EPA-450/3-76-006
i January 1975
MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS
FOR PROJECTING EMISSIONS
IN SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS -
PRELIMINARY TEST
USING BALTIMORE
AQMA DATA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-76-006
MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS
FOR PROJECTING EMISSIONS
IN SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS -
PRELIMINARY TEST
USING BALTIMORE AQMA DATA
Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc.
4733 Bethesda Avenue
Bethesda, Maryland 20014
Contract No. 68-02-1005
EPA Project Officer: John Bosch
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
January 1975
-------
This report 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 contractors and grantees, and nonprofit
organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information
Center, 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 Booz-Allen
& Hamilton Inc. , Bethesda, Maryland 20014, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-
1005. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Booz-
Allen & Hamilton Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-006
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1. Purpose of the Preliminary Test 1-1
2. Scope 1-2
3. Data Sources 1-5
4. Structure of the Test Narrative I-11
5. Glossary of Terms I-11
II. DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY TEST RESULTS II-l
1. Industrial Process II-6
2. Fuel Combustion II-9
3. Transportation 11-15
(1) Highway Vehicles 11-15
(2) Off-Highway Vehicles . 11-18
(3) Rail Locomotives 11-19
(4) Vessels 11-22
(5) Aircraft 11-24
4. Electric Generation 11-27
5. Incineration 11-31
6. Miscellaneous Area Sources 11-33
REFERENCES 11-35
III. APPENDIX III-l
IV. TECHNICAL REPORT DATA SHEET IV-1
111
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
1. PURPOSE OF THE PRELIMINARY TEST
This report summarizes the results obtained from a field test
of the procedures for estimating present and future air pollution
emissions contained in "A Manual of Instructions for Projecting
Emissions in Small Geographic Areas." The field test was conducted
with data obtained from the Baltimore, Maryland Air Quality Main-
tenance Area (AQMA). There were two purposes for this test:
To assess the feasibility of procedures given in the initial
version of the Manual
To establish alternative procedures found to be more
directly applicable than those initially established, based
on working with Baltimore data.
The discussion and results presented in this report constitute the final
output of the field test itself. The revisions of the Manual which were
identified as a result of this test have been incorporated in a revised
version published on December 12, 1974. This Manual is to become
Volume 7, "Projecting County Emissions" of the "Guidelines for Air
Quality Planning and Analysis, " OAQPS Guideline 1. 2-026. The field
test results conform to the structure of the Manual as revised.
The Manual provides guidance and direction for developing and
improving a comprehensive emission inventory and for projecting
future emissions at the county level. It is divided into four chapters:
Chapter I: contains background information on emission
source categories and forecast techniques and an intro-
duction to the content of the Manual
Chapter II: presents a summary of the data sources ref-
erenced in the Manual
Chapter III: contains specific procedures, data sources and
tabulating formats for updating or creating a point and area
source emission inventory
1-1
-------
Chapter IV: contains specific procedures, data sources
and tabulating formats for developing growth factors
to project present activity and emissions into the future.
The projection methods and sources proposed in the Manual are not
the only valid ones that may be used; they are presented to illustrate
both the type of data that must be identified and the general approach
to be used in forecasting future activity, and to identify all the elements
that must be considered in projecting a complete and accurate emission
inventory.
The goal of the program was to test the Manual procedures and
not to project emissions for the Baltimore AQMA. Consequently, the
accuracy of the emission projections developed is certainly less than
the maximum achievable using the procedures recommended in the
Manual, or any alternate projection methodology, and the results pre-
sented in this report should not be interpreted as the final emissions
inventory and projections for the Baltimore AQMA.
This report documents the data sources consulted, the procedures
actually followed including deviations from specific Manual instructions,
and the numerical results of the projection effort. Detailed familiarity
with the organization and content of the Manual is .assumed throughout.
It is recommended that the results of this test be studied before
attempting to implement the emission projection procedures given in
the Manual. While this report will not provide a solution for every
specific problem that may arise, it nevertheless provides informative
guidance concerning the general manner of forecasting future activity
and air pollution and illustrates how the procedures in the Manual are
to be applied.
