; wt. percents reported on a bond basis.
3 Modified to include ketones along with aldehydes in carbonyls.
IV-18
-------
are larger and burn hotter and more efficiently than other types of engines.
Those categories with the lowest ratios (85%/15%) were high-excess air com-
bustion pr icesses, such as forest fires, structural fires, agricultural burn-
ing, open burning, and on-site incineration. The data sources for the area
source nitrogen oxide splits were the same as for point sources.
IV-19
-------
CHAPTER V
TEMPORAL FACTOR FILES
INTRODUCTION
Annual emissions were separated into several temporal divisions. First,
the year was divided into four quarters with June, July, and August represent-
ing the oxidant season. Also, a typical weekday during the oxidant season
was expressed as a fraction of the entire season. Finally, hourly factors
were computed for the typical oxidant season weekday. The data were recorded
in Central Standard Time and expressed in terms of percentages.
The temporal resolution of area source data was accomplished differently
for each individual category. The preferred method of estimation was through
direct contact with individuals who work in fields related to the specific
categories. Lacking this, several literature sources were utilized. These
inclide: EPA 600 4-77-041, RAPS Off-Highway Mobile Source Emission Inventory;
EPA +50/4-79-018, Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for
Volatile Organic Compou-ids ("Procedures") Volume II; and EPA 450/3-75-078,
Residential and Commercial Area Source Emission Inventory Methodology for the
Regional Air Pollution Study.
For point sources, the questionnaire responses were used as the primary
source of temporal data. For many plants, data was acquired through follow
up interviews. Storage tank temporal splits were determined by calculating
typical weekda*' oxidant season emissions and relating them to annualized
emissions.
The complete temporal data file for area and point sources is shown
in Appendix C. Area sources are referred to by their SCC code. For point
sources, temporal factors were provided by plant and point identification.
The general methodologies and assumpt ons made in developing the temporal
data file are addressed in the following sections.
AREA SOURCES
Natural Gas Use (90100500, 90200500, 90300500)
This category is divided into three subcategories - residential, commer-
cial, and industrial gas use. F om EPA-450/3-75-078 the hourly natural gas
V-l
-------
flows for the LaClede, St. Louis gas system were obtained. The assumption
made in that study was that hourly flows were the same for both the residen-
tial and the commercial categories. To simulate the oxidant season, the
graph for gas flows at a temperature greater than 68°F was used. Industrial
gas diurnal variations were adjusted to reflect slightly greater use during
the peak business hours (8 AM to 4 PM local time).
No weekday/weekend day variations were accounted for in the residential
category. The industrial subcategory was weighted slightly toward weekdays,
while commercial emissions were weight ad even more in favor of weekdays.
Residential and commercial seasonal data was also taken from the LaClede
study. For the industrial subcategory, data from TCCHD indicated that 9.7
percent of industrial gas use tales place in August, and 10.1 percent in
September. The seasonal variation figures were therefore calculated to re-
flect the higher totals in these months.
Incinerators (90401300)
Information regarding the 2:< incinerators operating in Tulsa County indi-
cated that the peak hours were from 8 AM to 5 PM local time. Ten percent of
the burning occurred on Saturday, the remaining 90% was done during the week.
This data was acquired in conjunction with the incinerator survey taken by
TCCHD for the year of record 1977.
Residential Open Burning (90501100)
No seasonal variations were assumed. However, emissions were allocated
to the daylight hours only.
Agricultural Equipment (90600700, 90700700)
Temporal variations were obtained from the agricultural extension agent
for Tulsa County. The greatest seasonal use occurs during the planting sea-
son (March, April, and May). Another peak occurs at harvest time, during
the autumn months.
As suggested by the Tulsa County Agricultural Extension Office, equip-
ment use was considered to be constant over the daylight hours only.
Construction Equipment (90600800, 90700800)
Only ten percent of construction equipment use was allocated to the win-
ter months (December, January, and February), the remaining use being evenly
V-2
-------
divided over the rest of the year. It was assumed that no equipment was run
during the nighttime hours.
Si all Gasoline Engines (90600900)
Since the great majority of household gas engines in Tulsa are of the
lawn and garden variety, the temporal data stressed the summer months and
weekend days. Forty percent of the emissions were attributed to June, July,
and August. The hourly breakdown was made to the daylight hours.
Rail Locomotives (90702400)
An analysis of the freight schedule in the "Official Railway Guide"
showed that more shifts in the Tulsa area occur during the day. Also, there
is considerably more acti\ity during the weekdays than during the weekend
days. These were reflected in the temporal breakdown of emissions. There
are no apparent seasonal variations for this category.
Aircraft (90803100, 90803200, 90803300)
For commercial and military flights, there was little variation in tem-
poral resolution of emissions. According to airport managers, the general
tendency was to schedule more flights during the hours people would be awake.
This tendency is even more pronounced for civil flights. Also, since private
planes are flown more on weekend days, the weekday factor for civil flights
was much lower than for the other two categories.
There was no seasonal variation evident for any of the categories for
the Tulsa area.
Vessels (90904430)
The seasonal variation for this category was biased against the winter
months. Hourly variations were heavily biased in favor of the daylight hours,
although some nighttime emissions were allocated to account for fishing at odd
hours. Th i typical weekday factor was relatively low, since only recreational
vessels are considered in this category.
Soil Farming (91000100)
Since this is an evaporative emission, the summer months were assumed to
have the largest emissions, and 35 percent of the total was attributed to June,
July, and August. The hourly euissions were slightly scaled in favor of the
V-3
-------
hours around mid-day. There are no differences between weekdays and weekend
days.
Oil Wells and Gas Wells (91000200, 9 000300)
Seasonal splits for oil wells we re determined from base year production
d; ta obtained from the Oklahoma Corporation Commmission. The data never var-
ied by more than one percent from 25 percent per quarter, which was used for
gas well emissions.
Sii ce production for both categories goes on 24 hours per day and seven
days week., the hourly splits reilect this. They are slightly biased, however,
for the 3 AM to 5 PM production shift.
According to the information received, there was little or no variation
between weekday and weekend day production rates for either category.
Cutback Asphalt (91000600)
The temporal data for this category was made from assumptions concerning
the five major companies which use cutback asphalt. Seasonal variations fa-
vored the spring and summer months at the expense of the winter months, due
to the fact that most roads need repairs most urgently after the winter.
Business hours (8 AM to 5 PM) were assumed for the hourly breakdown, with a
significant decrease between noon and 1 PM. A five-day work week was assumed.
Natural Gas Leaks (91000700)
The activity parameters for natural gas leaks were expressed as a percen-
tage of total gas consumption. A weighted average was found for the temporal
data of residential, commercial, and industrial gas use. Since industrial
use was over 68 percent of the total, the seasonal variation was determined
to be constant. Hourly variations were assumed to be relatively constant
throughout the day. Also, there was no distinction made between weekdays
and weekend days.
Dry Cleaning (91000800)
From the survey of dry cleaners taken by TCCHD, it was determined that
about 63 percent of the cleaning operations were done between 6 AM and noon.
ES assumed that the remainder of the cleaning was done between noon and 5 PM.
No seasonal variations were assumed. Also, the large majority of clean-
ing operations were assumed to take place on weekdays.
V-4
-------
Pesticide Use (91000900)
The use of pesticides occurs mainly in the spring and summer, according
to the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. No weekday/weekend day variations
can be assumed, while hourly emissions were slanted slightly toward the day-
light hours.
Degreasing, Surface Coating, and Miscellaneous Commercial/Consumer Solvent
Us~e (91005100)
Due to the evaporative natu 'e of the emissions associated with this cate-
gory, there was some slight bias given to spring and summer emissions. This
also would account for any outdoor solvent use. The hourly and weekday/week-
end day variations reflect the "workday" nature of this category, since most
of the emissions are industrial or commercial. These assumptions are in
agreement with EPA-450/3-75-078.
Gasoline Marketing (91005200)
EPA-450/3-75-078 also presents detailed information concerning gasoline
sales in the St. Louis, Missouri area. The table entitled "Temporal Alloca-
tion Factors for the Filling of Automobile Gasoline Tanks" was used to deter-
mine diurnal variations; another table entitled "State of Missouri Gasoline
Sales" was used for seasonal variations. The data was in accordance with
local information acquired from TCCHD, which shows greater gasoline sales
in the late summer months.
No weekday/weekend day variations were found in any of the data sources
used for this category.
Highway Motor Vehicles Outside of TMAPC Jurisdiction (91106100. 91106200,
91106400)
For this category, detailed temporal data were available from Oklahoma
Traffic Characteristics, 1976, obtained from the Oklahoma Department of Trans-
portation. The methodology used to determine temporal splits was that, for
each road classification, a typical road in the inventory area was analyzed
for which all necessary temporal data were available. For freeways (limited
access roads), stations 94 and 26 were chosen. Station 94 is located on 1-44
and U.S. 66 at the Arkansas River Bridge in Tulsa. Station 26 is located on
1-40 at the Okmulgee-Okfuskee County Line. The temporal data from each of
these was averaged because it was necessary to account for both a rural lim-
ited access road and also one located in the city. For rural roads (principal
V-5
-------
arterials), Station 42, located on U.S. 60 near the junction of U.S. 66 and
and U.S. 60, was chosen. For urban loads, Station 35, located 3 miles north
of the junction at U.S. 62 in the city of Okmulgee, was chosen. Detailed
information concerning all temporal breakdowns required in this study was
able to be extracted from the data available.
Forest Fires (91308100)
No temporal variations of any nature were assumed for this category.
Slash Burning (9130822)
No seasonal or weekday/weekend day variations were assumed. However,
emissions were assigned only to the daylight hours.
Structural Fires (91308400)
As was the case for forest fires, no temporal variations could be assumed.
POINT SOURCES
The seasonal variations for each plant in the annualized inventory were
not in general utilized in the temporal factor file. An oxidant season adden-
dum was attached to the annual questionnaires asking for more specific tem-
poral data. This data included hourly variations and weekday/weekend day
variations, as well as seasonal splits. Since few questionnaire responses
contained the temporal data desired for the modeling, the plants were also
asked for this type of information during the plant interviews and telephone
conversations.
For the most significant plants, temporal variations were obtained
tl cough the plant interviews. For example, detailed temporal data was ob-
tained from each of the power plants. Hourly breakdowns of power generation
for each boiler was obtained, and emissions were assumed to be proportional
to power output.
For storage tanks, the following sequence of priorities was used to gen-
erate the temporal data file. First, direct data from the company was con-
sidered, be it data from the plant interviews or from the responses to the
questionnaire addenda. Next, the storage tank inventory developed by the
State of Oklahoma Health Department was used. The existing point source
inventory was then considered; and finally a year-round split (24-hour per
V-6
-------
day, 365 days per year) was input, lacking all of the other methods. Changes
in throughput were considered as well as emission factors. Emissions for a
typical weekday during the oxidant season were calculated utilizing seasonal
meteorological conditions, and expanded to seasonal emissions. These calcu-
lated seasonal emissions were divided by annual emissions to obtain the sea-
sonal temporal split. For this study, the daily emissions were spread uni-
formly over a 24-hour period, although some data exist that suggest breath-
ing losses for fixed-roof tanks are greater id the morning hours.
In addition to percent operation by season, the updated EIS/P&R master
file contained weeks per year, days per week, and hours per day of operation.
These data were used to generate the required temporal detail for sources not
included in the temporal factor table. The following assumptions were made
in using the EIS/P&R operating data:
1. Eight hour days begin at 7 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. local time;
2. Sixteen hour days begin at 7 a.m. and end at 11 p.m. local time;*
3. Six days per week operation excludes Sundays; and
4. A missing operating schedule defaulted to eight hours per day, five
days per week, and 52 weeks per year.
A shift in time of one hour was performed to adjust emissions to Central
Standard Time.
V-7
-------
CHAPTER VI
ALDEHYDE CORRECTION PROCEDURE
The hydrocarbon emission factors for stationary and mobile nonevapora-
tive sources were largely developed using gas chromatography techniques.
With a total hydrocarbon analyzer and an FID detector, formaldehyde is vir-
tually not measured at all while the higher molecular weight aldehydes are
detected with i carbon equivalency ratio of something less than one (1.0).
Similarly, ketmes, particularly acetone, and other oxygenated organics are
not measured in proportion to their presence. (Most evaporative sources,
whose emission factors have generally been developed on the basis of mater-
ials balance calculations, are presumed to be unaffected).
In order to compensate for this apparent systematic bias in the emis-
sions data, the total hydrocarbon emissions were adjusted prior to splitting
them into organics categories. Using the weight percent of formaldehyde from
the VOC Species Manual, the following correction was applied on an SCC-by-SCC
basis:
Adjusted HC Emissions = HC Emissions x 10°
100 - wt% formaldehyde
Several considerations were involved in selecting formaldehyde as the
correction factor. Use of the carbonyls category (defined as ketones and
aldehydes in the VOC Species Manial) might tend to overcompensate for some
nonevaporative source categories with significant emissions of acetone.
(Acetates which should also be included with the other carbonyls, are not
afft'Cted since these compounds are associated with evaporative sources, pri-
marily surface coating, for which materials balance calculations have been
used for emission factor development). Therefore, the correction was re-
stricted to aldehydes. Even then, some overcorrection could result if high-
er molecular weight aldehydes ar<} present to a significant degree. However,
KVB reports all aldehydes as formaldehyde (HCHO). Thus, the weight per-
cent of formaldehydes itself underestimates the presence of other aldehydes.
Qualitatively at least, the weight percent of aldehydes @ HCHO offers the
best choice for removing a systematic underestimation of total hydrocarbon
emissions.
Several source categories with aldehyde emissions did not, however, re-
quire any correction. These categories report aldehyde emission factors
VI-1
-------
explicitly in AP-42. Such categories include a few stationary sources, bitu-
minous coal combustion, refinery process heaters (gas), and catalytic crackers
(fluid). Off highway mobile sources include agricultural equipment (gas and
diesel), construction equipment (gas and diesel), small gasoline engines, and
diesel locomotives. In cases where a combined emission factor which includes
aldehydes is used, no further aldehyde correction was made.
Table VI-1 lists for each SCO in Tulsa, both point and area, the appro-
priate weight percent aldehyde @ HCHO to be used for the emission adjustment.
Only those SCC's for wiich the aldehyde correction was necessary are listed.
This excludes those sources for which the emission factor already included
aldehydes, and also those sources with no aldehyde emissions.
VI-2
-------
TABLE VI-1
TULSA HC EMISSIONS ALDEHYDE ADJUSTMENT
sec
POINT
1-01-004-02
1-01-005-01
1-01-006-01
1-01-006-03
1-02-004-01
1-02-004-02
1-02-005-01
1-02-006-01
1-02-006-02
1-02-006-03
1-02-007-01
2-01-002-01
2-02-002-01
2-02-002-02
3-05-002-01
3-05-014-01
3-06-002-01
3-06-003-01
5-06-009-99
3-90-006-05
4-02-008-99
AREA
9-04-013-00
9-08-031-00
9-08-032-00
9-08-033-00
9-09-044-30
9-10-051-00
9-10-061-00
9-10-062-00
9-10-064-00
9-13-084-00
* From RAPS
** From RAPS
DESCRIPTION
Residual Oil/Electrical Generation
Distillate Oil/Electrical Generation
Natural Gas/Electrical Generation
Natural Gas/E? ectrical Generation
Residual Oil/]ndustrial
Residual Oil/ Industrial
Distillate Oil/Industrial
Natural Gas/Industrial
Natural Gas/Industrial
Natural Gas/Industrial
Process Gas/Industrial
Natural Gas Turbine
Natural Gas Turbine
Natural Gas Reciprocating
Asphaltic Concrete/Rotary Dryer/Gas
Glass Manufacture/ Soda-lime Fnc/Gas
Petroleum Industry/Fluid Crackers
Petroleum Industry/Catalytic Crackers
Petroleum Industry/Flares/Not Classified
Inprocess Fuel/Natural Gas
Surface Coat ing/ Coat ing Oven/Enamel
On-Site Incineration
Military Aircraft
Civil Aircraft
Commercial Aircraft
Vessels /Gasoline
Solvent Evap
(Degr easing/Paint /Dome stic)
Freeway Roads
Rural Roads
Urban Roads
Structural Fires
ALDEHYDE
@ HCHO
WEIGHT %
42.0
48.7
8.0
8.0
42.0
42.0
48.7
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.6
30.0
30.0
1.0
8.0
8.0
51.0
51.0
20.0
8.0
3.3
7.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
3.8
0.3
2.2
2.5
3.3
7.0
KVB
TABLE #
1-01-004
1-01-005
1-01-006
1-01-006
1-01-004
1-01-004
1-01-005
1-01-006
1-01-006
1-01-006
1-01-007
2-01-002
2-01-002
2-02-002A
3-05-002A
1-01-006
3-06-002
3-06-002
3-06-009
1-01-006
4-02-008E
*
**
**
**
6-06-021D
6-35-103,
-702
6-06-021A&F
6-06-021A&F
6-06-02 1A&F
*
EPA 600/4-78-026 RAPS Organic Emission Inventory.
and Organic Compounds in Turbine Combustion
Exhaust ,
Conkle, et.
al.; The Institute of Electric;1 and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
VI-3
-------
CHAPTER VII
PREPARATION OF EMISSIONS PACKETS FOR THE AIRSHED MODEL
Emissions input for the Airshed Model is composed of four different sets
of information called packets. The types of data included in each packet are
as follows:
Packet Data Type
GRID VALUES Three separate sets of gridded emissions for minor
point, area, and line sources for each hour for 24
hours.
EMISSIONS VALUES Emissions for major (elevated) point sources for
each hour for 24 hours.
POINT SOURCES Stack data for major (elevated) point sources, time
invariant.
TIME INTERVAL Beginning end end date and time for each hour for
24 hours.
The specific data formats for these packets are shown in Tables VII-1 through
VII-5. Each EMISSIONS VALUES or GRID VALUES packet must be placed within a
TIME INTERVAL packet to associate the emission rate provided with a specific
hour of the day (e.g., 12 midnight to 1 a.m.).
The preparation of packet files for the Airshed Model consisted of a step-
wise process of obtaining appropriate emissions disaggregation factors, calcula-
ting hourly emissions for all emission components, and placing information in
the required packet format for ise by the Airshed Model. Schematic representa-
tions of the data processing system are shown in Figures VII-1 through VII-5.