2. SCOPE
The Manual which was tested in this program is a guideline and
not an inflexible set of instructions. Consequently the basis for an
evaluation of the Manual must be the relevance and accuracy of its
information, and how successfully that information is communicated
to the reader. The field test involved using actual emission and pro-
jection data from the Baltimore, Maryland AQMA to evaluate the
applicability of the instructions given in the Manual. The scope of the
program did not include a technical evaluation of the projection method-
ology to recommend more accurate projection techniques. Furthermore,
1-2
-------
the resource constraints of the program were such that not every
procedure given in the Manual could be tested, including the extensive
interview program recommended as the most accurate method to
develop emission forecasts. Also, not every source document and
local planning reference recommended in the Manual could be consulted
within the time and resources available for this test.
Emissions and projection data for the Baltimore AQMA were used
to test the clarity of selected procedures and suggested formats for
tabulating results. The Baltimore AQMA coincides with the Baltimore
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) and the Baltimore Air
Quality Region (AQCR). It is comprised of Baltimore City and five
surrounding counties: Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and
Baltimore County. The specific emission and projection data used are
described in detail in Section 3 of this chapter.
The Manual contains instructions for updating and upgrading a
point and area source emission inventory. Instructions are also given
for organizing the data into a format suitable for submission to the
EPA National Emissions Data System (NEDS). These procedures were
reviewed in detail for clarity, but little effort was expended in collect-
ing emissions data for Baltimore because the Maryland Bureau of Air
Quality Control (BAQC) maintains a comprehensive and up-to-date
emission inventory for the state. Accurate emissions data for the
AQMA are available from this inventory. The data contained in the
Maryland Emission Inventory (MEI) has been coded and submitted to
EPA, and following verification and correction, it will be included in
the NEDS inventory. Hence the MEI was considered to represent
adequate baseline data.
The exercise of the inventory update procedures of Chapter III
in the Manual was limited to conversion of the MEI data into the
uniform data formats required for completing the projections. These
data formats are identical with a standard output format of the NEDS
system, the National Emission Report (NER). The data in the MEI are
considered to represent the state's emission inventory during calendar
year 1974; therefore, 1974 was selected as the base year upon which the
emission projections were based.
Procedures for projecting emissions are contained in Chapter IV
of the Manual. It would clearly be desirable to test all three levels of
projection instructions given in this chapter both to establish the validity
of all the procedures and to project outputs from the three levels in
1-3
-------
order to indicate the magniture of the potential errors in the less
accurate projection methodologies. Such a comprehensive test was
not attempted for a number of reasons. In general, Level 3 pro-
cedures could not be followed because they involve an extensive and
time-consuming interview program to determine growth forecasts for
individual plants and point sources. Contacting individuals at large
number of major polluting plants would have exceeded the resources of
the test and would have involved obtaining legal authority to conduct the
interviews under the auspices of the Maryland Bureau of Air Quality
Control. Consequently, the test was concerned with Level 1 and
Level 2 procedures only.
The projection methology for Level 1 and Level 2 requires the
determination of growth factors representing the expected change in
pollution producing activity for aggregated emission source categories.
Level 1 and Level 2 differ primarily in the recommended sources for
growth forecasts. Level 1 projections usually require data published
by state or federal agencies, while Level 2 projections ordinarily
rely on data available in local planning documents. The type, extent
and format of data in industrial, transportation and land use plans for
the Baltimore area would be unique to Baltimore and its air pollution
problems and industry mix. Focusing a substantial amount of effort
on reviewing such plans would benefit the air quality maintenance
effort in Baltimore but would not contribute significantly to testing
and evaluating the projection procedures. The data sources actually
consulted, therefore, were usually a mix of Level 1 and Level 2 sources,
and the choice of sources was based on their availability and their direct
applicability. In this way maximum resources could be devoted to
determining whether the Manual instructions and tabulating formats
were understandable and could be readily completed by the user, and
whether the instructions as given provided a comprehensive treatment
of all major emission source categories.
Emissions were projected to 1980. If economic or demographic
forecast data were not available for 1980, linear interpolation was used
to obtain the necessary information. Since the base year inventory upon
which the projections are based is 1974, all growth factors were com-
puted for the six-year period (1974-1980).
1-4
-------
3. DATA SOURCES
The emissions inventory used as a basis for the emission pro-
jections was the Maryland Emission Inventory (MEI), as noted earlier.
Since Chapter III of the Manual is concerned with accumulating data in
the NEDS data format and the Chapter IV projections are based on data
organized and classified in that format, it would have been more
straightforward to test the Manual procedures using the NEDS emission
inventory for Baltimore. Unfortunately the Baltimore data currently
in the NEDS system are out of date, and the more accurate data in the
MEI have not yet been completely"incorporated into NEDS. For this
reason the MEI inventory was used for this project.