Components of the data processing system used to produce the packets are:
o VOC and NOX split factor tables;
o Temporal distribution factor tables for seasonal, weekday, and hourly
periods;
o EIS/P&R point and area source files and associated data handling rou-
tines;
o TMAPC gridded, hourly highway vehicle inventory of particulates, S02,
CO, NOX, and VOC for Tulsa netropolitan area;
o Data preparation program for accessing the factor tables and emissions
for the production of hourl} values and the reporting of stack data;
and
VII-1
-------
TABLE VII-1
GRID VALUES PACKET FORMAT
CARD NUMBER/
NAME
ITEM/COLUMNS
COMMENTS
1/Packet Header
2+/Grid Emissions
3/Packet Terminator
Header/1-10
Subregici Name/1-10
Pollutart Name/11-20
Column 1-0./21-30
Row No., 31-40
Emission Value/41-50
Terminator/l--3
GRID VALUES, left adjusted
TULSA
See Table VII-3 for names
X-index of grid, counting
from bottom (South)
column = 1
Y-index of grid, counting
from left (West) row = 1
Units are gram-moles/hr
except grams/hr for
AEROSOLS
END, left adjusted
VII-2
-------
TABLE VI1-2
EMISSIONS VALUES PACKET FORMAT
CARD NUMBER/
NAME ITEM/COLUMNS COMMENTS
I/Packet Header Header/1-10 EMISSIONS VALUES, left
adjusted
2+/Point Source Point Source ID/1-10 EIS/P&R county, plant, and
Emissions point ID number
Pollutant Name/11-20 See Table VII-3 for names
Emission Value/21-30 Same units as GRID VALUES
3/Packet Terminator Terminator/1-3 END, left adjusted
/II-3
-------
TABLE V1I-3
FIELDS COMMON TO GRID AND EMISSIONS VALUES PACKETS
CARD NUMBER/
NAME
COLUMN
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
2+/Grid or Point
Source Emissions
61
65
66
67
68 and 69
Source Type
62 ind 63 Year
34 Projection Type
Projection Number
Weekday Code
Hour Number
Major or Minor Point - P
Area - A
Line - L
Last two digits of year
Base Year - B
Baseline Projection Year
(growth) - G
Strategy - S
0
Blank
1
Midnight to 0100 - 01
0100 to 0200 - 02
2300 to 2400
70 Blank
71 and 72 Pollutant ID CO
SO 2
AEROSOLS
NO
N02
PAR
OLE
GARB
ARO
RAPS PARA
RAPSOLEF
RAPSALDE
RAPSAROM
ETH
- 24
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
- 06
- 07
- 08
- 09
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
VII-4
-------
TABLE VI1-4
POINT SOURCES PACKET FORMAT
CARD Nl MBER/
NAME
ITEM/COLUMNS
COMMENTS
I/Packet Header
2+'Point Source
ID and location
3+/Stack Properties
4/Packet Terminator
Header/1-10
Point Source ID/1-10
Source Type/11-20
X-location/21-30
Y-loc; tion/31-40
Stack Height/1-10
Stack Exit Diameter/
11-20
Stack Exit Tempera-
ture/21-30
Stack Exit Velocity/
31-40
Terminator/1-3
POINT SOURCES, left adjus-
ted
Same as EMISSIONS VALUES
PLUMERISE if stack data
are complete; STACKHGT
if data are missing
X-coordinate with respect
to reference origin
(meters)
Y-coordinate with respect
to reference origin
(meters)
Ground to top of stack
(meters)
For flow rate calculation
(meters)
For heat flux calculation
(°K)
For flow rate calculation
(meters/second)
END, left adjusted
VII-5
-------
TABLE VI1-5
TIME INTERVyVL PACKET FORMAT
CARD NUMBER/
NAME
ITEM/COLUMNS
COMMENTS
I/Packet Header
2/Time Interval
3/Packet Terminator
Header/1-10
Beginning Date/1-10
Beginning Time/11-20
End Date/21-30
End Time/31-40
Tenainator/1-6
TIME INTERVAL, left adjus-
ted
yyOOl - yy is last two
digits of year
hhOO - hh is begin time
for hour - starts at
00 and ends at 23
Same as Beginning Date
hhOO - hh is end time for
hour - starts at 01 and
ends at 24
END TIME, left adjusted
VII-6
-------
FIGURE VII-I
PREPARATION OF GRIDDED AREA SOURCE MASTER FILE
NEDS
County Total
Activity Levels
Allocation
Factors for
Each Grid
Allocation
Program
Gridded
Activity
Levels
NEDS
Format
EIS/P&R Programs
1. Convert to
EIS/P&R
Transaction
Format
2. Emission
Factor
Insertion
3. Master File
Creation &
Calculation
of Emissions
Gridded
Area Source
Master File
EIS/P&R
VII-7
-------
FIGURE VII-2
PREPARATION OF AIRSHED MODEL DATA PACKET FOR AREA SOURCES
Gridded
Area Source
Master File
EIS/P&R
Component
Factors-
VOC, NOX
Temporal
Factors -
Season, Day,
Hour
Retrieve
Non-Highway
Sources
Gridded
Non-Highway
Source
Master File
Data
Preparation
Program
24 Hours of
Emission
Values per
Grid
Post-Processing
Program
/Area Source^
GRID VALUES
Packet
Card Image
Format
VII-8
-------
FIGURE VII-3
PREPARATION OF AIRSHED MODEL DATA PACKET FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES
Gridded
Area Source
Master File
EIS/P&R
Retrieve
Highway
Vehicles
Gridded
Highway
Vehicle
j Component
Factors-
VOC/NOX
/ Temporal
' Facto rs-
Season, Day,
Hour
Iv^File
Data
Preparat
Program
-
J
ion
-v
^
24 Hours of
Emission
Values per
Grid*
TMAPC
/Gridded Hdurly
[Highway Vehicle]
Emission
Information
Data Preparation
Program for TMAPC
Highway Vehicle
Information
f Component
Factors-
VOC, NOX
24 Hours of
Emission
Values per
Grid*
Merge
Operation
Merged
Emission
Records
Post-
Processing
Program
Highway^
Vehicle
GRID VALUES
Packet
.Card Image,
^Format
*Data sets are complementary. Emissions contained in one file are not included in the otner.
VII-9
-------
FIGURE VI1-4
PREPARATION OF AIRSHED MODEL DATA PACKET FOR MAJOR POINT SOURCES
Component
Factors-
VOC, NOX
Temporal
Factors-
Season, Day,
Hour
Point
Source
Master
File
Retrieve
Major
Point
Sources
Major
Point
Source
Master
File
Data
Preparation
Program
POINT SOURCES
Packet
Containing
Stack
Parameters
24 Hours of
Emission
Values per
Source
Post-Processing
Program
Major
Point Source
(EMISSIONS VALUES!
Packet
Card Image
Format
VII-10
-------
FIGURE VII-5
PREPARATION OF AIRSHED MODEL DATA PACKET FOR MINOR POINT SOURCES
Point
Source
Master
File
Retrieve
Minor
Point
Sources
Minor
Point
Source
r Component
Facto rs-
VOC, NOX
/ Temporal
f Factors-
Season, Day,
Hour
"~|
Data
Preparation
Program
^>
24 Hours of
Emission
Values per
Source
Assignment of
Emissions to
Appropriate
Grid Square &
Accumulation of
Total Emissions
for Each Grid
Gridded
Minor Point
Source
Emissions
Post-Processing
Program
Minor
'Point Sour ce\
GRID VALUES
Packet
3ard Image,
Format
VII-11
-------
o Post-processing programs for separation of major and minor point
sources and the creation of packet files in the required format for
the Airshed Model.
The first two components of the system Wire addressed in Chapters IV and
V, respectively. The four remaining components and their use are described
in the following sections.
Emission Files
Except for highway motor vehicle data which came from TMAPC, the emis-
sion files used in this study were in EIS/P&R format. EIS/P&R is a subsystem
of the Comprehensive Data Handling System maintained by EPA. It contains the
same information as NEDS but is more flexible and capable of storing much more
information.
Two basic types of files were maintained by ES: point sources and area
sources. The area source file had the same basic format as point sources but
a slightly different file organisation. The standard file contains area emis-
sions on a category-by-category jasis; typical categories are commercial fuel
combustion, gasoline fuel marketing, and vehicle-miles travelled (VMT). Each
category consists of several activities. In the VMT category, individual ac-
tivi:ies are: limited access roads, rural roads, suburban roads and urban
roadi. For this study, the file orga lization was changed so that emissions
were reported on an activity-by-acti\Lty level. Each activity was treated
as a discrete emission source contributing to the total emissions of a parti-
cular grid square. In this way there was a unique SCC identifier associated
with each emission contribution, which eased the task of computing emissions
and the temporal distribution and improved the accuracy of the final product.
Another change to the area source file organization was that activity
levels and emissions were tabulated by grid square after allocation instead
of by county (Figure VII-1). Grid square identification numbers appeared in
the AQCR and PLANT ID identifiers.
The point source file organization was unchanged because emissions from
each process at a multi-process point were not available. Therefore, a single
SCC at a multi-process point had to be used as the basis for applying VOC/NOX
splits. For all multi-SCC points in the master file, the first code repre-
sented the most significant contribution to emissions or was one of several
coctes required to describe the same process. The use of the first SCC thus
VII-12
-------
led to selection of the appropriate VOC/NOX split factor for the emissions.
Since temporal splits were grouped by plant and point instead of SCC, they
were unaffected.
It was important to review the inventory before processing began to in-
sure that operating schedule data were in order. The operating information
was used in computing the temporal distributions if particular factors did
riot appear in the temporal factor table. A check of sources with VOC or NOX
emissions greater than zero identified specific processes and SCCs which
needed component factors.
For this study, geographic locations were based on the Oklahoma Coordi-
nate System (DCS). The DCS cooi dinat^s replaced the UTM coordinates in both
the area and point source files. In order to identify the use of OCS coordi-
nates, all UTM zone numbers were chanjed to "99" in the point source file.
Data Preparation Program
The data preparation program accessed the temporal and VOC/NOX split fac-
tor files and set up a temporary table index. Then, on a source-by-source
basis, the program performed a table look-up procedure to find specific com-
ponent and temporal distribution data. First, this was done by point identi-
fication sequence number, then, if necessary, by process.
If temporal data were not f>und, the normal operating schedule contained
in the the master file was used as a basis for computing the point source fac-
tors. The Airshed Model requires determination of emissions for each of the
24-hourly periods during the day. Hour one corresponds to midnight to one
a.m. central standard time, and so on, ending with hour 24, 11 p.m. to mid-
night central standard time. In order to generate hourly emissions from the
EIS/P&R operating data, certain assumptions had to be made. For sources ope-
rating during the June, July, and August (oxidant) season, the typical week-
day emission was assumed to be
(% Emissions In Oxidant Season)(Annual Emissions)
(Days Of Operation Per Week)(13 Weeks In Oxidant Season).
Emissions were spread uniformly throughout the number of hours operated per
day. Any source not operating 24 hours per day was assumed to begin opera-
tion on hour eight (7 a.m. to 8 a.m. central standard time) and continue to
operate each succeeding hour until tle total hours operated per day was
reached.
VII-13
-------
If component data were not found, the reported component emissions were
set to zero and an error message was printed. The preliminary review of the
emission files insured that component factors were available for all proces-
ses with VOC or NOX emissions greater than zero. All factors used to disag-
gregate the annual emissions were listed by the program for documentation
purposes.
Once all factors were accessed, component emissions were computed on an
hourly basis for each of the 24 hours by multiplying the annual emissions by
the appropriate factors. The computed hourly emissions were placed in matrix
form similar to that required for the EMISSIONS VALUES output packet. A post-
processing program selected emissions for the hour of interest and output the
packet in its required format. If the input file contained major point source
data, a POINT SOURCES packet was prepared using the Airshed Model format and
giving identification, location, stack height, diameter, velocity and tempera-
ture. If diameter, velocity, and temperature were all non-zero, PLUMERISE was
entered as source type in the POINT SOURCES packet (Table VII-4). This indi-
cated to the Airshed Model that a plume rise should be calculated. If any of
the three items were zero, STACKHGT was used as source type, which indicated
that plume rise should not be calculated and that the effective height of the
plume was equivalent to the height of the stack.
Major/Minor Source Division
Major point sources, those that passed certain criteria for significance,
were separated from minor sources using the EIS/P&R retrieval program and pro-
cessed by the data preparation program. Several criteria were used to select
the sources to be included in the POINT SOURCES and EMISSIONS VALUES packets
(major point sources). No stack with less than 10 tons per year of VOC or
NOX emissions was considered. The total elevated emissions of VOC or NOX for
a given grid cell had to be greater than 1% of the total regional emissions
(500 tons per year cutoff for NOX and 750 for VOC). The third criterion was
that the plume height had to be greater than 50 meters under unstable atmos-
pheric conditions and light winds (two meters per second). The result was
that ten plants and 82 points were included as major sources. Only seven of
the 1,550 total grids in the modeling region were represented by these plants.
A post-processing program then put the required information is EMISSIONS
VALUES packet format. Minor point, area, and line sources were also processed
VII-14
-------
by the data preparation program. However, the output was sent to an interme-
diate program before being put in packet format. The intermediate program was
responsible for assigning the hourly component emissions from each minor point
source to the grid in which it was located. The post-processing program then
took the output and placed it in GRID VALUES packet format.
Post-Processing Program
A post-processing program was responsible for taking the output from the
data preparation program, which produced emission values for each of 24 hours,
and creating an EMISSIONS VALUES packet for major point sources or a GRID VALUES
packet for minor point, area, or line sources, depending on the input file. A
TIME INTERVAL packet was also produced which specified the beginning and ending
date and time for which the other packets were valid. For this study emissions
data for all sources were furnifhed fur each hour of the oxidant season typical
weekday; no persistence of emissions from hour to hour was assumed.
At the request of EPA, ES shifted hourly emissions values one hour so that
all values represented Central Daylight time instead of Central Standard time.
In addition to supplying the Airshed Model emissions input on magnetic tape,
Eb provided EPA with EIS/P&R master files for point and area sources, temporal
factor files, VOC/NOX split factor files, area source emission and grid allo-
cation files, and county level NEDS activity parameters on magnetic tape.
VII-15
-------
APPENDIX A
NEDS FORMS/ACTIVITY PARAMETERS
-------
APPENDIX A
NEDS FORMS/ACTIVITY PARAMETERS
The following pages show all activity parameters generated for the five
counties and two cities within the Tulsa area source inventory area. The fi-
gures are documented in Chapter ,.I of this report.
A-l
-------
WY i gl
t-
"2.
Z3
-io
"!Vj
in'
*«t
1
A-2
-------
a
Mi|:y
"C3 **
1-5
e
~^
"> _j
IU _|
< UJ
2 2
UJ ^)
° 3
S «*
o
12 S
S s
uj 45 v
£. ^ o
£ ~"
K
o
0
EC
g S
Jj
s
*= J2
?^
z "5 *"
fc tp
c:
I*
<. M
Ca -g i
o
V
»/»
«i
5«?
0 CJ
o ji
"O CD
3<£ 2
>
6 J2
- ^>
rj *rt
s g
£ *S»
5 "~
.
2
S >-
«j o
Is
1 C
1 |i
u-
r-
3
PS
r-
r*
r>
_t
r*
~c
r*
u:
~e
IT
r'r«
u:
hi
jf
<
c
f
tE
rs
l£
tc
c
1C
cr
if
cc
IT
r*
IT
j
il
J2
1
t
i
r
i
H
i
I
t O
1 ^
1°
lift
(X
fftl
a
&«
v£
*l
vS
vi
tA
h
sT
CT>
(V>
«A
CO
00
00
N
DQ
Pft
E3
in!* i
"El §!«|
§ -s
°3
£5
z<
a o .-
o
-------
L-C!}3?
VI
-J
d
0 .
?.£;?
oo
-.j to~ ,!?
5° ^°
^
. 0
ra
O """
0 S
1/7 >
<
£
1 *
0" J
S
»-
UJ u
ce r:
£ f
*v
"*
UJ
O
O LU M
PS ^
to
LU
ex.
Z *- -Q
iz: t
o ui
> o
a o -
to
in
to
CO
LO
to
O
CD
cn
m
CO
in
LA
LO
in
m
m
m
ro
s
LO
O
in
5
CO
r*
S
in
S
£
o
cn
CO
m
ro
3
in
5
R
n
o
i
p>.
s
s
s
CN
csi
CM
rg
1
r*-
0°
or
V
t-
ir^
=e
UJ
§
0
^'0
J2i
"'<
* V'l
"KJ
s^s
"s
-------
: s JSO
3
3 Pi
MEASURED VEHICLE MILES
i
M
i>
^ o
o ~*
~n
EC
ID
*Q
0
cc:
Es
s*
I 2
^E
'.Zj
EVAPORATION
a
J3 J£
E O
o
VJ
VI
% 5.
£ I
"c *
V
>
o
t/1
O o
UJ
LU
O
, n
'*n «er
Oil C3
O .2
ra
O ~-
S £
t-> S
f 2
C3
- O
So
0 P-
O -J
AIRCRAFT
2
o
_J
rs >-
Se
£
o
"§53
01
-3-
sit/)
Sir*-
slo*
sta-
sl
CD
in
LO
~t5
in
tn
m
in
vS
0)
U)
tni
CM
in
in
o
gj>
S
CO
5
S
LI
"*?
5
CN
£
0
~"cn
CO
m
PO
rr
in
ro
PO
s
CM
n
"o
m
PN
CO
PW
CM
s
ur
CN
CN
~O
CM
2
CO
£
(O
in
*
vn
H
~
h-
*o
i^-
N
"1
rv
j;
_?L
I g' <
00
Om
0
0 Ul M
siy>
In
[V)
I1
mi
r-J
'i
"1
I!
~i
to1
in
10
S
5
CM
to
to
o
en
CO
5
U3
m
in
m
m
PO
m
JS
o
in
en
CO
5
»
~5
CN
£
O
cn
ro
CD
r»
cr
to
in
M
CO
m
CN
ro
O
P*»
cn
CM
CO
CM
r*
CM
CM
CM
01
CN
CM
CM
4
7:
r-
ff*
-
S
h
^
cs
_o
riijj
£uj
£!VS
1
ijo
A-5
-------
'31 a »1
UJ
o
§ E 2
Co13
t» 2 O
2 =
j
r
5 -
IJs.f5
^£2
UJ
O
S2
e **
=> *"
co S
<"o
- .
UJ
8 A -
<
£i ~
Its
S e *
ss*
*" < 0
o
o
__ ar
c
£
CM
UJ
*~ X
I i
l
UJ
O
| £
1
°"
2*1
f-1
r*.
LT,
___
r--
g(<
t
10
col
ID
SI
in
o;
CD]
CO
-1
CD!
<£>!
m
cd
in
r*.
cn
CD
in
tn
cn
in
cn
"o
m
%
CO
T
in
T
_s
CN
rr
a
ro
CO
ro
ro
CD
ro
1 ro
ro
r
r*
ro
' 0
f
*^fT
rsi
CO
^CNj
r*
CN
CO
Cst
in
IN
CN
ro
rg
rg
r\j
. rsj
sT)
ui
CN
o
1
J
J
I
1
J
4
-4
<
[H
_.
-
rl
oi
Sd tl-
V. ' § Ht
t° e "fe^
1 -
SxraT"
s.£I_[|Ll
l-itsl
C3 o
S S
r
^ =
ra O
75
cr
°
cc
S 1
"5 °
is
°o
t3
4)
«n
9
t
p v*
C- e
a
c
at
>
o
i*^
8i
o o
3^,
O ^2
a> O
a:
o »
o 2
n vi
5 §
I1
Commercial
UOCYClfll
S
_J
rs<
0
0 >-
j: °
iS
CD
_._ |
1
SJN
(D
S
s
m
CO
m
N.
us
s
cn
ro
in
IN
tn
N
vS
Ml
in
vS
sO
do
g|«o
cn
CO
3-
5
T
U1
"5
rsi
5
0
m
CO
ro
R
CD
ir
M
«
rsi
rn
(T
rr
S
«
N
CD
CT
r^
N
r^
r\
CO
cc
£
£
3-
0~
s
lls
uoiwji o <
S1N3M103
r--
LO
in
rt!
?2
rsi
-S
o
1
S'
"s1
CD
'^
1
]
CDi
CO1
in
s
ro
CD
to
S
S
CO
LA
CO
in
in
in
ro
fn
r
0)
0
in
5
CO
5
CD
1
3
S
5
o
CT
CO
M
(0
S
M
ro
IN
O
00
ex
R
u>
N
s
CM
rt
CM
rg
r>)
G
5
N
00
CT
>-
t_
2
3
O
O
-i\u
£'m
J2|^)
2'-J
in
"o
A-6
-------
£1-
Sloiio
°j gl
-" <
~!
21
A-7
y 3
i^I
- a "in
a* _?r .«
ed Ac
04 Mi
- J2
13
IN
e= J2 i .
t -
ro
M
tO
=!8-
S»,
^g
as
>- I O
O£ O r-
O t/>
N
SQIO
3 VI ~Z*
* ,2
CD]
ml
8**-
t-
-^
«^y
ov
-------
UOII3?
1-°
E O
O
0
>- _l O
SO f-
t/>
I/) £
i-S §
11 s
Si
r*
ro
p-
r-
r^.
*5
o
in
(0
S
CO
rg
1C
u>
"6T
U)
c6
in
ID
bD
"LrT
In
CO
Ul
ID
£
o-
u^
52
Vxj
fM
C?o
SI
cn
CO
5
S
in
5
CO
CM
ff
^
O
m
n
CO
CO
CO
ro
CO
CO
ro
CN
C*f
CO
cn
CM
CO
rg
to
CN
in
CN
rg
CO
CN
CN
rg
fN
CN
"i"
f-s
to
2
^
CM
o-
0
.q-
(N
d
o
r*-
Ln
o-
l^
Ij;
--
£1
0°
po
5
^|
O
.
S1H3VMOD
_r^
.Si.
kT>
^3-
r*.
H
~1
M
r^
Ji
-rj
O
f".
CO
n
i
5i
(X>
IO
in
ia
*T
O
ro
10
rg
10
to
O
<£>
o
LD
CO
in
f^
m
u>
m
m
m
a-
in
ro
1.1
CN
ir>
in
o
in
cn
w
CO
^T
r>
*T
ID
*r
in
&
*r
m
«r
cv
^
s
in
fi
»
m
ro
CO
cs
ro
O
ro
~m
CM
CO
rg
r*
rg
\D
rg
U)
rg
«r
CM
CO
CN
rg
rg
r^
r-
o-
5|>
IQb
^!a
Sicj
^0
^!o
mr
[2\<
P.UJ
p; Uj
^,Qf
2iO
A-8
-------
-o
u
0 U>
C3
iS'"
L0!pyjg..
H
"2
o
O
*£>
-'i^
' » "
tN
-------
I Sicrl
« S
>
o
Acces
< Miles
S "S
E O
.s"^
POR
t Rj'
ons
IN
U
N
SI
HO
lrJ
sB
O J2
s s
s
0
« S
£ -5"
a: - f\
id
oo
|Bt-
W
-0
i
vS
o I
U0ip? .
*X»
ai
UJ
I
o
o
o
mi
S
r-
m
S!
£
s
J±
en
-«
to
S
S
s
ro
to
vo
UJ
0
o
CO
in
5
10
in
in
in
S
ro
""CM
in
m
o
u*>
5
CO
S
o
cr
in
f
CO
CM
T
O
CT
CO
CO
CO
n
rt
in
ro
fO
CO
CO
fM
CO
o
CO
cn
CM
CO
CM
CM
rs
CN
CM
fO
CM
fN
^
1
r^
<£>
"
*
"
JS
1
o
cr
->
1-
^
vj
i
-------
"c1 1
""* ]
i Oi
| CO)
1
s "
<-
tr
o
S
CO
^S
S!
5 »
s
jgr
ijjl<
LOI!3V|g'<
f/>
-J
-J
UJ
3t
_1
O ,
V *.
|S£
2=5-
ix>
C
0
z
«£
si
=3
f»
Cr9
UJ
o:
u.
>
c/»
UJ
rr
o
u.
uj
a
II
uo
u
5 "
*1
v>
at
S
«*
5
^ s
3 ?
o- J
C>
U
«C
I
OUI M
£ j»
V)
UJ
a.
z
_J
u
>-
S
to
s
»-
z
1 CUTBACK
«1
1- .0
Z f
UI
> o
O
T
CM
«r
^
o
v
(V»
O
O
Jo
rv
o-
0>
roi
CO
tn
rr
CO
ro
in-
t*>
«w
ro
ro
ro
rg
**?
m
o
ro
cn
fN
CO
fN
r*
CM
CO
rg
m
^p
(A
n
U3
«N
O
to
0
u>
cn
in
CO
in
r*
in
u>
tn
in
in
«T
in
ro
-S
in
in
0
in
at
*T
CO
«T
r*
^
0
«ff
in
f
ro
«r
CN
«W
^
O
^T
cn
ro
CO
ro
r*
CO
u>
M
S
«*
ro
ro
ro
r*j
m
O
ro
cn
!
1
|*^-
(^
cr
X
h
21
^13
rio
«0'i .
-iVJ
IB'
?O)
13S
?
-------
S1H3WWOD
5
g
in
5
ro
UD
S
to
o
to
s
CO
in
r*
to
m
S
CO
in
o
in
a\
CO
5
o
in
CO
CM
«T
O
o>
ro
CO
CO
r*
CO
to
m
CO
ro
CO
CO
X!L_
si
en
CM
CO
CM
£
to
CM
CsJ
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
"i
r*
"
ri
OCi
Q.
>^
V-
g
^J
2'U)
_£
-E
"o
1
vn
c
3~
O r.
A-12
-------
I gl *j
i 5i«l
1 UJ I
lull
Ul ..
-^95
S
in
ol
>- i o
CE O t
O
8a 2
/xl
N
sH
>|J2l
A-13
1~1"' ! K] ^
i
\-
J
i-
0 -
o
£|
£!
IT
r*
i
Si
<*
r-»
(S
r>
^
[J
!~CT
) 1C
Tea
1 12
(V-
t
j
!
f-
r~
Wl
fcO'
in)
to;
^
u
m
ID
fsl
ta
to
o
u>
o
01
CO
in
5
to
m
m
m
*»
in
ro
O
[ fN
1 m
in
o
in
0
*T
CO
*T
r*
w
§
to
f
m
^
tM
^
*
O
*T
O>
fO
CO
n
p^
i*)
tD
rt
in
n
W
rt
M
m
rsj
( .
n
O
n
~m
rsi
CO
r\J
r-
CM
*a
rg
m
CJ
*r
rsj
rt
rsi
csj
rg
rsj
^
m
i
rt>
0«
CT
>
2,
sio
-|sj
,
£'<: s
2\0 ?
o
-o ,
g| f
-------
XD
U
"toijiVi
>/>
~j
_j
3C
_1
*-«
O
£ s
= S3
1"-^
tx)
--§'"
o=S
(/>
> CJ
Ss
O ~"
£
> CD *"
:s *
3 «
«x» «*
<
. v
S *
= '_
o* S
t/» ~*
IS
h-
UJ «j
0= o
° <
sr
U)
o
OUJ M
p= *
V)
u
o.
Z 1 XI
_l Z r-
O Ul
s* o
Sd S
o
SB 3
z§ §
*i~
»g 0
tv> °
3«*
§i
sl
^3*
£1
&\
uT]
d
tf
r
"TO"
r-'
CM
r*»
~
o
r-
cn
0
CO
o
r-»
to
"o~
ID
m
to
*f
l£»
m
to
CM
(*}
CO
ro
r*
ro
ro
v
co
co
co
rsi
co,
ro
o
m
en
rg
CO
fM
fx
CM
O
CM
m
rg
«r
CM
CO
CM
CM
rg
T-
rg
O
£1
en
£
r*
to
in
«r
rn
(M
£
o
U)
<
ro
S
IN,
CO
to
rt
s
ro
CO
CO
CM
t .
O
"i
CO
CM
r-
s
c\
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
O>
CO
C:
"S-
^
o-'
-^~
U)
Ul
vS
o
V
v^
3
r
u.
s'o
*
"'>
~ f_
^1 """
r sjvj
-------
s i it «j
Is:!-* i
S1H3VAVC
0
R
O
LO
r«*
^
ro
~c^
i
r-"1-
Oi
r^
cnt
toj
«n 1
0.
to
to
10
in
to
*r
o
ro
to
rsi
to
to
o
to
0»
U)
CO
Ul
r%
in
to
in
m
U)
v
m
ro
-S
J£»
Ul
O
U)
cn
w
CO
«y
!>
^
O
^
in
1
'm
*r
fM
^
«ff
O
^
m
CO
CO
ro
r*
ro
to
ro
in
fO
^
n
n
rM
< ,
ro
-S
CM
CD
CM
r*»
fM
Ul
CM
in
<>
00
rt
05
cr
UJ
i
0
V
V)
3
r
£U.
So
lA'
?>
g;h
CM _
^,VJ
Si
A-15
-------
Sl.ji-l
-J
J
O s
**
> -
^s
«o ^
i
S I
/ A
. >
*c u
*I
ce
u.
UJ AJ
o 5
u, .
1
UJ
o
<->UI M
>-> crt S
t-= "
Ul
O-
O UJ *~
s> o
>- _« 0
ex o r~
O 1^
<« 5
i uS °
2 j O
III
1
£
ro
H
s
r-
Sf
CO f
to
VD
to
to
to
CM
(£
o
to
tn
cd
in
in
m
U)
in
in
in
CM
m
n
S
en
CO
S
in
5
ro
fM
^
O
S
CO
R
to
m-
tn
m
ro
ro
fM
PO
en
fM
CO
fM
fM
tO
CM
m
to
CM
to
CO
o
to
en
m
oo
in
5
S
m
in
S
PO
m
* (M
in
in
o
in
en
CO
5
S
in
«tf
3
tM
5
O
«O"
en
n
CO
ro
r*
**>
U3
IT
HO
ri
fM
O
CO
Is
CO
CM
fM
<0
CM
in
CM
CM
PN
CM
CM
fM
CM
en
CO
£
₯
^
Oo
CT
l^j
UJ
v£
0
V
VI
3
S
U.
o
1?
£ >
£t l-
tM
-|
^
A-16
-------
Z I 3i
u
£S
< 5
^m
B j tOI
,rsn
o- S
T3 **
It
'
sg
- 5 s rw
i ' a>
1/1
oo
SIN
3 ,5-
2 -5 S , , . ,
>- v I O |iJ
r .^ L°!
o.
rS
Ull
o
in
si
is
£1
3*
5
S «
I !?
O j«
n IA
5 I
CM)
II
t 1
"O
*_)
0{U>
IS'4
wi)='»i5!«3;
to
_l
-J
tAJ
at
_j
»-t
o .
^h
v ^
= ss
t; S >.
S^i
«x>
^5'
53^
i/l
o
0
S «
o-S
tj
»I
ji z
i... £j
sa "
1 n
fc^ >
5
. V
'S 5
3 ?
<§§
t^» w
S
11.
t-
U9 M
UJ S
S s
£ *
n
*
UJ
o
UUI vi
PS 5
A
Uf
Q.
VI
Z 1 -a
_l Z ^~
U Ul
> 0
o: o i-
o u>
« 2
32 -
fe§ §
»5 ^
«r <
ȣ 0
= S 2
o^
PHI
"51
£i_
VT~"
r^ i
r>
p^
1
(%1
r*!
r*-
i
r*.
cn
10
"co
o
r*
to
"o
l£>
in
to
*f
to
ro
(O
CM
o
<£
o
10
cn
u>
CO
in
in
Ji
in
UJ
tn
^
m
ro
in
CM
in
Wl
s
cn
*r
CO
v
r*.
*r
10
^
in
K
*y
^J-
fM
*r
^
0
T
cn
m
CO
ro
r*
ro
to
fO
in
m
v
n
ro
ro
CM
ro
CO
o
ro
cn
fM
CO
CM
r^
CM
<0
CM
in
(M
^
(M
CO
CM
IN
CM
«M
a
cn
J=L
CO
r-.
10
in
S"
fM
_
°t
1
i
1
10
Q
*.
to
N
~~
in
7"
cr
O
x
Oo
^
v»
a I O| »(
« »l *!
^!<
aoipu i oi <
! COPiY^EHTS
|R!
S5'
m
ri
w
r<.
CO
r^
fw
r-«
r*
l~b
r*
-en
*a
CO
to
t
r*.!
101
O
10
in
0
^
u>
CO
o
CO
ro
CM
r ,
CO
o
CO
cn
CM
CO
CN
r*.
CM
10
CM
in
CM
v
CM
S
oj
CM
CM
S
r-
r»
g:
UJ
-.
-J
>
V)
VJJ
-J
1-
%
£|t
0^3
r*.f
*-t
slu.
»'o
w
^;>
^'t-
5iVj
I
3«
O p-
A-17
-------
""'"» ! p.
COMMEHTS
R
g
S
«
r*
~C3
^P
0
in
to
cn
to
3
to
0
to
cn
tn
CO
tn
£
to
in
in
in
in
i
vn
0
in
01
O9
5
u
1
5
fM
5
O
S
s
M
«
Ul
cn
m
CM
-S
CM
CO
CM
CN
U9
in
S
n
(N
rg
o
CM
4
J
i
~1
i
|
N
Oo
kr
.
ki
-j
>
vo
WJ
-J
h
4£
-
"'t
2
uEiS^
*!
oj a
A-18
-------
2 o
. ^
II
d g
>.
UJ
CS
»
re n
E t3
Z o
O *°
E o
, o
s ~
W
SI
21
(M
et\
21
'S
O kO
o
Si*!
Leilas;
<=§
ol £
5
_; S
i ?
S
U.
5 B
£
s
tu
0
"Ul J5
>- 3 "
V)
Ul
CL.
v>
z t -o
> o
>- -J o
go «-
*/>
V. Jg
fell
g£ 1
= jg 2
El
s!
in
r^i
Pi
CM
P
^
en
"S"
0
to
15"
to
Ul
CO
s
CO
t0
s
<£
S
IA
ui
Ul
lO
in
in
m
2
m
S
S
cn
T
CO
r*.
o
in
^
5
?
5
0
cn
CO
ro
£
to
ro
in-
to
ro
CM
n
s
CO
CM
CM
CM
in
S
CM
CM
IN
0
en
JE
CO
£
to
in
§
~
£
o
0
«,
N
to
^
lo
M
O
I*-
sfl
2:
^
t*-
O
0
ro
A
Oil <
W'WV ! g <*
| COIMEHTS
£|
CO
mi
rtt
CO
"rHT
"ol
_co__
i^-T"1
tot
S
s
CO
ro
CO
CO
r-
CO
O
to
s
CO
in
£
to
in
in
in
S
S
in
0
m
5
CO
r*
0
i
rn
CM
£
O
cn
CO
ro
S
rt
«
c*>
en
_£_.
3
cn
CM
CO
CN
R
CO
CM
in
CM
S
R
r>i
rM
CM
°
h-
Oo
V\
M)
«j
1-
QC.
«t
^)cO
OD
S
£
U.
o
U)'
">
CVJ ^^
A-19
-------
S fg
1
e;
re
M
c
s»
1
cu
f I
ii
IP
oj «
r-
to
tc
ml
O
o'
f*1l
~*M]
to
oi
c>!
o
en!
u-i;
CO
LA
r*»
LA
to
LA
LA
m
v
LA
V>
S
in
o
LA
cn
«
CO
*r
r»
^>
to
H
^
^
i
_^
en
n
CO
M
r*
p^
to
n
s
*f
CO
CO
n
(Nl
m
"
^1
CM
(M
r*
(SI
to
CM
LA
r«j
_Sj
ro
^
fN
Cs»
1
-5
f
to
£
2
r-1
rw
^
^
w-o.
io
IS -^r
~ s°
£"
o
o
>-
3<- a
)-> 01
- v>
§00
Or-
1
u.
5s
q K
-
-H
r-
_
^
-
f.