Four standard MEI printout formats were consulted. These
were the:
Summary of Emissions by Premise
Inventory of Processing and Manufacturing Equipment
by Premise
Inventory of Incinerators by Premise
Inventory of Fuel Burners by Premise.
The first printout contains summary data for each premise within a
county, giving the total fuel consumption, solid waste disposal, and
net incineration, fuel and process emissions for each point source
emitting more than 25 tons per year of any pollutant. The second and
third printouts contain data for industrial process and incineration
point sources classified by county, and by premise identification
numbers within a county. The fourth printout contains data for fuel
burning sources classified by county, by fuel burned within each
county, and by premise identification numbers within each fuel category.
Sample MEI data formats are given in Figure 1-1 through Figure 1-4.
The MEI inventory, which is represented in its entirety by the
last three printouts, contains data for each industrial, commercial
and institutional source emitting more than 1 pound per day of any
criteria pollutant. In comparison, a point source in the NEDS system
is defined as a source emitting more than 100 tons per year of any
criteria pollutant. Thus the MEI inventory contains information on
many more point sources than are required for NEDS.
1-5
-------
DATE 08/03/74
AJR QUALITY CONTROL SORVtY
MAJOR SOURCES
25* TONS/YK
PHINCE GEflRGE COUNTY
TYPE EQUIPHENT
PROCESSING
FUEL-BURNING
INCINERATORS
COMPANY
TYPE EQUIPMENT
PROCESSING
FUEL-BURNING
INCINERATORS
COMPANY
TYPE EQUIPMENT
PROCESSING
FUEL-BURNING
INCINERATORS
COMPANY
TYPE EQUIPMENT
PROCESSING
FUEL-BURNING
INCINERATORS
ANNUAL
REFUSE COAL
1000 * TONS
5246
ANDREWS AF BASE
ANNUAL
REFUSE COAL
1000 * TONS
21
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
ANNUAL
REFUSE COAL
1000 * TONS
CIL 4-6
M GALS
6
-------
00/03/7*
KtNNECOTT
EQUIPMENT
T NUMBER
AIR CUALITY CONTROL S U » V F Y
SUMMARY UF PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT BY PRFKISF
TYPt NO. STACK SIC DAY TYP Sf tM ANN. 0/0 0/0 GAS-ANN 0«GAN-SOLV
YR REG UNITS HI Fl NO /YR FQ. CCNT. CONSUMP SULPH ASH CONSUMP USED PROD DTH
REFINING CORPORATION
6 00021
6 00022
6 00023
6 00024
6 00025
6 00039
7 00001
7 00002
7 00003
59
59
63
63
59
72
63
59
00
F
f:
c
E
E
N
E
E
E
2
2
2
2
1
1
I
1
1
FXXON CHEMICAL
KAVANAUGH
BITUMINOUS
6 00002
6 00003
6 00004
6 00005
6 OOOOb
6 00007
6 00009
6 00036
6 00037
6 00048
6 00050
PRODUCTS
8 00001
8 00003
8 00004
8 00005
8 00006
8 00007
8 00008
8 00009
8 00010
a 00011
CONSTRUCT
6 00012
00
00
00
00
00
00
60
71
71
72
60
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
ION
70
E
E
E
E
C
E
A
A
E
N
^
E
E
t
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
3
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
ADMIRAL LAUNDRY-TAYLOR AVE
U.S. AGRI.
7 00066
CHEMICALS
6 00013
6 00014
60
71
71
E
E
»
1
1
1
SPARKLE CLEANERS
7 00110
68
E
1
PREMISE NO.
75 3331
75 3331
15 3331
15 3331
75 3331
75 3331
75 3331
75 3331
75 3331
PREMISE NO.
40 2824
40 2824
40 2824
40 2824
40 2824
15 2824
15 2824
40 2824
40 2824
00 3824
00 2824
PREMISE NO.
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
00 2042
PREMISE NO.
40 2951
PREMISE NO.
00 7210
PREMISE NO.
40 2U72
40 2872
PREMISE NO.
15 7216
00015
350 964
350 964
260 964
260 964
260 963
260 962
260 464
260 464
260 464
00021
252 125
252 125
252 125
252 125
252 125
252 666
250 101
1 456
252 710
250 724
252 700
00023
240 457
312 117
312 117
312 117
240 457
240 457
240 457
240 457
240 457
240 457
00027
130 452
00028
250 805
00030
215 477
200 452
00039
250 805
BAG
BAG
BAG
BAG
NUN
NON
BAG
^ iL
FIL
NON
NON
NON
NUN
NON
BAG
SPR
NGN
C
NON
BAG
AFB
VSC
VSC
VSC
AEB
AFB
AFB
AFB
AFB
AFB
VSC
NON
NON
BAG
NON
COORDINATES 0929-497
471 G .8 523 F NO
471 G .8 523 F NO
NO
NO
44 G .3 233 F NO
185 F NO
13 F NO
I a F NO
18 F No
COCifiDIMTtS 0886-458
YES
YES
15 f YES
JO f YFS
15 K YES
NO
F YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
COORDINATES 0916-503
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
COORDINATES 03B3-457
20 F NO
COORDINATES 0941-421
YES
COORDINATES 0918-499
NO
95 G .8 NO
COORDINATES 0907-484
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
NO
NO
NO 13
NO 20
NO 02
NO 50
NO 05
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO 58
NO
NU
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ANNE ARUNOEL
DAILY EMISSIONS - IBS
PART NOX CO SOX HC
37 433
37 433
53
53
13 156
14 95
6
1 5
1 10
I 5
1
1
27 22
5
20 19
163 60
163 60
5 26
10 16
2
1800
2060
200
5C40
500
120
10
33 1
193
Figure 1-2. Sample Maryland Emission Inventory Format,
Inventory of Processing and Manufacturing Equipment by Premise
-------
CO
08/03/74
A I
R
Q U A L I
T Y
CONTROL SuRWrV BAL
SUMMARY OF INCINERATORS BY PREMISE
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT TYPE NO,
»
PREMISE T NUMBER YR REG UNITS
GREATER BALTIMORE MEDICAL CENTER
HOSP. 1 00108 69 R
ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL
HOSP. 1 00159 65 £
MONTGOMERY WARD 921 £. JUPPA RU.
STORES 2 00105 71 N
SISTERS OF N.O. -VILLA MARIA
APTS. I 00174 73 N
DRUG FAIR-PAOONIA
STORES 1 00029 00 N
ROSEWOOD STATE HOSP.
HOSP. 1 00182 74 N
MILFORO MANOR NURSING HOME
APTS. 1 00098 67 E
H. S. CROCKER CO.
STORES 2 00204 00 N
HOUSE OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD
APTS. 2 00056 00 N
MARYLAND SPECIALTY WIRE
MFG. 2 00098 69 N
FRANKLIN SQUARE HOSPITAL
HOSP. 1 00176 73 N
HCSP. 2 00072 69 E
FORT HOWARD VET. AOMIN. HOSP.
HOSP. 2 00214 72 N
HUMANE SOCIETY-BALTIMORE COUNTY
OTHER 2 00077 65 E
ST. JOSEPH'S HOME
APTS. 1 00107 63 E
GLASSIPSt INC.
MFG. 2 00102 69 E
NELSON CO.
MFG. 2 00200 00 »
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
STACK
HT FT
PREMISE
058
PRfcKISE
190
PREMISE
044
PREMISE
065
PREMISE
030
PHCMISE
040
PREMISE
024
PREMISE
020
PREMISE
020
PREMISE
018
PREMISE
070
039
PREMISE
032
PREMISE
030
PREMISE
030
PREMISE
026
PREMISE
040
CAP
NO.
1
NG.
6
NO.
7
NO.
1
NU.
2
NO.
1
NO.
1
NO.
4
NO.
2
NO.
6
NO.
2
15
NO.
3
NO.
6
NO.
2
NO.
6
NO.
25
TYPE
HASTE
00039
AAP
00041
AAP
00046
TR
00149
OTH
00170
IS
00248
AAP
00251
TR
00290
TS
OOJ31
TR
00345
TR
00400
(JFH
P20G
00427
AAP
00430
AAP
00454
TR
00516
TR
00702
IPX
TYPE
FEED
0
0
0
0
c
D
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
REFUSE
M» YR
7
2
1404
21
187
36
76
187
260
72
3094
7a
1092
31
520
9360
AUX
BURN
COORDINATES
YES
CGGHOINATtS
YhS
COUkLm.'ATKS
Yf S
COORDINATES
YFS
ccnnoiNATts
NO
COOf OINJ.IES
YES
COORDINATES
YES
CGOKDINAHS
res
COOKOINAICS
YES
COOROiNATbS
NC
CCOKCINATeS
YfcS
YES
COORDINATES
YES
COORDINATES
YES
COORDINATES
NO
COORDINATES
NO
COORDINATES
YES
AUX
FUFL
0906-568
NG
0906-566
SO
09l7-56d
NG
0942-591
LP
0905-59?