2^
OO ~*
Si
SS
IS I
*2
re *>
u z
.-
=>
^°^
11^
Sfis
k- ._, ,_,
CJ __
^
^2
UJ
"11
«' I
C;
Ol
£:
SN
S:CP
|To
u>
^
L?l
to
Q-
cn
o
LA
c5
LA
h-
_
rv
--
O
Cl.
^i
(Mi
SlVl
0
LA
Cl
Ci
3i
5'
to'
LA
5
ml
CM
v!
o
cn
ro
"cot
To
ro
in
i
"
TTirv
CM
"I
SJi
(M,
CM1
CM!
S!
01 f
£
£
o
rv
cn
CD
I**
to
m
£
£
CM
^
O
O CO
C3
*,*
"w
g "
R: *
"5
OJU>:
i cn wt
c:
e *>
g
o
S
s
fM.
to;
to
o
cn
LA
CO
LA
r*
LA
to
LA
LA
LA
LA
2]
In!
tn
o
m
Ol
CO
5
s
si
«r|
CO
s?<
5
0
Cl
CO
ro
to
LA
-ff-
CO
CM
£'
cn «^
ii
LA
CM
-sH
Z
^-
= = 0
UJ ** -"-
- §*»
o s
5
§1 s
=?"=
g
0>
00
t
tol
-li-
ft
o
i-^:
pH
i f>'1 i
l = is I
"£t2^i
e -
t/>
iO «l
UJ _1
_J U
S 3s
uj ^
y s
UJ *
MEASURED )
Ruul Roads
10< Miles
3
cc
w» ^
* 0
e
Jj
UION
Gasoline Marketed
104Gils.
1-
^ V^
»
"o
I«O
S £.
'.= t«
o 0
3s
O
'S ^
2 K S
Ul
*^>
*^* . . -,
>
O «
a I*
si
e>
- O
Ig
0 _J
5 s
K 5 >
« " o
_^
rv«
^
t1 ^
S~ O
1-
«l
9
c!
Oi
r>.'
o
v
a
s?
s
LA
M
T
PO
ro
ro
CM
m
CO
o
CO
Cl
CM
S
p«k
CM
09
iTl
SI
a!
^
CM
CO
CM
CM
fM
~O
rg
en
CO
r*
o
LA
^
q
-!
c
j
«/>
bj
_1
O
= 2
I'^»
if o A
°3-°
. o
n
3 *^
0-J
2-
oi S
J^Z G
_ v>> <
1 m
*>
Ts "
&i
K
U.
i.i ^
§ 5
u. .
5
Ul
o
3 z ^
C> Ul
> o
> J O
VI **
Ki
Si
S
s:
S
r*
K
[S
I CO
IS
to
o
UD
j
^T
L0|^ ^
S
fl
to
IM
<£>
t£
O
to
5T
IA
Cli
in
lo
rs
L^
ro
in
in
VQ
-,
,^
'"'.
S|f»
en
*r
CO
o
m
5
«*i
CM
5
O
cn
CO
m
*o
^
ro
ro
PO
CM
a
a
(;
r
^"1
^
^
H-
|b
jo|ij-t
jn
('
CM '^f
rN
s
3m ^2-=^*
^ ,2
£% 8*
«" ? O
£5 1
r*
to
in
j;f
fM
£
O
r1~
^
T
&o
ElgiH
|
j~"U5
V)
r"*'
fO
r-
fs
r*
-L,
r°
I m*
i ujj_ ;
(" co "
1 tq^ ^
to
l£>i
O1
U)1
Oi
*7
O
r*»
10
s
si
o|
to
en
i/i
CD)
in!
5
S
tn
in
v
IT)
Ja
CM
m
in
o
Ul
en
*T
oj
^!
r^
v
o
«
LA
V
^1
m
r>j
*
o
«
O>l
M
CD
M
B|
«»
M
S
^
r*>
Si
-?
en
o
. m
i en
! t>*
I
i
tn
s\
CO
04
r*
CM
N;
r^-
Hi .
«N
^ ^
n
r>i
TT
r>j{
«]
-------
!§!*
toils'* K «t
rSi
§&
d g
cc
s
<_
Is
Si
13 2
O .£
o
K °
o vr
a 2
«O
S
r)
N|
5S£
~ O
-£ O
OUJ vi
-. J/
g
o
_ o
s -
sj
111
o
- ~r
iN
A
=c
UJ
.^
o
r-
f^
u>l
tn
r-*
^r>
r^-!
ro' j
ir1
-<-
o
r*
51
0-
o
to
to
in
(O
m
_m
(N
in
Lft
O
U)
o%
w
CO
^
r»
<0
s
U)
^
^
f>
*
CM
^
V
0
cr
O)
ro
CO
D
f*
fO
S
in
rs
w
ro
m
M
CM
( ,
ft
S
~o7
eg
CO
CM
r*
CM
to
rM
in
p^
v
N
f*>
-------
UJ
O
Z) E
S S.
< -
E
o ,°
"5
It
-isi
H
i «j«i
uoip?| S|
1
£ [
-o o r
e> »~ i
**'r
_c_
ID "
r>- _
in
r--
~ ^KX
_j i. i r*p"
5 srgf-
SI
. 0 "
Ul -d «
= '=-
U_ w <3 I
r~i
x
UJ
o
*". « T5
CC . 0
o
c **
1 s
3
3 2
S
If
*S
_
- 1 -
£SS
UJ
CO'
^>i
r-1
(O[
tot
jsL
^Hj
_Sj_
"l
°l
f-1
to
rM
to
t£>i
o|
Oi
"cn!
uo
m
r-.
in
LD
m
in
in
^r
tn
in
TJ
in
-i
in
s
CO
^r
r-»
^T
Z U?
It s1"^
l«"-5
^
o
g|5
5^6
1- 0 °
als
§55
= f a
^55
o
LJ
uS
rw
«e-
1-5
5
cn
ro
CO
fO
r*
(O
i ro
in
ro
1 ro
ro
n
CNJ
ro
, "
0
n
""cfi"
CM
" CO
X CM
£ ~
2.
«S
o f"
ts>
UJ
f-
1 §
H-
1X1
UJ
in
CM
a-
fM
ro
rs»
fM
rM
O . fM
s [1
s s-1^
^ f-5
r*
w
'o
"3
u
n
0.
^ -o
S -s S
>- v
to
~i/i
*T
ro
fM
~0
-,
4
«
...
1
-
I*"
CC
' <
-LEai
*;-sra(>il
Olfl
P?iv.'
ns>i
52
uiifM
RIO
100
^
SiN1
0 g
S!
e [ fs
B
S -s
a
- JS
13
z "3
o ^
* 43
*s
s -=
O ^2
S 2
ii.g
s; gi
i £>'
;T1
in
o
"SM
I ! r I
ruir !
|m| J
oS
«"_
o uj
9-0
>- _J O
SO -,
M
SIcO
S£< -
111
A-22
N
uoiWV ! =| <
1
i
«X»
1
o
o
r^i
r^!
Si
Si
Si
SI
KI
^L.
g|
21
g!
~M
tot
COi
to'
ml
to;
*r
to
CO
to
*M
to
to
o
to
en
m
CO
in
r-*
in
to
m
in
m
«T
m
'CO
^
m
in
o
in
cn
"T
CO
.
l-
?
3
O
VJ
~i
s
cn
^2
O
?it-
tlvD
sl-z
IB' __
Pi VI
T<
-------
APPENDIX B
VOC/NO,, SPLIT FACTOR FILE
-------
APPENDIX B
VOC/NOV SPLIT FACTOR FILE
Appendix B is divided into two sections. The first shows the VOC and NOX
pollutant split factor file for area sources. The second section presents the
same data for point sources.
Each section is listed in order according to Source Classification Code.
The following sequence is followed for all lines:^
1. SCC code - eight digit; and
2. Pollutant Code - HC (VOC), or NX (oxides of nitrogen).
For VOC, the following sequence is then followed:
3. Non-reactives - the fir ;t number is the % by weight of total emissions
category. The second number is the average molecular weight of this
class.
4. Paraffins - %, avg. M.W.
5. Olefins - %, avg. M.W.
6. Aromatics - %, avg. M.W.
7. Carbonyls - %, avg. M.W.
8. Ethylene - %, avg. M.W.
For oxides of nitrogen, the sequence is:
3. Nitric Oxide - % as N02, on weight basis, avg. M.W.
4. Nitrogen Dioxide - %, avg. M.W.
Decimal points are indicated by carats in the first line. They are also
in the same position for each line thereafter.
B-l
-------
AREA SOURCE VOC/NOV PROFILES
BASE YEAR
B-3
-------
PM
I M
55 H
O U
3 <;
;o o o o
ooooooeo
CM CM CM CM CM CM
co o o
tsi
f-
rH CD O CD
CD O O O O O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
C\J CNJ CM CM CM CM
o o o ro o
oooooosoooo<
rororororoiftrororoto
CO
rOrOCMsOOsiTlsOsOsOrOOO
unco asososrHrHsoir>ir>uicr>
C30C3OCDC3C5C3OCM
ro K) ro ro r>-
ON CD r-i 00
OC31T>C3C\)CMC\)C3Oi-l
ro in vo ir> 1-1 o
OCMOOCOO-'OOOOCM
ro
00 00 VO vO O 00 IT)
> r~ r~ r>- m r-- so oo
«o m in in s± \o \o
sO CT> CT> r-i 00 I--
DOJO 00 rH 00 00 CM rH sO 00
rH CM O \O »O »O CM CM rO f^ r- f^ v£> in in in
CMTl CM CM rH rH i-H CM O" O OM> 00 CO CT» OM> CJv O» CM>(T< Cf> & O« ff» 00 00 CO
IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
i-Hr-li-HrHi-HOOOOOOOOOOOOC3C3O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrH
;^ C/^ CT» OS C/s fTS OS OS OS OS
"
OSOS Os OS OS Ts I
y» os 0s Os o*
B-4
-------
AREA S( URGE VOC/NOV PROFILES
1982
B-5
-------
o o o o o o
00 00 00 00 00 00
CM CM CM CM CM CM
O
ooo o
CM
O 00 OOO
1000000000000000
CM C'CMCMCMCM
sj- r^ rx. o^ to cr»
OS rH rH r-l O OS
S3- 1^. O> i-H si-
so o o oro o
CM ooooot>oooooo
r-» to to to to to in to K> to to
to tototo
sO
O O (M
oo
ooinoCMCMrOoorH
o in in in in in o r- r~- r-- in
CM oo oo co 1-1 r-» oo I-* i^ r-~ oo
to os os os »H 1-1 r^ o» cr- o> os
r-l I I ri *H
oo oo oo <^ oo <* r*- r» Is* oo o o
O IO o >o vr o oo m
r~-cccOvor^M50O
sD ITl IA IT) s± sD sD
«D O O» r-< 00 t^ O
CT»i3'>Di>-t
CMCMi-HrHrH
00
I-H ca to o o in o
o*-iN.
CM CM
000000 rH CO OO CM l-H SO 00 1^ r-t r-t 00 00 CO O r-- CO Is- 00 CM IO si- CM O
tototocMo^r-r^cOr-Hcrviiooof^coootOs^toiir*.tor^otninincTNCMt
rn vs-c~j CM CM v3-to so in m in CM co oo 0s to to to m <
> iriinin
CJCMCM
in o^ r»
O* in CM CM fH i-H r-4 CM * t> O~ C^ 00 00 O* ON OO> O O* C7> CT> Os O>> C7»IT« l> 00 00 00
OOOOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorooooooo
C3OOi-li IOOOOOCMIOtOrOsJ-OOOOOOOinin«OsOsOCOOOOOOOOi-l!-IOOOOOCMIOfOIOsl-sOsO^>COOOOO
O* Os Os Os Os Os Os Os Os Os Os Os OS os Os Os Os Os OS O^ OS OS
B-6
-------
AREA SOURCE VOC/NOV PROFILES
1987
B-7
-------
oooooo
CO CO CO coco CO
CM CM CM CM CSJ CM
CO o o
CM
o o o o o o
o o oo o CO CO CO CO CO o
CM CM CM CM CM CM
sr r-- r»- os. 10 os
OS rH rH rH O C7*
I I rH rH rH rH
O O rH O fs» CO OS OS O* O
O OOOK) O
CM o o o o o ON o o o o o o
r^ hOrorororomrotOfOro
O O O O so
o o o o t> o o o CM
ro ro ro 10 rs.
sf sf o o -a- r- eo
(OlOCMsOOsiOsOsQsDrOOO
i I r-l
<** o o r>.
OinoCMlOrOOOr-l
o
CM
in in iri in in o r>. t>. r~ iri
oo co eo I-H r-t oo i~- r-- r^ eo o o
to m-a- fa o
o CM co eo o
co oo oo 0s co >d- r-^ r^ r*. eo o o
OOKJCMO rncMo ojj m in in o
oo r*. st- «tf- ^ CM CM o oo oo oo ** o o
>o ^inm in a oo
\o in m in *r ^o so
CO
r~- CT- so so r^- ro 10 si- in m m so o o
CMCMt-lrHrH r-l rH r-1 f-H rH
rH CD \^* 00 Cfs in O
o o o in si- .
i-l rH rH CM CM
OOOCOOCMsOCMCMCMOOinsrsl-srCMOOOOOOOOCMsl-inoOmOroosOCM
in IT
r-t r-t rH
00 OC 00 rH 00 00 CM rH SO 00 r^ rH r-H 00 00 00 O f~- 00 F^ O Irt SO si" CM O
cMc*r-^r^oorH^rHooor».coooi
rH si" CM CM CM sT rO SO LTI in in CM 00 00 f* si" i
r-H r- r-H CM O SO >O SO CM CM rO f^ PS. r>- SO Sf \J- rH CM rH CM rH SO i-H C7> f- <7>
sOsCsOsOsOCMMCMCMCMOJCMCMCMCMsOsOsOsrsOsl-OOmCOC^-
c\if\cM cMn ifi o> r-. o m si- o o» CM CM CM
\DscsoorHrH.HrHc^oo^CMCMCMrHrHrHsoinsoc
CT>O~-CT«sr CM I J CM rH rH rH CM rH i-l O OS in CM CM rH r H rH CM sf OS OS OS CO 00 O^ O OS OS OS O» CT> CJS OS OS C> OS O» CO 00 00
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 50000XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
oo > o o CD o o o o o o o o o
oo o o o o CD o o o o o o ro o o
in in i 1
i-tr-lrHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQi-HrHi-Hr-lr--lr-l
B-8
-------
POINT SOURCE VOC/NOV PROFILES
B-9
-------
w
I
K
H
W
§
I M
^
«cr r-i o inm m minm ino o o o oca o
OOOOOOOO OOOOCMO O C3 O
CMCMOO<
OOOOOO OO O
oo ro ro ro ro to ro ro ro ro ro ro ro fOro ro
3-b
r-l r-H
CMCM
CM o» O»
oooo oo oo oo eo oo oo oo
CMCM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
«0
CM
ooo
ooo
o ooo
o 00 CO 00 oo o o o
CM CM CM CM
o o o oo
KlrOrOrOrO
f*.C3
a* «3 00 oo co CO 00 CO r-o o r-i o
ro ro OCMOOOOOOO
CMCMCM
mmoo ooo
* CM CM
ooo ooo o o ooo >OO> fJ< ro I-H o o
ooooo ooo ro CM ro CM cr-10 o o
ro ro ro M> rH f» o» \o m
OOO O O NOOrOO rH O
ooooooooOoOoooCMoo- irt rH i~)
OOOvOCNJCSJ
OCMCMOO CMCMCMOO
OCMCM
OCM CM
r-- r^
-H CM
O C3 CM (f-
o r- ro
CMCMCM o O OO OOO<
CM O rH . oo r~ I-H CO oo 00 in 00
>OOOCM ooooooooooo>>»oro\*-rororooa- o r-Horo ro to CM I-H I-H r
rHrHrHCMi-HrOrHrH
. I-H I-H IH ro *o rH i-t ro rH CM to ro ro p ro r>-^-cr> ro o ro
r^ in in -a- >x> oo >o
VO r-l Or-I
NO eooO o oo
> r-. CM vo r-i r-. CM r~-
O Vf/ >O |H I-H rH I-H rH rH i-H CM rH in rH (7» i-H i-H rH O ^ * in O O O O rH <* O Ifl 00 t^ 00
O O OrH i-HO O O O 00 O O O O O rH rH rH i-H rH rH rH O O C7> vO vO in F^-f^ CM -3" v3~ IA 00 ^ vj--3" O O P- O O O O O O C3 IO CM in CM ^ rO C7» O* O^ f>> f> O> SO %O in rO rO -O O fO rH in I-H v£) SO O O O 1IrH rH
o
o
CO
0.0. 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.a.i
B-10
-------
o
o
o o
o o
o o oo o o
o o oo o o
> 00000
rH rHi-HrH Iftlft rH rH rH rH SflD rH
CM CMCMCMOOOOOCMCMOCM CM o so CO CM
rH rH rH
i-H i-HrHrHO CM CM rH rH O rH rH O IT) CM rH
CMCM O CM
O 000
COCO
00
o o r>-oo
sO
i-H K) ro ro IO iO ro ro
O* O* 0* ffs 0Q 00 0V O-
>sj-sj-roro<
rHi-HrH rH I-H rH O r
oo cf> o oo cs o ooo
ss-oio«a-ooivrinoooo3-irisi-oeosi-'ir~r^iriininininininoo
O rH Os O» O vT> O* Os 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 O*
rnxizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
O C OOOOOOOOOOOOs^C3OOOsOOOOOOOO
OO^OrHC\I^OC3OOOrHOC3OC»
OCDC3OC3C3OOOOOOOOCDOC5OOSC5C3OC3OC3OOC3OOOOOOOOOOC3C3OOOOOOOOOOSOSCSCTS
IrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHCMCMCMCMCMrOrOtOhOIOtOrOrOIOlOrOrOrOrOrOhOrOlO
B-n
-------
APPENDIX C
TEMPORAL DATA
-------
APPENDIX C
TEMPORAL DATA
For both point and area sources, temporal data were divided into three
sections. The first section expresses the typical weekday as a percent of
the oxidant season. (If no variations between weekday and weekend day occur-
red, 1.087% was used, since there were 92 days in the 1977 oxidant season).
This section is characterized by a "D" in the final column. Typical hour of
the day splits, characterized by an "H" in the last column, follow. Each
hour of the day is expressed as ci percentage of the whole typical weekday
during the oxidant season. The 1!4 hours of the day are split into four six-
hour groups identified in card column 79. The first group (1H) represents
hours 01 through 06, and so on, with the fourth group (4H) providing data
for hours 19 through 24. Finally, the seasonal distribution is given. It
is characterized by the final "S". This section divides the year into the
four seasons, beginning with December/January/February, and expresses each
season as a percent of the entire year.
Decimal points have been added. They are in the same columns regard-
less of line number. The area source file is presented first, followed by
the point source data. The file for area sources is organized by SCC while
that for point sources is arranged according to state, county, plant, and
point identification number taken from the EIS/P&R master file.
C-l
-------
AREA SOURCE TEMPORAL FACTOR FILE
C-3
-------
O
B
CM
(7>j-isoir) in in in in
c\nn N*-ro o CM !»> m m so CM 10 r-i o r-i o r-i r* r>* <
too unco m m in in
i«51n sj-10 \o CM 10 in in >o to CM o o r^«
mo mm
m
in in
OOC
OOCLOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO
OOOC300000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oocoooooooooooooo
OOOOOOC3O C3'O C3C3OOOOOOCDOOC3OOOOC3OCJC3
C-4
-------
acxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
)^uiu^Msrinu^hOiosOv^csi*'K)a-(oosroo«!rifi'CMir><
I I
C-5
-------
m<
in
CM
IT) CM-O C^ O CO 00 00 vO u~> O >d-f^-O i-i C7> mo O»
>oosO'd-«3-'-itor--roo>i>eocMoineoc\i>3-in'd- * o r- r-» <=> ^- vt- <* M> ^ »nn ^ to in i~. 1-1 in r^ * 10 o^
o o CM \j>3->£>rHc>\jinino%crr^roo>d-N0K)'a-*d-^f^or->r^r^tn^>>3i^ti
CMCOOCO
__ SfvOCO
o r>. r^ r^ in < «a- sr «jFfc> 10 m in «o o o oo o in in in m in m «* in in in in o ro o \o -d- >a- in in in
>O "i- CM CM CO t-t r-t i-H i-l -! CM CM CM CM I-H rH CM CM i-H CM C
-------
POINT SOURCE TEMPORAL FACTOR FILE
C-7
-------
\£>
g
H
U
EOoococoooooeoeOoooooocKMeooococooooioino^tororoioiooocoeOcocooocotoeoootOcOcoeoeotOooooeocotOcoeOoocococoeoeooocO^o
ooooooooocjCMoooooo^r»oominuiifiinooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Oi-H>-IC\)
(i-Hl-Hi-HrHi-ICMCM
>oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-------
OOOOOOOOOOC3OO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC3C»OOOOOOOOOOOOO<
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI
-------
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ODOOOOOOOlTlOOOOOOin
O O O O 00
o o o to
OOC1000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0001300
OOCiOOOOOOC3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO<
c\icsicMojc\j<\ic\ic\)c\icsicsto\)cjcsieMc\iw<\irjcJCNi«Me\ioj<
C-10
-------
aoaaaaoaaaaaeiQaaaaaQaaaaaxxxxxxxxxxxinxxxx:
I/1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
utoooooooooooooooooo
00 O30OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOO 000000
OOOOC3OO
c-n
-------
xxxxxaxxxxxxxzxxxxxz:nx
sOsOsOsOsOsOstisOsOCMtMCMrOrHCslCsJOCMCJCMCMsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsONOsOsO
sOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOC\JC\ICM(Mi-ICSIf\JOC\je\l<\jrJsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsO
sO sO NO sO SO sO SO sQ sO C7* C^ O^ C7» si" FO tO IO O^ &* CT^ C^ sO \O *D SO sO sO SO sO SO sO sO S0
sOOOOO(Mr^rHr-ir>.vOCOOO(MOOOOOOOOOOO
r*eoco«Of\ICMCMCMr».eOGOcoooooooooooo
socooocor^ior^osoeocOooooooooooooo
sO sO SO sO SO SO sO SO SO CO sT^ OS OS LT1 K> IO K) 00 O^ OS CT« SO SO SO SO sO ^O sO sO sO SO SO sO
sOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsD>O(M(M(MOCM(MCMrOCMCJCsJsOsDsOsOsO^OsOxOsOsOsOsO
soooocor^or^rosooooooooooooooooo
-lr-li-li-li-li-li-1i-«rHr-ICMCSIf\l(M
-------
o o o o o oo
OOOOOOO
inoLriirtLrtoLri
CNJOOJOJOJOC\IC\IC\Jili*r-l
NO NO NC NO NO NO NO *^ NO NO *^ ^O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^D NO NO
OOO'JOOOOOI
OOOOOOOOI
ITl C3 ^ L/^ iO C9 O U^ t/> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO N0 NO NO NO '
(\JOO<\lCMOOCM
NOO O
») ro
Oooooooooooo0«o0c0ooo0«0o0ooe0<0o0o0o0«0«0ore0ooo0cxjooo0«0c0o000o0o000ooc0o0(0ooo0ooeoo0c0o0ooooo00000c0c000o0
C3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOC>OOC3OOOOOOOOOOOOO^OOOOOOC3OOOOO
^3 C3 C? C3 ^7 C3 C3 C3 ^D C3 O ^3 ^3 O C3 C? O ^3 O O O ^3 O G9 C? O C ^3 ^3 ^3 CT C3 C3 ^3 ^3 C3 ^"** ^3 **N ^^ **^ (^ ^3 r~* f~% fy t~* t\ t~* tr^ f^ ^^ f% f~t CS *~* O C3 *"^ ^*^
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC3OOOOOC3OOOOO OOOC- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
:f\IC\JCJ(M
ro«K)iOfOK)i^rOiOMrOtOiOK)K>M
C-13
-------
i^COCOtNICSlC^CVICsJWCJCNlCVICSieSJWCSICSIW
O0ooooo0ooo0oocoe0eoo0oo«00oeoooeo<0e0eoe0<0<0ooo0e0cr'00<000o0«0ooe003«oc0ooeoe0o0ooeoc0ooooeoe0o0eoc0<000ooc0«0o0ooooeo
OOC3OOOOC3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC7OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
C-H
-------
xx:
xxxxxxxx
NO NO NO \D NO NO NO NO NO NO NO sO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO O O >
NO NO NO -O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^O NO NO Nf, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^3 NO NO NO NO NO NO
^-liIrHr
00 O O O O
CMCMC^
eooooc
> o o o o
>oooooooooooooooo<
\'c\ics)rjco<\if\j<\i(sjCNj
-------
sT iniT .
C-16
-------
^D **O ^5 ^D NO NO *
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO SO NO NO SO NO NO NO NO NO ^0 NO NO NO NO NO NO *Q NO SO ^0 NO NO NO
NON0NON^
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO "*O ^O NO NO NO NO ^O NO ^D NO NO 'O NO ^O *^ NO NO ^O NO NO NO ^O *JD ^D NO NO t«O
NO NO *O NO ^D ND *O NO NO NO NO *t3 NO *>O NO ^D *O *^ NO NO NO NO ^O ^O NO NO
t^ pvr>.
NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO NO VO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO ND ND NO ND NO ND <*f) *O ^D ND *O ^D
iIr-(rHiIr-IrHFH
rH rH rH r-H i-t rH r-4
niriLnirim'O»OvOsDr-^r~r---r>-eooocOeOt>OCT^oooooiir-irHr-iCMtNJtNJ
I^JC\IC\)<\lWPJC\JC\IC^t\JWCJCJNfU<\lCSIC\l(\J(\ICNlfOC\JC\JCJt\lCSJ(\ICNIC\)C\JfO
ICNJCMCMCM
-------
ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxx
Ni-NTNl-
O *O *& ^O ^0 ^0 ^5 ^0 ^D ^3 ^D ^£ *^5 ^D ^O ^D ^D ^) ^D NO ^0 VD NO ^D ^0 NO NO NO ^D ^3 *>O ^O ^O ^0
OOC30C3C3OC3OOOC3OOOOOOC5C3OC3
OOO30OOOOOCDC3OOOC3OCDOOO
ooo > o o o o o o eao es o o o oo o o o
IMtMCJ
OOOOOOOOOOOI3.OOOOOOC3OOO
-------
xx::xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
«
CD O CD O O O O O CD O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O CD O CD O CD O CD CD CD CD CD CD O CD CD CD O
OCDOOOOOOCDCDOOOOOOOOCDOCDOCDOCDOCDCDOOCDCDCDCDOCDOOO
(\IC\ICJCMCSIfMCMCMCMCMOJ
CD O O O O CD O CD O CD O O O CD O CD CD O O C3 G3 CJ ^ O C3 O C3 C3 C? C3 C3 C3 CD C3 CS O C3 O C3 O C3 C3 C3 O O CD O
O O O O O O CD
'OK>rOrOKlK)fOrOK)rOK)h^rororOK)K>rOK>iOroroK)rorotO
^^^^i^^^^^:
I I1
C-19
-------
C\lrOO N9 ^0 NO *O N9 NO ^D *^ ^D ^) ^D NO NO NO NO ^0 ^£ *O >O ^D NO NO ^) ^D NO ^O ^) ND ^^ NO NO ^D ^D
^) ^D NO NO NO NO ^D NO NO ^9 NO NO ^^ ^D ^9 ^D ^9 vO ^9 NO \O ND NO NO NO ND ^9 ^O NO N9
NO ND v O N9 NO NO NC NO NO N9 *^ NO NO VO NO NO N9 NO NO N9 ^9 NO N9 NO NO NO ^O NO NO NX ' ND NO ^) NO NO NO N9 NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO *O NO NO *O NO NO NO ^9 NO NO
^O ND ^-3 NO NO NO NO ^O NO ^O NO NO ^0 NO \O NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO ^D NO N.O ^0 NO NO >
\Q t^ ^ 3 ^Q ^0 NO ND ^9 NO NO NO NO ^O NO ^0 NO NO ^9 NO NO NO NO ^9 ^0 *>Q NiO NO NO NO N/) NO NO ^0 NO NO NO ^9 ^) N9 NO ^O NO NO ^O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO *^ NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
OOr-lrHrHr-tCMCNJCM
I1 II r-4 l-l
ICNJCSJCJC\ItNJW
>OOO^OOOOO^^OOOO^^C3OOOOOOOOO^OO
)rOK>^iO!OrOiOro>Or^
-------
xxxxxxicxxxxxxxxxrcxxxxxxxxxx:
ONDNDNOMOvDNDND ^NONOsDNDNDNONQNONONONONONONO
vj ^Q sO NO sO NO NO NO -X> NO NO sD NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ' ' NO >O NO NO NO NO NO NO *O NO NO >O O >O ^D ^ ^ sD ^> >O *O O *45 *«O xO SO sO
r-li-H r
NO ND NO NO NO NO NO O SO SO NO NO NO NO NO \O NO ^O NO NO NO NO sO NO NO VO SO NO NO NO NO NO \O N{3 ^D ND NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO \O NO NO NO »O NO NO NO NO
NO ND O SO NO NC NONONONOONONO^NONONDNONONONDNONONONOsC
^0 NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO ^O ^0 NO *& NO NO ^0 *O NO NO ^D ^D sO SO NO SO «O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^D NO NO NO ^0 ^0 ^0 ^0 NO NO NO ^0 NO ^D NO NO NO ^) NO V^ ^D NO NO SO SO NO
Ir-ti-trHi-frHf-Hi-lr
/ *O SO ^9 *>G ^O NO \O sO ^J3 NO NO 'O ^D ^O *^ ^D NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^9 NO h^ NO *O NO NO ^D NO
NO ND NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO £ NO NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO sO *>O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO
<»»* st--r^r»eo oo coco c 0*000 oooi-i^i-irH (McMCM«MK'>roi*>»o>3-sa'«d-'d-inininmvONO NO Nor^r^rv.
r-lr-l -li-(l-li-lr-Hl-lr-lrH^HrHfHr-(rH>-lrHi-»i-li-lrHrHrHp-lrHi- ^rHrtWCNICNlCVICMCNltXICvlWCVICSICJCVIPJCVICJPJCJCOCJWCSIPJCJCJCJCvlCOtNJCJCJ
f\l
-------
sO vO xO NQ sO NO *O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^O *«O \D >*Q *Q *JO ^D "«O ^D ^5 *J5 *O *£) ^D ^0 ^) *O *^ sO ^& NO sD *O vO ^D *^ NO NO NO NO vO NO NO ^O NO NO s0 \O NO CT11 sO NO
NO NO 'O O NO NO ^ NO NO NO NO NO NO SO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^D NO NO NO NO '
Ir-lililf*»It-ir
r-i |>H iI i<
r-- oo to 00 eo r-i
OOC3OOOOOOO
ro 10 i
iv- r-. r>.
oto r
sii^ii
l>
C-22
-------
10000000
o ooo o o o o a o o o r
«» t* r«. * sr o in in o o in in o o in in ooooomino<
NOOOrO(Mo(M(MOO(MC\foo(M(Slooinooo(M(MooCMCMOr
O\OOO O O OO O O
o o ea ea o o o o c ooo
O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOC C3OO
ro co CM rH to o in in m o iri in in ininmoooo
O>l-.tOrOO>OCNJ(\l(MOCMCSJCMOCMrJ \O O -JD \O xO
oooooooooooor
fOCMvOCNJtOOOOCSOOOO
m in in o m m in
mmmoooo
CT> o CO m CXI o o o o o ca o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o
ooooooooooo
10 in o ca ca <3 o ca in in o <= in in
lOrHlOtOtOOOCMrOOOCMCMOOCMCMOOlCoooCMNOO
OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOO^OOOOOOOOOC3OOO
lOIOIOIOIOtON1MIOtOIOIOIOM
^^^^^^:^^^^^^^:^:^^^^^^^^^^^;^^^;^^:^
C-23 I I'
-------
sO sO *O SO SO *O SO sO NO
SO SO s 3 sO ^) sO sO ^D SO sO sO sD sO sO sO SO SO so so sO sO SO sO ^3 SO
< rH rH rH i-H rH
J- sj- --
> so sO sO SO sO sO
00 ^ tT* <^ CTs CD
o o o
l^r^
oooooooooooooocsoocaca^oocseaocrooocoooooocooooocaeaooooooooocaoo^^oooo
OC3C3OOOOOOO
C-24
-------
O O O C3 O O
oooooo
oooooo
000000000
OOOOOOOOO
o o o o o o o o o
rO K> IO»O CM IO M CM CM CM CM K) CM CM CM CM CM CM -<
IO rO rO IO rO r<1 K) rO K)
i-l rH r-1 OC3OOOOOOOOOOOC3CJIOOOOOOOC3OOC3OOOOOOOOCZ)O
-------
so r^ eo ^r-i
OC3C3 => i-H i-H iI f-l
C\JC\JC\J
<\) C\J CSJ
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
C-26
-------
tntr) tr
ic\jr\i(sic\i(v)(\ic\ic\)(Mr\ic^c\jCvi(siN
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ioMroK>iorOKiiorororoiororoioiOMroio
I I
C-27
-------
> o o o o o o o
> o o o o o o cs
> o o
r^. of r-i CM ro Nit- in >oin>or-i CM o-if> so i>. oo ^OP-H (\iror-icMio-i-irnor~ oo r-i(MK)»o
OC OOrHrHflflr-li-tOOOOOOOOr-Hi-li-li-tOOOOOOOOOOOr-l
OC OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOsd-
CMC (MCMCMCMCMCMCMCMPJCMCMCMCMCMCMfMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMtJCMCMCMCMCM
OC OOOOOOOOOCDOOC3C5OOOOC5OC3OCDOOOC3OOC3OO
C-28
-------
APPENDIX D
TULSA CITY-COUMY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
AREA SOURCE REPORT
-------
AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
INVENTORY FOR TULSA, OKLAHOMA
VOLUME II
SPECIFIC AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY
Tulsa City-County a-ulth Department
Air Quality ejection
4616 East 15th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112
EPA Order No. DA-8-6551J
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
April, 1979
D-l
-------
November 16, 1978
Item No. 1 Area Source Emissions
The area source emissions from natural gas usage for residential and
commercial are calculated for August and September.
The number of commercial and residential units were obtained from an
environmental survey. The survey was done by our office.
Natural gas usage was obtained from Oklahoma Natural Gas Company for
the year and for August and September.
Emissions were calculated using emission factors from AP-42.
A computer printout is available listing emissions by square mile.
D-2
-------
OKLAHOMA NATURAL (/AS COMPANY
I'usi Of I ii i |(i'\ ,1 I
Ti'i.>A, OKI AIIOM \ (».
('MM SS >(>!<.I
|;| /(QHh 11'
Mcf
12 mos. ended
August, 1977 August. 1977 September. 1977
Rt sidential
Commercial
Industrial
City Gate
17,256,122
10,044,395
59,278,110
577,877
373,683
.' 491,089
5,780,567
14,179
'J-' 403,683
~y- 444,256
5,993,218
13,846
TOTAL 87,156,504 6,659,518 6,855,001
Average annual use per residential customer - L22.4 Mcf
I !, «
D-3
-------
Glen Castleberry
November 9, 1978
Item No. 2 Special Inventory and Inspections with Engineering-
Science
Our office received special inventory forms from Engineering-Science
and reviewed these forms and suggested changes. The final forms were
mailed to various industries with the states annual emission inventory
forms.
We sent the completed forms, including copies of annual emission inventory
forms to Engineering-Science.
After reviewing the completed forms, Engineering-Science requested
more information. John Wickersham and myself set up appointments
for office conferences with Public Service Co. (Tulsa and Jenks), Williams
Brothers, Explorer Pipeline, and Sun Oil Company. Mr. Toothman and Mr.
Vanzani were introduced to the representatives of the industries and were
able to obtain some helpful information.
The inventory forms and subsequent information has all been forwarded
to Engineering-Science.
0-4
-------
Item No. 3 Oil and Gas Production Data
The State of Oklahoma Corporation Commission was contacted for information
on oil and gas production.