NO
0364-578
NG
0878-558
NG
0938-535
NO
0390-512
NG
0900-603
NG
0947-553
NC
NG
0957-498
NG
0653-585
01
0875-524
N
0912-570
N
0952-510
NG
SlftC*
EM.CNT
SC , SAB
sc
SC , SAB
sc
OIS
OIS
N
uis
sc
OIS
N
SC ,SAb
OIS
sc
N
OIS
OIS
DAILY
PART
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
1
5
1
' 4
4
fM
NO
5
1
1
1
6
3
1
3
BALTIMORE CO.
HC
23
11
42
15
2
10
13
Figure 1-3. Sample Maryland Emission Inventory Format,
Inventory of Incinerators by Premise
-------
08/03/74
TYPt OF
PREMISE
EQUIPMENT
T NUMBER
AETNA PACKING
MFG.
BALTIMORE
MFC.
4
SOX
4
COMPANY
00002
COMPANY
00003
AIR QUALITY C
SUMMARY MF FUEL BURNERS BY PREMISE
TYPE NO. STACK OIL dURN FLY ASH A
YR REG UMTS HT FT GRADE TYPE EQUIP.
00
65
E
i
I
1
JF.SSUP CORRECTIONAL CAMP
OTHER
OTHER
OTHFR
bALTlMORF
OTHbH
OTHE«
OTHER
OTHER
4
4
4
C.AS
4
4
4.
4
00004
00005
00006
00
00
00
AND EL EC -wA
00007
00017
00307
00308
67
72
56
56
F.
A
A
GNER
F
r.
A
A
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
CROWNSVILLE STATfc HOSPITAL
HOSP.
HOSP.
,-H ^0$P-
1 HOSP.
CD HOSP.
HOSP.
HOSP.
Hnsp.
HOSP.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
00390
00393
00394
00395
00396
00397
OQ398
00399
00400
MO. CORRECTIONAL INST
OTHER
4
00391
73
52
52
52
52
52
52
72
72
. FUR
73
k
c
E
t
E
E
t
P
ft
WOMEN
R
1
t
6
6
u
6
6
2
2
2
PREMISE
15
PKL^ISt
15
PPIMISE
15
15
15
P«C*ISC
15
250
250
250
PREMISE
71
40
40
40
40
40
40
75
75
PREMISE
75
NO.
6
NU.
b
NO.
2
2
2
Nfl.
2
6
6
6
NO.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO.
2
00009
AA
000 10
SA
00013
PG
AA
AA
00014
AA
SA
PG
PG
00016
SA
AS
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
SA
SA
00017
PG
NON
OTM
NON
NON
NON
NiJN
HCY
MCY.F.SP
MCY.FSP
NG:<
NUN
NuN
NON
NON
N-Jf«
NON
NJN
NON
NON
OTHER
00392 73
T>
PG NUN
HOCHSCHlLO-KOHN-GLEN flURNlE
STORES 4 00010 00
STORES 4 00014
EXXON CHEMICAL
MFG. 4 00011
MFG. 4 00012
MFG. 4 00013 00
KAVANAUGH PRODUCTS
MFG. 4 00015 51
MFG. 4 00016 67
PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CH/SCH 4 00128 69
PREMISE NO. 00020
00
00
00
00
00
51
67
L
69
E
E
1
t
E
E
t
E
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
75
40
PKfrMJSt
75
75
125
PREMISE
125
15
PKtMl SE
40
5
5
NO.
2
2
2
NO.
2
2
NO.