The Corporation Commission supplied a document of secondary recovery com-
piled by their Oil and Gas Conservation Department. The document was
1976 statistical information (the latest available).
The Corporation Commission supplied 1977 data for oil and gas production
in Tulsa County.
The following pages list the data received and the emissions calculated
from the data.
The emissions were calculated using the latest emission factors. These
factors were developed by Radian Company in Austin, Texas.
D-5
-------
Item No. 3
1977 EMISSIONS INVENTORY - OIL & GAS PRODUCTION
Tulsa County
1. Data for overall production is 1977 figures. However detailed emissions
for secondary recovery is based on 1976 data.
2. Oil Production - 1977 - Tulsa County.
Wells: 1365 to 1379
crude prod. 835,000 barrels ann.
condensate 16,000 barrels ann.
3. Gas Production - 1977 - Tulsa County.
5-8 wells
Nat. Gas 176.94 x 106 ft3/yr.
4. 1976 Secondary Recovery.
38 projects
144 injection wells
28.277 x 106 fluids injected
344 producing wells
710,988 barrels produced.
5. 1977 wells/production less 76 secondary reduction.
WeVls Prod.
1379 835,000
-344 -710,988
1035 wells 124,012 barrels
6. Secondary production by type.
Type Injection Injection Production
Well s Bbls. Wei 1 s Bbls.
Brackish 2 46,000 9 15,439
Gas 13 13,184
Freshwater 17 78,000 48 31 ,2f7
Not Indicated 2 304,000 9 17,772
D-6
-------
Injection Production
6. continued Wells Bbls. Wei 1s Bbls.
Strem Water 47 724,000 67 13,442
*Salt Water 76 27,125,000 198 619,904
*Remainder of total sec. prod & injection wells.
7. Emissions
A. Brine flooding
520 Ibs
103 bbls (n°n methane)
(619,904 + 15439) * 635,343 - 635 (103) bbls.
635 x 520 * 330,200 Ibs = 165.1 tons/yr.
B. H20 Flood
700 Ibs
103 bbls.
700 x (31.267 + 13.442)103 = 700 x 44.7 =
31,296 * 2000 = 15.6 tons/yr.
C. 5% oil - water
124 lb/103 bbls non-methane
Using not indicated prod.
124 x 17.77 (103) = 2203 Ib = 1.1 tp_ns_
y.
D. Standard Prod emissions
40 lb/103 bbls crude
Using conv prod + gas inject SR = (124 + 13.1)103
137.1 x 40 = 2.7 tons/yr.
E. Natural Gas Production
175 lb/106 ft.3
176.94 x 175 = 15.5 tons/yr.
D-7
-------
F. Total Emissions
Conventional prod. 2.7
S.R. Total 181.8
165.1 + 15.6 + 1.1 -
Total emissions oil prod. 1§4.5
Emissions gas prod. 15.5
Grand Total Emissions
011 and Gas Prod - 200 tons
D-8
-------
Grady barrens
June 21, 1978
Item No. 5 Vessel Usage
I contacted the Lake Patrol Division of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and
the U. S. Corps of Engineers about vessel figures on Keystone Lake during
1977. Neither agency was able to give me more than general information.
However, the Reservoir Recreation Division of the Corps of Engineers stated
that there were 15 to 25 boat ramps on Keystone. It was also stated that
during the peak boating season as many as 200 boats per week day and as
many as 1,000 boats per weekend day used the lake.
D-9
-------
Item No. 6 Gasoline Marketing Update
The information for updating gasoline marketing was obtained from the
Oklahoma 011 Marketers Association and a Tulsa City-County Health De-
partment service station survey.
The total gasoline sales were obtained from the Oklahoma Oil Marketers
Association. The August and September gasoline sales were obtained from
the sales terminals.
The survey indicated 15.5 percent of the tanks at service stations do
not have submerged fill (drop tubes), therefore increasing the emissions.
The following is the total emissions and the prorated emissions for
August and September. The computer printout is a list of total emissions
per square mile. Emissions by square mile were obtained by comparing
total emissions for 1974 with total emissions for 1977. The compared
totals show an increase of 19.77 percent. Each square mile was adjusted
to reflect this increase.
D-10
-------
Item No. 6 Gasoline Marketing Update
V.O.C. losses from service stations in Tulsa.
Based on Table 4.4-4 of AP-42 Supplement 7 the following emission factors
were combined to give a total hydrocarbon loss of 18.0 lbs/10^ gal. trans-
ferred for submerged fill.
Submerged filling 7.3 lbs/10^ gal. throughput
Underground tank breathing 1 lbs/10^ gal. throughput
Displacement at vehicle 9 lbs/l(P gal. throughput
Spillage 0.7 Ibs/lOJ gal, throughput
18.0 lbs/103 gal. throughput
For those outlets (service stations) that do not have submerged fill, the
hydrocarbon-losses are *4.£ Ibs. per 10* gallons transferred more or 22.4
Ibs. per 103 gallons throughput.
*Ref: Table 4.4-4 of AP-42.
The Tulsa City-County Health Department has determined from the most up to
date survey of service stations that 15.5% of the tanks do not have submerged
fill (drop tubes) or the drop tubes are over 1 foot short of complying with
Regulation 15.
Using a total gasoline sales of 309 x 106 gallons per year based on an estimate
by the Oklahoma Oil Marketers Association one can calculate the V.O.C. losses
in the following manner:
A. Stations in compliance
309 x IP6 gallons x 18 Ibs. x .845 x 1 = 2349.9
yr. iQ3 gal. 2000
B. Stations not in compliance
309 x IP6 gallons x 22.4 Ibs. x .155 x 1 = 536.4
yr. io3 gal. 2000
Total loss = 2886.3 tons per year.
C. Prorate total for Aug. and Sept.
34.7 x 106 gal/Aug. & Sept. = 11% of total
309 x IQo gal/yr.
2886.3 T/yr. x .11 = 317.5 T/Aug-Sept.
D-ll
-------
ERVICE ST'fVrm;' l.iiV'1 iimirr
SQUARE MILL -.iui'nr-1.
10 fill fi, ||J..,l.li I'
102
182
183
192
193
1.9'!-
202
273
'' 8 ' I-
2-l-
892
893
89 M
99 :>
99!|.
l.f):')M-
UV--M
1 0 9 .?,
.1 1.7M-
.! 1.83
1. 1 81!-
1. 1 9j.
.1. 1.93
1 20.^
i 2 0 3
1273
1.283
1.28M-
'' L . L o ' ' ' ' I
i|. / 9 | ;:.:',
'.':? , 7'l- I .' ' !
'"! , 6 > '- '
r-, , , y f , I ' '
i|?,9| '"' .-.'::
I '-) . I ', M.'i/1
I... 11 \ I" "-'I
' ' , <:'> 1 ' ' '
1V""!.'>? !.f)^,'^!
:i U 0 . ,:. l. |-| . ' ''!
If', 11 t\ . :\
lo , 7 ? 1" I|U
'1-3. l.> ::'-. ' '
:.)> c -to '.;,''''
IM^.71 ;j9,,-.ii
1.9,16 11 ,'i-,7
92 , 22 55 , '.: >
73,06 M-3,7>l-
M-li . 72 2M- . >'
19,16 .1.1, 'I-/
75 , '-1-6 M-5, 18
6l( , 2 r M-0 . *' /
3!S. 3 1 2'' ''..
68.2? M U :-;x !,|.,i | ^t! , M u
i. III! 61 '" "'!
; ; "8 ' ii "'
1 >! . 3V :' ' 1
1. Mil , 6 1. !l - ""
i. ii . . LIU ..! . :
I'!,;1 8 , . i.
1 ;M 'V, ,'< ' .
i , i i i j ' '
,' 1 i , ' , , ' ! 1- ' '
i. 1 " ,' J / ! ' '
" , . . 1 ' , '' i
1." !. 11 ': /
r..- . ;'!-! /".' . i1
? . '.".I ' '' '!
;i >', i'ii .'.''
!?' "' ; J. '..».."
S' ' , ','' i.i .''.''
4- , j . I ?. '".,':
99 , M. i '''' "' ..:
!.6,7,' l'l.!"l-
1.-..77 i- '.."'f
S 'j!'-' ^!- '! 'I
L! ;'-.) ! . '. ,7
2.M- , !"i
D-12
-------
SERVICE STAflUrJ IrlVKi'TOPY
SQUARE HI Li: ::fni>AGI-" I'fi i .', I i'n )'r.
I. lUui fJni.LUN'.; ,1 (Miu I., IT, - ,- I-
1293 1.24- , S6 /M ' 7}
1.302 J2/, ,96 76,iM
.1.312 3',.. .'; ? ?| ,M.
1393 .1. I.V , 77 71. , ,'!
1402 'Ml-, 3 7 H,,,|
1403 1 , ..'il , 72'
.1.492 2J , 9';, |i| , .-i|.
1493 Ul. 4'1 48 ,"
!683 '>:<,
1792
1 793
1303
13 M' i
1824
1093
1894
.1.903
1.924
.1.983
1.993 ,...,yj
1994 71,86
2003 3'". ,9<
2092 J. 7 , 9 7
2094 u , Ml-
2.193 2^'-',rii|
,1203 .I'..-;-:
2292 X'^'.AM
2293 I.'-..ii , '.' i
2302 Ml- , 17
2393
2402
2' I-13
2483
2492
24<;>3 I i'! ' , i.i". ') M j , (i n
2 SI. 3 . .1 , Ml '.!,.!
2573 In. 77 ' .1 , mi
?._'f3? U,, 77
23^2 1.1 :<.'..) 7
2b<-'3 '.-;<...'/!.
2602 I. i .<->:<
2603 :.( 7 , 4 $
2692 '.".I ;,i.r<>
D-13
-------
SERV u:i: 'STAi'iON IMVI
SQUARE iHLE STl.H-YiO'.-
lOOu GnLLUi
2693 4-5 . 5 I
2703 !.<:?,/>'!
2792
2793
2303 '
2392 '! .' . 9 I.
2893 1.311,5!.;
2903 1. I..:. . l:i
29QI-I- 'i . "'"'
29^2
2993
2991-!- ~;* . 7'I-
3003 ," ;.i-l-6
3004- M-II , 7 ?
3014 ,.59
3093 U>1 6°
3091-1- 20,7'l-
3103 1.H il , » I >''' 2M-
3104 151! ,91 9ii , -'.'.I
3113 I'M- 1..L ,'-1-7
31.92 -59 2, 1.5
31.93 I.'""-'. 3''. ,',',') "i
31.9i.|. J'Mo
3203 lo, 7
3201-1- 5.1. ,50
70 <;>';> 2 , _ 9' ;
3293 :in -;, LIU
3303 'I- i . I. ' ::"..::''
3'3V.> ! J !. , '-l-'l 'I !' . ,'/.
31-1-02 5/.M''' ?'l , 'I -:1
3I-I-03 I.->':' . 'VI 111.15
31-1-92 !'":. "'I- :i" "'
3H 9 X i u ,' ,79 AM ,5'|-
3502 i. ,'.'>' i' !. 0 , /-.
3503
3593
3602
'I-021 2..> . 95 lh . ".'I-
D-14
-------
November I fa, iy/8
Item No. 7
Soil Farming Data
Soil farming data was requested from the various industries. The information
received is compiled on the following table.
Type of waste, square mile grid location, area, total waste in barrels per
year, per cent oil content in waste, and barrels per August and September
are listed on the table.
Waste
Oily Sludge
Bio-Sludge
Tetraethyl
lead sludge
Tank Bottom
sludge
Oily Sludge
Leaded Sludge
Oily Waste
(Pond re-
tention)
Sq. Mile
Grid
3272
(Creek Co.)
1492
1492
1492
1092
1092
3272
(Creek Co.)
Area
113 acres
5.5 acres
20 acres
3,120 sq.ft.
2.8 acres
3.67 acres
Total
bbls/yr.
260,975
52,000
48
13,095
180
6
104,025
C5 Oil
content
50
.26
25
35
25
25
50
r Aug-Sept
(bbls.)
43,615
8,714
N/A
2,182
56
6
17,385
D-15
-------
January 16, 1979
Item No. 8 Cutback Asphalt Usage
The Tulsa County Engineer and various asphalt companies were
contacted regarding the use of cutback asphalt.
The County Engineer sent a letter responding to the use of cut-
back asphalt and a copy is included.
The total usage of cutback asphalt in Tulsa County was received
from five companies. The totals and emissions are listed in the
following pages. The emission factors were obtained from RACT
documents from EPA.
D-16
-------
January 15, 1979
G.E.B.
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FOR 1977 FROM USE
OF CUTBACK ASPHALT
The following companies reported the usage of cutback asphalt for 1977 in
Tulsa County:
1. Anchor-Amulco (MC) 522,215 gallons
2. Monarch Asphalt (MC) 7,500 gallons
3. Standard Industries (MC) 192,970 gallons
4. Tulsa Rock (McMichael) (MC) 145,000 gallons
Tulsa Rock (MCMichael) (SC) 24,000 gallons
Tulsa Rock (McMichael) (RC) 14,000 gallons
5. Cummins Construction Co. (MC) 25,316 gallons
Cutback asphalt weights approximately 7.82 pounds per gallon.
The percentage of diluent to evaporate is: SC 25% average
MC 70% average
RC 80% average
The fraction of diluent, assume 35% by volume, therefore, by weight:
SC 31.1%
MC 29.8%
RC 25.5%
Total cutback asphalt used in Tulsa County for 1977:
MC 894,001 gallons
SC 24,000 gallons
RC 14,000 gallons
Emissions are based on factors from EPA-450/2-77-037, Control of VOC From
Use of Cutback Asphalt.
Hydrocarbon emissions = cutback asphalt (tons/yr.)
x fractions diluent x fraction of diluent that evaporates
Total hydrocarbon emissions
SC = 24,000 gal. (7.82) (.25) (.311) = 7.3 T/yr.
MC =894,001 gal. (7.82) (.70) (.298) = 729.17 T/yr.
RC = 14,000 gal. (7.82) (.80) (.255) = 11.17 T/yr.
Tulsa County Cutback Asphalt HC 747.64 T/yr.
Emissions for 1977
D-17
-------
Tuisa County
County nglneer
A Department ot tht: Board ot County
Tulsa County Administration Bldy 5
-------
REPORT. . . on Tulsa County's usage of cutback asphalt.
Tulsa County highway departments used 85,774 gallons of cutback asphalt from
May 1977 to October 1977. This was all _MC grade oil. He did not use any £C
or SC grade oil.
In reference to question on how this will effect our operations, Tulsa County
uses cutback asphalts in the following operations:
A. Seal coating, what is commonly called chip seal. This operation uses
approximately 3,000 gallons MC oil per mile depending on width of road
being surfaced.
Cationic emulsified asphalts can be used in place of cutback asphalts for
this operation. Some minor procedure changes will have to be made in the
way the material is handled and the way the paving operation itself is
conducted.
B. Mixing of rock, oil and soil, commonly known as preparation of oil mat
for base material - this operation uses approximately 10,000 gallons per
mile per inch of thickness. Tulsa County does very little of this for
preparing a totally new base. Anionic emulsified asphalt can be used in
place of cutback asphalts for this operation. This change would require
Tulsa County to make some minor operational changes.
C. Penetration coat - this operation involves the use of cutback asphalt
in preparation of subgrade or rock base for asphaltic concrete overlays.
This involves using approximately 0.3 gallons per square yard of surface.
The cutback asphalt penetrates the soil or rock whichever is used and makes
moisture seal in top 2 or 3 inches of material where penetration shot is
used. Our use of this type of application is limited and probably would
rot exceed 20,000 gallons per year. At present time I do not know of any
rraterial that is used for substitute.
If emulsified asphalt is used the water penetrates the surface, but the
emulsion itself stays on surface as film and is tracked up by equipment
in paving operation.
Tulsa County's project usage of cutback asphalts for chip sealing would be
170 miles of surfacing for year of 1978. This would amount to approximately
510,000 gallons. There are some cost advantages for Tulsa County to L ,'itch to
emulsion for chip sealing, but at present time, we have some contracts for
cutback asphalt which will probably account for approximately 100,non Mai Ions
of the 510,000 gallons projected usage. I request that we be allowed to complete
existing contracts with the understanding that we convert to emulsion as these
contracts are completed. As to time frame involved, I do not know, therefore,
I would request that we be allowed to complete contracts between January 1,1978,
and October 1, 1978.
I would also request that variance procedure be incorporated if and wrier. Tulsa
County might want to use cutback asphalts for penetration coat oneration. I
think we can overcome problems involved in operation.
D-19
-------
Calendar Year 1977
Item No. Q Qn-site Incineration
The following is a list of incinerators in Tulsa County. The report includes
street addresses, maximum design capacity, and emissions (Ibs/hr) for parti-
culates, SOx, CO, HC, and NOx. The emissions are calculated based on reported
hours of operation and emission factors from EPA document AP42.
Sq. Mi.
Grid
1794
2793
0794
0193
0194
1293
2593
2603
2293
0383
1994
3104
2893
0593
0703
Max. Design
Capacity
Skaggs Albertson
11333 E. 31st St.
Sheridan Discount
5046 S. Sheridan
Plaza Red Bud
1130 S. Garnett
Meadowood Red Bud
9212 E. Admiral PI.
Rolling Hills Red Bud
19296 E. Admiral PI.
Skaggs Albertson
1939 S. Memorial
Tulsa Bldg. Supply
8516 E. 41st
Board of Education
1555 N. 77th E. Ave.
Wool co
4903 E. 41st
St. Francis Hospital
6161 S. Yale
Giant Discount
11005 E. 41st
Crosstown Discount
10061 E. Admiral PI.
Amoco Research
4502 S. Yale
Bama Pie
2745 E. llth St.
Bestyet Foods
4601 N. Peoria
700
500
375
100
300
600
130
100
1000
600
375
375
1000
750
400
Ibs/hr.
1
1
1
1
1
1
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
Ibs/hr.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
bs/hr.
Part.
3577
3094
2116
655
1966
2299
118
73
637
546
3276
3276
910
3412
1100
Emissions Ibs/yr
SOx CO
1277
1105
756
234
702
877
42
26
228
195
1170
1170
325
1219
393
5110
4420
3022
936
2808
3510
169
104
910
780
4680
4680
1300
4874
1571
HC
1533
1326
907
291
842
1053
51
31
273
234
1404
1404
390
1462
471
NOx
1533
1326
907
291
842
1053
51
31
273
234
1404
1404
390
1462
471
D-20
-------
Sq. Mi.
Grid
2492
2993
1093
1693
1783
0192
1893
3393
0593
T.83
Brookside State Bank
3237 S. Peorla
Edison High School
2906 E. 41st
Evans Electric
2002 Southwest Blvd.
Doctors Hospital
2323 S. Harvard
Oral Roberts Assn.
8100 S. Delaware
Page Milk Co.
519 E. 7th St.
Petty's Fine Foods
1964 Utica Square
Skaggs Drug Center
3328 E. 51st.
Tulsa University
600 S. College
University Village
8555 S. Lewis
Totals in Ibs/yr.
Totals in tons/yr.
Max. Design
Capacity
100 Ibs/hr
Emissions Ibs/yr.
Part. SOx CO HC NOx
130 Ibs/hr. 237
85 339 102
252
100 Ibs/hr. 819 293 1170 351
25 Ibs/hr. ' 127
45 181
150 Ibs/hr. 164
59 234
100 Ibs/hr. 182
65 260
54
450 Ibs/hr. 819 293 1170 351
70
78
102
90 360 108 108
351
54
351
750 Ibs/hr. 1365 488 1950 585 585
70
300 Ibs/hr. 1310 468 1871 561 561
78
600 Ibs/hr. 1310 468 1871 561 561
33,640 12,073 48,280 14,483 14,483
16.8 6 24 7.2 7.2
D-21
-------
Item No. 10 Dry Cleaning
Inventory forms were developed and sent to all dry cleaning establishments
in Tulsa County.
The information received was compiled to develop the emissions. The
emissions were developed using emission factors from AP-42 and basic
knowledge of the process.
The inventory questionnaires had a 90% return, therefore the total emissions
were adjusted 10% to allow for those not received.
The inventory indicated 21% of the dry cleaning was done in August and
September.
Cleaning operations were done 63.3% of the time between 6 a.m. and 12 noon
according to the information received.
The following pages list emissions per square mile, total emissions,
emissions during August and September, and emissions during the morning
hours.
D-22
-------
Nov. 3, 1978
William L. Gibbons
Item No. 10 ORGANIC MATERIALS EMISSIONS
1977-Dry Cleaning
1. Total Emissions
Petroleum solvents 242 tons
Perch!oroethylene 349 tons
591 tons/yr.
2. Emissions Aug. through September
Based on 2U of materials are cleaned in Aug.-Sept,
Emissions - 591 x .21 = 124.11 tons
3. Cleaning operations 6-12 a.m.
'53.3% of cleaning during time period.
591 x .633 = 374 tons/yr.
124.11 x .633 = 78.56 T/Aug.-Sept.
D-23
-------
November 7, 1978
ORGANIC MATERIALS EMISSIONS
1977-Dry Cleaning by Square Mile
Square Mile
No. T/Yr. T/Aug-Sept.
0282 3.9 .82
0583 3.5 .74
1183 3.2 .67
1983 4.2 .88
0284 3.6 .76
1184 14.6 3.07
1484 3.8 .80
1191 14.0 2.94
1291 3.5 .74
2391 6.1 1.28
0192 16.4 3.44
0492 5.4 1.13
1292 6.9 1.45
2492 3.5 .74
2692 2.5 .53
2892 3.5 .74
3392 3.1 .65
0293 5.5 1.16
0593 8.4 1.76
0693 3.1 .65
0793 17.6 3.70
0893 8.4 1.76
0993 28.1 5.90
1093 80.1 16.82
1193 55.1 11.57
1393 6.1 1.28
1493 6.8 1.43
1593 3.1 .65
1693 8.3 1.74
1993 15.1 3.17
2093 5.7 1.20
2293 4.1 .86
2393 18.1 3.80
2593 19.5 4.10
2693 18.4 3.86
2893 9.1 1.91
2993 8.9 1.87
3093 5.8 1.22
3193 10.8 2.27
3493 3.6 .76
0694 3.6 .76
0794 4.3 .90
0894 3.5 .74
0994 4.5 .95
1994 8.3 1.74
2094 6.1 1.28
0102 3.6 .76
2402 5.8 1.22
D-24
-------
Square Mile
No. T/Yr. T/Aug-Sept,
3402 3.6 .76
3602 14.0 2.94
0703 6.1 1.28
1903 7.4 1.55
2703 7.5 1.58
2803 10.5 2.21
2903 13.1 2.75
3003 9.2 1.93
3103 5.1 1.07
3203 3.8 .80
3303 6.8 1.43
3503 2.4 .50
3603 3.8 .80
3612 3.5 .74
3014 7.4 1.55
TOTALS 591 124.11
D-25
-------
June 26, 1978
William L. Gibbons
Item No. 11 COAL USAGE FOR HEATING PURPOSES
This report is in regard to the numbers of heating devices
where coal is used as the heating source for commercial or
residential buildings in Tulsa.
Mr. Scotty West, Tulsa City Building Inspector states that he
has no knowledge of the use of coal for heating. Mr. West
querried the city boiler inspector who also knows of any
boilers for space heating which use coal.
Mr. West stated that installations in the past several years
are generally installed with provision for conversion to fuel
oil in lieu of natural gas.
D-26
-------
Item No. 12 Aircraft Emissions
The aircraft emissions were calculated by our office using information
received from Engineering-Science.
The LTO cycles and breakdowns into individual categories were obtained
from telephone conversations with the airport managers by Engineering-
Science.
The emissions factors were all taken from AP-42.
The following table list the emission calculated and the square mile
location of each airport.
D-27
-------
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS
Tons/Yr.
9-27-78
No. of
Aircraft Engines LTO's
Tulsa International -Sq. Mi .
Long range jets
Med. range jets
Piston Transport
Air carrier turboprop
Military
Jet
Piston
Helicopter
General Aviation
Business jet
Turboprop
Piston
Part.
SOv
CO
HC
NOX
2303 & 2403
4
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
Jones (Riverside) Airport -So.
General Aviation
Business jet
Single-engine piston
Twin-engine piston
Air carrier turboprop
Mil itary
Helicopters
Tulsa Downtown Air Park-Sq.
Piston
Harvey Young Airport -Sq. Mi
2
1
2
2
2
Mi
1
^
4
.75 18
4
3
23
35
11
Mi. 1382
144
11
,690
,759
480
,320
,574
150
38
,836
,754
,918
786
,391
,001
230
7
11.35
10.58
.54
.86
1.11
.02
.01
2.62
35,75
.12
.09
1.44
.22
.05
Neg
14.63
26.05
.27
.78
2.72
.01
.01
8.82
6.44
.08
.03
1.01
.15
.04
Neg
444
438
291
13
53
11
376
110
72
12
880
134
.61
.49
.84
.39
.97
.40
.22
.61
.84
.70
.42
.79
.21
.71
.04
386
126
39
4
35
1
85
39
2
2
28
4
.46
.39
.07
.75
.49
.53
.02
.81
.33
.38
.83
.88
.40
.25
Neg
74.10
263.09
.38
5.18
11.76
.02
.02
38.14
42.90
.28
1.26
3.39
.52
.28
Neg
. 1502 (Osage County)
21
0994
,600
.22
.15
131
.76
4
.32
.51
Piston 1 5,400
Aircraft Emissions Tulsa County (tons/yr.)
Totals
.05
.04
32.94
1.08
65
61
3007
76.
44
D-28
-------
Item No. 13 OPEN BURNING HOUSEHOLD REFUSE
City of Tulsa (Environmental Survey)
3.4 people/house 4.5 Ibs/refuse/person/day
15.3 Ibs/refuse/house/day = 5585.5 Ibs/refuse/house/year
577.99 T/yr. x 16 = 4.62 T/yr. Part.
577.99 T/yr. x 1 =578 Ibs/yr. SOX
577.99 T/yr. x 85 = 24.56 T/yr. CO
577.99 T/yr. x 30 = 8.67 T/yr. HC
577.99 T/yr. x 6 = 1.74 T/yr. NOX
County of Tulsa
2.6 people/house 4.5 Ibs/refuse/person/day
11.7 Ibs/refuse/house/day = 4270.5 Ibs/refuse/house/year
County Population: 27,150 people x 2.6 people/house
10,442 houses x 60% of total burned trash
6,265 x 4,220.5 = 13,378 T/yr.
13,378 T/yr. x 16 = 107 T/yr. Part.
13,378 T/yr. x 1 =6.7 T/yr. SOX
13,378 T/yr. x 85 = 568 T/yr. CO
13,378 T/yr. x 30 = 200 T/yr. HC
13,378 T/yr. x 6 =40 T/yr. NOY
D-29
-------
APPENDIX E
TULSA COUNTY REGULATION 15
-------
SECTION 215
Control of Emissions of Organic Materials
A. Purpose
The purpose of this regulation is to control the emission of
organic materials from stationary sources in order to protect and
enchance the air quality, to insure that the Oklahoma air quality
standards are not exceeded and significant deterioration is pre-
vented in the City of Tulsa.
B. Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds Greater than 40,000
gallons (952 bbls)
No person shall build, sell, operate, install or permit the build-
ing, operation or installation of any stationary tank, reservoir or
other container of more than 952 barrels capacity which is used for
storage of any volatile organic compounds unless such tank, reservoir
or other container is a pressure tank capable of maintaining working
pressures sufficient at all times to prevent organic vapor or gas
loss to the atmosphere, or is designed, and built and equipped with
one or more of the following vapor-loss control devices:
I. A floating roof, consisting of pontoon type, internal floating
cover or double-deck type roof, which rests on the surface of
the liquid contents and which is equipped with a closure seal,
or seals to close the space between the roof edge and tank
wall. Provided howevtr, new open floating roof tanks must
have double seals or equivalent. Such floating roofs are not
appropriate control d -vices if the volatile organic compounds
have a vapor pressure >f 11.0 pounds per square inch absolute
E-l
-------
(568mm Hg) or greater under actual conditions. All gauging
and sampling devices shall be vapor tight except when gauging
or sampling is taking place.
2. A vapor gathering system and vapor disposal/recovery system
3
that discharges to the atmosphere no more than 0.67 lbs/10
gallons throughput or 80 mg/liter o£ organic materials from
the control equipment. All tank gauging and sampling devices
shall be vapor tight except when g.iuging or sampling is
taking place.
3. Other equipment or means of equal efficiency or greater for
purposes of air pollution control as may be approved by the
Director.
4. Provisions of paragraph B shall not apply to crude oil or
condensate prior to first custody transfer and which is stored
in vessels of less than 10,000 barrels capacity; this exemption
shall apply to these storage vessels in being on the effective
date of this regulation.
Gasoline Service Stations
1. Storage. No person shall build, sell, install, operate or
permit the building, installation or operation of any station-
ary, permanent organic material storage tank with a capacity
greater than 400 U.S. gallons and less than 40,000 U.S. gallons
unless such tank is bottom filled or is equipped with a permanent
submerged fill pipe (drop tube) and tight-fill cap or is
equipped with other devices of equal or greater efficiency.
2. Unloading. All loading of the above organic material storage
tank shall be conducted by "tight-fill".
E-2
-------
D. Bulk Gasoline Plants
Bulk plants shall be equipped so as to maintain a 97% submergence
factor during transfer of !',asoli.ne«
E. Terminals - Bulk Gasoline Terminals
No person shall build, operate, install or permit the building,
operation or installation of a stationary gasoline loading facility
unless such loading facility is equipped with a vapor-collection
and/or disposal system properly installed, in good working order
and operating in conformance with the following requirements:
1. When gasoline is loaded through the hatches of a transport
vessel, a pneumatic, hydraulic or mechanical means shall be
provided to ensure a vapor-tight seal at the hatch.
2. A means shall be provided to prevent gasoline drainage
from the loading device when it is removed from the transport
vessel, or to accomplish complete drainage before removal.
3. When loading is effected through means other than hatches,
all loading and vapor lines shall he equipped with fittings
which make vapor-tight connections and which close automati-
cally when disconnected.
4. The vapor collection .ind/or disposal portion of the system
shall consist of one >r more of the following:
a. An absorber/adsorber system or condensation system that
discharges (into the atmosphere) no more than, 0.67
lb/1000 gal. throughput or 80 rag/liter of organic compounds,
bt A vapor handling system which directs all vapors to
a fuel gas incineration system with a minimum disposal
efficiency of 99%.
E-3
-------
c. Other equipment which discharges no more than 80mg/l,
provided plans for such equipment are submitted to and
approved by the Director.
5. Storage vessels, as described in Sub-Section 215-C of this
section, may be used for intermediate storage prior to disposal
of vapors as per A, B, C, if they are designed to prevent the ""
release of vapors during use. This sub-section shall apply to
any facility which loads gasoline into any transport or delivery
vessel designed for t ansporting gasoline and which has a
capacity greater than 250 gallons.
^* Transport and Delivery Vest els used with Vapor Recovery Systems
No person shall operate or permit the operation of a vapor-laden
transport or'delivery vessel unless it itieets the following requirements:
1. The vessel shall be so designed and operated as to be vapor-
tight except when sampMng or gauging.
2. The vessel shall be equipped and operated so that the gasoline
vapors are delivered to a vapor recovery/disposal system.
3. There shall be no leaks between the delivery and storage
vessels.
G. Refinery Wastewater (oil/water) Separators
No person shall build, operate or install or permit the building,
operation or installation i fc' a single or multiple compartment
wastewater (oil/water) separator which receives effluent water
containing 100 gallons per day or more of any organic material .from
any equipment processing, r-ifining, treating, storing or handling
organic material in refineLles unless the compartment receiving
, said wastewater is equipped with at least one of the following
E-4
-------
vapor control devices, properly installed, in good working order
and in operation:
I. A container having all openings sealed and totally enclosing
the liquLd contents. All gauging and sampling devices shall
be vapor-tight except when gauging or sampling is taking
place. The oil removal devices shall be vapor-tight except
when manual skimming, inspection and/or repair is in progress.
2. A container equipped with a floating roof, consisting of a
pontoon type, double-dack type roof, or internal floating
cover, which will rest on the surface of the contents and is
equipped with a closure seal, or seals, to close the space
between the roof edge and container wall. All gauging and
sampling devices shall be vapor-tight except when gauging or
sampling is taking place. The oil removal devices shall be
vapc r-tight except when manual skimming, inspection and/or
repair is in progress.
3. A container equipped -/ith a vapor-recovery system, consisting
of r vapor-gathering system capable of collecting the organic
material vapors and gases discharged and a vapor-disposal
system capable of processing such organic material vapors and
gases so as to prevent their emission to the atmosphere and
will all tank gauging and sampling devices vapor-tight except
when gauging or sampling is taking place. The organic material
removal devices shall be vapor-tight except when manual skimming,
inspection and/or repair is in progress.
4. Containers equipped with controls of equal efficiency or
greater, provided plai s and specifications of such equipment
are submitted and approved by the Director.
E-5
-------
H. Pumps and Compressors
No person shall build, install or operate or permit the building,
operation or installation of any pump or compressor handling
organic materials unless rotating type pumps and compressors are
equipped witVi mechanical seals or other equipment of equal effi-
ciency or greater; or reciprocating type pumps and compressors
which, are equipped with packing glands properly installed and in
good working order such that the emissions from the drain recovery
systems are limited to two cubic inches of liquid organic materials
in 15 minute period at stai dard conditions per pump or compressor
and limited to a volatile organic compound concentration of 1,000
ppm as hexane at 5 centimeters from the surface as measured by a
volatile organic compound leak detector.
T. Ethylene Manufacturing Emissions
No person shall build, install, operate or permit the building,
installation, or operation of any ethylene manufacturing plant
unless the waste-gas stream, under normal operating conditions, is
properly burned at 1300°F for 0.3 seconds or greater in a direct-
flame after burner equipped with an indicating pyrometer which is
positioned in the working a>:ea for the operator's ready monitoring
or an equally effective catalytic vapor incinerator also equipped
with pyrometer. Proper burning of the waste-gas stream is defined
as reduction by 98 percent of the Ethylene omissions originally
present in the waste-gas stream.
«4^
J» Vapor Blow-down and Process Unit Turnaround
No person shall cause or permit the start-up, shut-down, purge and
blow-down of any processing unit unless the following requirements
are met:
E-6
-------
1. Process vessels shall be free of liquid contents. Volatile
organic material vapors shall he purged to disposal systems
which emit no more than 80 mg/L of volatile organic compounds
to the atmosphere. Vessel.-, shall mot he vented to the atmos-
phere unless 90% or m< re of the volatile organic compound
vapors are removed to the disposal systems.
2. In the event that "1" above cannot be complied with because
of unit configuration or safety conflicts, then a detailed
written plan shall be submitted to the Director at least 15
days prior to turnaround, indicating what steps will be used
to minimize volatile organic compound emissions to the atmosphere,
3. /t least 15 days prior to a scheduled turnaround a written
report shall be submitted to the Director for approval. As a
minimum the report shall indicate the unit to be shutdown, the
date of shut-down and the approximate quantity of volatile
organic compounds to be emitted to the atmosphere.
4. Storage vessels operated at atmospheric pressure are exempt
from this sub-section,
K. Vacuum Producing Systems
No person shall operate or cause the operation of a vacuum pro-
ducing system unless the non-condensable organic materials from the
following equipment shall b>' controlled so that vapors of volatile
organic compounds emitted t> the atmosphere shall not exceed 80
mg/liter.
1. Steam ejectors with baiometric condensers
2. Steam ejectors with su -face condensers
3. Mechanical vacuum pumps
E-7
-------
A. Hot wells
5. Accumulators
L. Miscellaneous Sources
No person shall operate or cause the operation of miscellaneous
sources such as, process drains and drainage systems, valves,
flanges and other pipe connections, pressure relief devices, and
sampling connections unless they are controlled so as to prevent
the release of volatile organic compound vapors in excess of 1,000
ppm (as hexane) measured at 5 cm from the surface.
M. Monitoring and Maintenance
Refinery operators shall he required to routinely monitor and
maintain a log for the various emission sources of volatile organic
compounds as follows:
Ambient votatile organic compound concentration is to be
monitored daily around each process unit and waste water
treatment facility with a portable volatile organic compound
detecter. Ambient readings in excess of 100 ppra (as hexane)
and the source of the volatile organic compounds shall be
recorded in the log. A volatile organic compound concentra-
tion between 1,000 an 10,000 ppm at 5 cm distance from the
leak is considered a - mall leak. These leaks shall be re-
paired within one week from the time they are noted. A tag
shall be dated and placed on the leaking component and shall
not be removed until 1 he component is repaired. If the con-
c?ntration exceeds 10,000 ppm of volatile organic compounds
(as hexane) at 5 cm it shall be rtcorded as a large leak and
maintenance shall be performed within 48 hours. A permanent
E-8
-------
log of such leaking components and their repairs shall be
maintained and available to the Director for inspection during
normal working hoirs. Leaks that are not repaired within the
time specified shall be reported in writing to the Director.
N. Monitoring Instruments
Monitoring instruments used to conform to the requirements of
Section 215, shall be of a type or model approved by the Director.
Monitoring methods shall conform to state or federal requirements
or as approved by the Director.
0. Organic Solvents, Diluents, and Other Waste Gas Streams Containing
Organic Materials
Exception: This sub-section shall not apply to surface coating
operations or solvent metal cleaning.
1. Heat Drying
No person shall cause >r allow the discharge into the atmo-
sphere of more than 15 pounds of organic materials in any one
day, or more than 3 pounds in any one hour, from any article,
machine, equipment or other contrivance in which any organic
solvent or diluent, or any material containing organic sol-
vents or diluents comes into contact with flame or is baked,
heat cured, or heat polymerized in the presence of oxygen.
Those portions of any series of articles, machines, equipment
or other contrivances designed for processing a continuous
web, strip or wire whi :h emit volatile organic compounds and
wfflch use operations < ascribed in this sub-section shall be
collectively subject lo compliance with this sub-section.
E-9
-------
2. Other Uses
No persons shall causi or allow the discharge inlo the atmo-
sphere of more than 4( pounds of organic materials In any one
day, or more than 8 pounds In any one hour, from any article,
machine, equipment or other contrivance for employing, applying,
evaporating or drying any organic materials. Emissions of
organic materials into the atmosphere resulting from air
drying of products for the first 12 hours after their removal
from any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance
described in this sub-section shall be included in determining
compliance with this sub-section. Emissions resulting from
baking, heat curing, or heat polymerizing as described in sub-
section 1 shall be excluded from determination of compliance
with this sub-section. Those portions of any sories of articles,
machine, equipment or other contrivances designed for processing
a continuous web, strip or wire which emit organic materials
and which use operations described in this sub-section shall
be collectively subjezt to compliance with this sub-section.
3. Clean Up wi':h Organic Solve its
Emissions of volatile organ'.c matrrials to the atmosphere from
the clean up with org. nic solvents of any article, machine,
equipment or other coi trivauce described in Section 1 and 2
shall be included with the other tmissions of organic materials
from that article, machine, equipment or other contrivance for
determining compliance with this regulation.
E-10
-------
4. Alternate Standard
Emissions in excels of those permitted by sub-sections 1, 2,
and 3 of this regulation are allowable if both the following
conditions are met:
a. Emissions that would result in the absence of control are
reduced by:
(1) 90 percent, by incineration; or
(2) 85 percent, by absorption or any other process of
equivalent reliability and efficiency and
b. No air pollution, as defined herein, occurs.
Control of Organic Solvents from Surface Coatings
1. Limitations
This regulation limits the volumetric quantities of organic
solvents contained in surface coating materials at application
viscosity, in:
a. Industrial surface coating operations exclusive of
aircraft coatings.
b. Architectural surfacing coatings which are applied by
professional trades, surface coating equipment operators
or painters.
E-ll
-------
2. After January 1, 1980, no person shall cause, suffer, allow
or permit the use of the coating material types which contain
organic solvents in excess of the quantities indicated In
Tahle I.
TABLE I
Maximum Allowable Content
of Organic Solvents hy Surface Coating
Material Type
Type of Surface Organic Solvents Allowable*
Coating Material Type After January 1, 1980
Alkyd Primer 65
Vinyls & Lacquers 80
Acrylics 80
Epoxies 60
Maintenance Enamels 60
Custom Product Enamels 60
*percent by volume
E-12
-------
3. After January 1, 1981, no person shall cause, suffer, allov or
permit the use of surface coating materials types, which
contain organic solvents in excess of the quantities indicated
in Tahli- II.
TABLE II
Maximum Allowable Content of
Organic Solvents by Surface
Coating Material Type
Type of Surface
Coating Material
Alkyd Primer
Vinyls & Lacquer
Acrylics
Epoxies
Maintenance Enamels
Custom Product Enamels
*percent by volume
Organic Solvents Allowable*
After January 1, 1981
60
75
75
60
55
55
Control of Organic Materials from Solvent Metal
Cleaning (Pegreasing)
1. Cold Cleining Systems
a. No person shall operate or maintain a system utilizing an
organic mat* rial for the cold cleaning of objects without
a cover, cleaned parts drainage facility, and a permanent
j»»
conspicuous label whLch summarizes the operating requirements *
E-13
-------
b. No person shall operate or maintain a system using an
organic .naterial for the cold cleaning of objects without
complying with the following operating procedures:
(1) Waste solvent shall not he disposed of or trans-
ferred to another party such that greater than 20
percent of the waste (by weight) can evaporate into
the atmosphere. Waste solvent shall be stored only
in covered containers.
(2) The degreaser cover shall be closed whenever
parts are not being handled in the cleaner.
(3) Parts shall be drained for at least 15 seconds
or until dripping ceases.
' . Small cold cleaning operations using wipe-on applications
are exempt.
2. Open Top Vapor Degreasers
a. No person shall operate or maintain a system utilizing
an organic material for the op<»n top vapor cleaning of
objects without a cover that can be opened and closed
easily without disturbing the vapor zone.
b. No person shall o; erate or maintain a system using an
organic material for the open top vapor cleaning of
objects without complying with the following operating
procedures:
(1) The cover shall be closed at all times except when
~ processing work loads through the degreaser.
(2) Parts shall be positioned so that maximum drainage
is obtained.
E-14
-------
(3) Parts shall he moved In and out of the degreaser
at less than 3.3 M/Mln (1L Kt/Min) .
(4) The work load shall he degreased In the vapor zone
at least 30 seconds or uutLl condensation ceases.
(5) Any pools of solvent on the cleaned parts shall
he removed by tipping the part before withdrawing
the part.
(6) Parts shall !>e allowed to dry within the degreaser
for at least 15 seconds or until visually dry.
(7) Porous or absorbent materials such as cloth,
leather, wood or rope shall not be degreased.
(8) Work loads shall not occupy more than half of the
degreaser open top area.
(9) The vapor level shall not drop more than 10 CM
(4 in.) when the work load enters or is removed from
the vapor zone.
(10) Solvent shall not he sprayed above the vapor level.
(11) Solvent leaks shall be repaired immediately or
the degreaser shall be shut down.
(12) Waste solvent shall not be disposed of or trans-
ferred to another party such that greater than 20
percent of t e waste (by weight) will evaporate into
the atmosphe e.
Q
(13) Exhaust ventilation shall not exceed 20 M /Mln
per M2 (65 Cm per Ft2) of degreaser open area,
unless necessary to meet OSHA requirements. Ventila-
tion fans sh ill not be used near the degreaser
opening.
1-15
-------
(14) Water shall not he visibly detectable in solvent
exiting the water separator.
(15) Leaks shall he repaired immediately or the degreaser
unit shall he shutdown.
(16) Exhaust ventilation shall not exceed 65 cubic feet
per minute (CFM) per square foot of surface area
ualess necessary to meet Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Ven-
tilation fans shall not be used near the degreaser.
(17) Water si all not be visible in the solvent exiting
the water separator.
c. A permanent, conspicuous label summarizing the require-
ments of Section b above shall be posted on or near the
degreaser.
R. Cutback Asphalt Paving
The use of cutback asphalt for paving or surface coating in the
City of Tulsa is prohibited except '>y written permission granted by
the Director.
S. Exemptions
The following organic laterials are exempt from all provisions of
Section 215.
1. 1, 1, 1, Trichlorjethane (Methyl Chloroform)
2. Trichlorotrifluor>ethane (Freon 113)
3. Methane
4. Efhane
E-16
-------
T. Section 215 shall become effective upon adoption by the City Com-
mission; provided that existing installations .shall comply on or
before July 1, 1981, unless otherwise specified herein.
E-17
-------
APPENDIX F
MOBILE 1 HIGHWAY EMISSION FACTORS
-------
x. 3
3 .
3 .
O >M S\
- O
"*"
~ O x.
IM ~ "
_j . 3 ~
^ T
> ul
1- :.l
X .
.... k_ in
> 11
* O ~j "^ --*
OK- * r*j -t j-j
QL. ^
^ _j .^ |*J "O *
U r-J
*-
O ^J >0 w
> ^ 0 -« c
_j 1*1 n-j -< M
., *
W w C,
° 2
-J a.
vi *y>
C U- 33
* - *^ -. r\j 3 -^
O 3 ' 1_
-J -J
3 >-i ,.-1 t-- rn
x, S o '-^ * * 'SJ t\J
«~|3 ^vO*'**
k_ -r s x N O * -H
3
x, ~s\ to
3 ^ a;
O vO K~ O »^ 0s '^ 3
3d, <~fJ. in «
h_ .*. to(sj=.<^i3J3
x. <-o i_ ^. ir\ r i so
X r_/r-->-r-O
uj u- tf» L' - *n
> -. *
3 x. u.'
3 -
IA »-(
cc iri t^j ^-* f-^ r\l r^ r>
* "~^ '^ cc ^J r^- r^
» » £ O
C--2 ^_f^-^Jl^^l
^ O (NJ
-o in i_;
t .-^
C? rvj (\j 0s
> "O C r^ sD
U.' ^ *
r- h- j,j -j* f\: 11^ *<>
« t/j
I
& \J O £,
^j ^f. i; " ' ) c^
-j _i a ~
> Z - i
CJ ( > ^> t/5
^ UJ 3 ~
-JO i- > < W
3 a.
^
IU O
(~.
> C
M- r\r
^
__^ «
-U Li. C
> » rj
0 ^
* O
in
°c -^
a ^
r
- D
r- H-
a* >
^-« to
t
» Cr
« "^
w «
>- ^
O
> <
j ^
< u.
o a:
in
*ij
z, -^ i r*- »
C f- i O *j-
s: i .
r» i oj m
___! ^
_j
<
(^ O 1*1 v^1
(_) S O 3s <-^
s "
^H rH
,
UJ
_j
*-« rJ h- -j
X ^ vT O rj ,£,
-N. O » '
S X ^ 0 O 0
O i~O fsj
1/1
a'
O ^ *VJ d
h- 'J f- ^ r- ^
< r cc *M cc -3
u. r» sj -^
rr
c
ta*4
<-O 'M 31 ^ lf^ rJ
10 t- .-.j in ir -n
27 _j ~4 rn o ^\
t.'- H f*-
l. '
V
>-*
<-^ j- f\j r- 4
'"""* !-.»- CO fVJ J^ '"^J
5. ^ " .
3T _J f** *\l *x "*1
U O
W
t f\) C P*
> 0 C ^i
o *
_j P» r\j JQ r«i
** i>
v-> ^
r o c.
-JO- """
H- > ^ t/1
~ * O Zi
1 v < <
* X
CJ (A*
F-l
-------
rs*
C3
O*
M*
GO
"Z.
c
oc
2
UJ
*t
l/l
-J
13
t~
l/>
z:
0
CO
~
i:
UJ
UJ
wj
M
o
X
01
££
3
H*
O
x, a
o
J rv. in
a o
x »
0 X.
x. O
rg o
a c
_J
o
x.
-" c
t CO
a *M *
-I C
o
N rg
S3 in
> f\ ~
a r-
J * TT
O 0.
2T
UJ O
o-
3» rg
H* m
X,
0
X -.
tu a- rg
> in
O X.
O
in
03 rg
in
o. o
z
uj rg
*- in
UJ
rg >-
o <
c* ^
-< 01
1
.. 0>
cs ~r
- z
o
-J L5
0 CC
t/i rg ;/i o 1/1
UJ o LJ rr uj
Qh-l^tn LJO a<*tom oa coif*-r«-
Jrgjr-. co Z* Or^ic-cc z« Oir. jr--r
!!) O Z^«|*« 3 Z.*l»*
(Vjjer- x,-3 r\j | r> nj x.o ^jrorg
^j-^ in»_j-^ r^«j^r
-J COO -J ao~< -J
<; CO 4 < aorg <
O -x Ox.
x. O x. o
in t ^* t
in^rgco OOo Oh-mr^- o-*h- oor-gDrg
orgrgo**^ ac-^ t_;O(VO^- aorj oiTirgcCsj-
!£ X» Z*'*B X» Z»»»»
rgof^o Ox. r^oo~o Ox. ino^o
x. o x. o -*
UJ a O > uJ a O rg LJ
i »j ^ i i
*-«rgnco o ^n^c^xo o 03 n OD
EQ OOLi x. ZCr-|O-«f- x. ZC>fOg3O
*xO»»»» "^ O x.c^»»*> -'Cv x,a»»«»
SXrgo-tffl h--5" ZXrjorgo t-rj ZX^-Of-C
O rg O -* -~ O fv a -^ ^* o rgrg
_lio U»O
O > o
ol x. p-, ol x. c O1
oc o «c" c rg rg cc
3 *n c\( ^j P* ^ c>j - j c f\j f'l ^» > co «n^ 3 ^*4 c^ m
>-o^o-«o a a t-ooo-r-i a^- i-o.-o'-o-
«S«.f"rgNOm OG. -iXeDrgf^rg oc. m > O
01 fw o '** "^ in f*« *j* 01 f\i ro f^ ^ ** ^ rg i/i f^ o^ ^"* ^ &
i/) ^*~ ^o o* oo o x^ 01 ^* o ff1 in QO x» 01 1~~ ** 0s *^ OD
-O**tt t o ^xC^vt** o *~*O**C«
Z I »f ' ^3 m X"-» Zjin-^o^ X Zio-'r-rr
UJ rg LJULr^UJ f^l UJU.OUJ O
>»« > pg
UJ O X. UJ O x. UJ
> o O *-
~ m . m
t/i »^ so f*^ fvj ni CD fo i/? w if^ f*^ r^ "^ QO o '/i *^ g3 ^ OD ^
3 fc O O »O O ^" O ^ C?" O rg o> <\j Q ^. ^ o CT* **p
3T«jrg«»-rf(n o-o Zjrg«^stprg c-o Zjin*^mrg
3 rg Z.O rg Z«3 in
O uj m LJ uj O o
t- -r >- rg
-
rHi-^rAO ^^tnro . <^*-4fw*~
i* 0s CT" 00 ^*"* ^ *~^ 0* ^" *O ^* CO ^* ^* ^^
Q t . . , LL. O . . . . UJ O t
j 4 o m rg rg^- _jrgomrg ni> _jmo >- o- »
^01 -< OO
* t» | * | »t
O'O3 «»^> O**JO «»^ OLJO
xxoo o:^ xruo a. -( >Z <-Z <O1O1 C » >O1H a H-^O1O1
OUJ33 QUJ3D »~ OUJ33
>-»<< _ 1 O ^-»<< -Jl3 >-»<<
= r
-------
I/I
c
o
u
I/I
I/I
CM
O
o o
»» o
c
o fi m
c c
z t
o >>
v. O
O «
O r\J m
O C
2Z #
O V
«. o
l-rr.U\
a o
o
V.
~t O
t- CO
Q _,
_r t C
O «
v c-
> PI
Of- H-
_/ . o
00. <
3T U.
to n i\ (7s
O C CM C
l/l
C£
o
Q t t
c; m o in o
>
z
uj
§
UJ
o
I/)
C£
O
O
<
u_
z
C
UJ
U
UJ O
C. '
> o
t- »
o
X
UJ
O I
z.
UJ
O -s.
. o
in *
3 o
o
_j o
lACM
o:
UJ
_i is
*t UJ
o «:
t.
y as,
CM
O
O
IT. .
I C G
O V.
>. O
in t
o o
o
*- o
o
(NJ O
o
Z . I . .
i i O CM
iJJ f*1 CD O
O C M O
UJ
^ p~< cc m
-* O
O .
>. CM
eo j-
O CP
-J Z
c a.
x
UJ O
C-
> rM
Z
U U.
>
o
l/>
o:
a
o i
< ;
i/) i
3E .
O «C
O
I CM O <
1 CM
*
a
a. Q
O
_l-«Of-r\J
o <
ff- I-
-I U1
<
uj
X X
UJ UJ
o o o
x z o o
-i a.
o ai o o
X X
UJ UJ
o
m
j O
~~ C
s. '
a o
o >.
o o i a
S . I .
O -J f*-
O O (\l
Q c-, CM
o
-J O O O
. o
. o
t CM l/> (
UJ
O
Z
UJ U. O
^ CM
O >. UJ
tO *-
in
eo O 10 «-
CM O V-
.... a c
a. o s: _i
E O
UJ O O
- (/I
I
.. 3<
<
UJ ..
0(S
o o a
r x o o
X X
UJ UJ
F-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instrut tions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO,
EPA-450/4-80-021
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emission Inventories for
Application in Tulsa, Okl
2.
Urban Airshed Model
ahoma
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Engineering-Science
McLean, Virginia 22102
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Tom
Lahre
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2584
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes the detailed development of a spatially and temporally
resolved inventory for the Tulsa urban area. Hourly emission rates of paraffins,
olefins, aromatics, carbonyls and ethyl ene, as well as NO, N02, CO, SOX and parti -
culate,were all estimated for each of 1550 (2 km square) grid cells comprising a
124 km by 50 km grid overlying Tulsa. The preparation of an Urban Airshed modelers
tape is described.
17.
a. DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.lDENTIFI
Apportioning Spatial Resolution
Emissions Inventory Temporal Resolution
Gridding Species Resolution
Hydrocarbons Species
Nitrogen Oxides Volatile Organics
Photochemical Models
Projections
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN r
19. SECURi
20. SECURI
ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Held/Group
TY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
280
TV CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is
F-4
------- |