2
RC NilN
RC NON
00021
SA NUN
SA NON
SA NON
00023
RC NON
SA NON
00025
RC NON
CNfnOL SURVEY
OIL aUk
ANN.CONS U/0 M.x dTU SMUKE
M.GAL MJLF SUF. IND
COORDINATES 0905-485
.8 5 NO
<'7'-< .3 1J NJ
CGJKLUNATF.S J362-477
10 .2 10 YtS
40 . 3 4 YFS
40 . 3 4 YtS
UiO .2 ^36 NJ
117.JQJ 1.0 4i4U \0
505Jd 1.0 1329 YES
5050J 1.0 1329 YtS
CCORDINArtS 0912-434
2o,T . 1 26 NO
:s ; f
IV . 3
19 .3
19 . 3
I V J
19 .3
?;;) .J
800 . 3
f.OaROINATES 0862-473
3 .3
o .3
COORDINATES 0911-479
7 .« 4 NC
7 .9 4 NO
CviCKDINATtS 0530-453
2 51J .3 97 NG
91;) .3 -50 NU
5428 .3 45 NO
COORDINATES 0916-503
.3 10 YES
320 .3 20 YFS
CUJRiUNATtS 0'J10-506
30 .3 4 NJ
ANNE ARUNOEL
OIL
HTR
YES
Y[ 3
NO
N(J
t40
YhS
YfcS
YES
DAILY {-MISSIONS - LBS
PART NOX CO SOX
6 V3
2 8
2 8
261 377
2270 3)603
231 16500
231 16500
76
1
5
5
447
50300
24500
24500
HC
2
640
31*
314
YES
YfcS
No
NO
NO
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
473
4
<»
%0
NO
NO
NO
'
176
3
3
14
1
103 550
36 200
2 12
70
t
24
2
2
2
2
2
2
96
96
3
3
2-n
106
6
38
3
21
7
Figure 1-4. Sample Maryland Emission Inventory Format,
Inventory of Fuel Burners by Premise
-------
Since the procedures in the Manual are based specifically on NEDS
format data, there were some areas in which the MEI data were incom-
plete or not directly useable. The EPA Source Classification Code (SCC)
is not given for each source, although the four-digit SIC and the three-
digit HEW equipment codes are given. Since the classification scheme
given in the Manual for process emissions and estimated future emission
control is based on the SCC code, it is nut-possible within the scope of
the test to determine accurate relationships between MEI emission data
and the emission source categories given in the Manual. In addition, the
estimated or measured control efficiency for each point source is not
given. Only a written description of the type of control equipment,
from which it is impossible to estimate numerically the control effi-
ciency is given on the MEI printout. Also allowable emissions and
compliance status and schedules are not given. Source specific data
concerning control efficiency, allowable emissions and compliance with
existing regulations, in addition to expected growth, are required to
estimate future emissions accurately. Because of the deficiencies in
the MEI data noted above, it was not possible to include controls in
estimating future emissions levels and the results are defective in this
regard. Finally, it should be noted that the MEI carbon monoxide
emission data are certainly incomplete because existing air quality
and emission inventory data indicate that future CO levels in the AQMA
are not expected to exceed air quality standards. Because of all of these
data format differences between the MEI and NEDS, some of the
procedures in the Manual were modified to complete the emission
projections; these modifications are described in the text narrative.
Chapter II of the Manual contains a summary of recommended
sources of data required to the inventory update and emission pro-
jections. The sources actually used in this test are cited in the nar-
rative and are summarized at the end of this chapter.
*
The HEW coding system is given in Air Pollution Manual of Coding,
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1968.
1-10
-------
4. STRUCTURE OF THE TEST NARRATIVE
The following chapter contains documentation of all the procedures
used in field testing the Manual using Baltimore data as well as a pre-
sentation of the numerical results obtained. The chapter begins with a
preliminary analysis of the data and the calculation of general economic
and demographic growth factors as recommended in the Manual. This
is followed by six sections, each dealing with inventory update and
emission projection for the following source categories:
Industrial process
Fuel combustion
Transportation
Electric generation
Incineration
Miscellaneous area sources.
This format follows that given in the Manual. Each source category
section contains complete documentation of all calculations and data
sources for both the inventory update and emission projections followed
by completed tables and worksheets. The tables were taken directly
from the Manual and completed according to the instructions. Tables
pertinent to sections of the Manual not tested have been omitted.
Worksheets providing additional documentation not called for
specifically in the Manual have been included, however.
5. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The definition of terms and acronyms used in the Manual and the
test narrative are given below:
AP-42: EPA document, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emis-
sion Factors,
APTD-1135: EPA document, Guide for Compiling a Com
prehensive Emission Inventory
AQCR; Air Quality Control Region
AQMA: Air Quality Maintenance Area
AQMP: Air Quality Maintenance Plan
I-11
-------
BAQC: Maryland Bureau of Air Quality Control
BMATS; Baltimore Metropolitan Area Transportation Study
BRPC: Baltimore Regional Planning Council
CBP: County Business Patterns, U. S. Department of
Commerce
CO: Carbon monoxide
County shares: county portion of an activity level which
is defined or measured only at the state level
DD; heating degree days, available from a number of
sources, including Climatic Atlas of the U. S. , U.S. Cli-
matologioal Reports, U.S. Weather Bureau, or Journal of
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Emission factor: factor relating activity levels to net
emissions for area sources, and to uncontrolled emission
for point sources
Equivalent control efficiency: effect of most stringent
applicable control regulations, expressed in terms equiva-
lent to control efficiency
Growth factor: dimensionless ratio of projected activity
to baseline activity
HC: hydrocarbon. (This term ordinarily indicates total
hydrocarbons. If only reactive hydrocarbons or non-
methane hydrocarbons are of interest, "reactive HC" or
"non-methane HC" maybe substituted for "HC" in the
manual: this fact should be noted on all documentation
and completed tables. )
HC (evap): evaporative hydrocarbon
HC (exh): exhaust hydrocarbon
HDD: heavy-duty diesel vehicle
HDV: heavy-duty gasoline vehicle
1-12
-------
HEW Code: three-digit equipment coding system given in
Air Pollution Manual of Coding, U. S. Department of Health
Education and Welfare (1968)
h. u. : housing unit
LDT; light-duty truck (gasoline)
LDV: light-duty gasoline vehicle
Level: three levels of effort are given for the calculations,
referring to the level of detail specified and expected
accuracy
MC: motorcycle
MEI: Maryland Emission Inventory
LTO: land ing-take off cycle
MIS: Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of the
Interior
mpg: miles per gallon
NEDS: National Emissions Data System
NER; National Emission Report
NOX or NOX: nitrogen oxides
NSPS: Federal New Source Performance Standards
OBERS Projections: economic projections developed by
the U. S. Departments of Commerce and Agriculture
PART; particulates
Point source: MEI definition: 1 pound per day
NEDS definition: 100 tons per year
SCC: eight-digit EPA source classification code (e.g. ,
3-01-001-01, adipic acid production, general cyclohex
process)
1-13
-------
SIC: Standard Industrial Classification
SMSA; standard metropolitan statistical area
SOX or SOX: sulfur oxides
TPY: tons per year
VMT: vehicle-miles travelled
1-14
-------
II. DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY TEST RESULTS
All air pollution emissions for any geographic region may be
classified and summarized into the emission source categories
specified in Tables 7. 1 and 7. 2 of the Manual. For any given region,
some categories may account for most of the emissions while others
produce little or no emissions. In addition, some of the point and
area source emissions in the region may be concentrated in one
county or small section of the region, not distributed over the entire
area. Estimating present or projected emissions in an accurate but
efficient manner requires allocating the appropriate effort and re-
sources to each emission source category. The most time consuming
but accurate calculations and data searches should be conducted for the
major emission sources, with proportionally less effort directed to
minor or negligible sources. This general approach was followed
during the test of the Manual.
In order to identify the major emission source categories in
the Baltimore AQMA, the general pattern of air pollution emissions
in the AQMA was determined from data contained in the trial Air
Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP). lD (Superscripts refer to references
given at the end of the report. ) Another source for this type of in-
formation is the NEDS county emission inventory summary in the
National Emission Report (NER) format, which contains emission data
aggregated in the same format as Tables 7. 1 and 7. 2 of the Manual.
The analysis of emission data led to the following conclusions:
Approximately 55 percent of the point source particulate
emissions in the AQMA are the product of industrial
processes, and two thirds of these process emissions
originate in Baltimore County alone
Emissions from solid waste disposal are limited to
incineration in Baltimore City
More than 90% of emissions of sulfur oxides come from
stationary fuel combustion and industrial process sources
located in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties and Balt-
imore City, and almost 50% of the SOX emissions are due
to power plants alone
II-1
-------
More than ninety percent of the hydrocarbon emissions
from highway vehicles and other transportation sources
occurs in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area Transportation
Study (BMATS) region, which is composed of Baltimore
City and portions of Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore
counties.
It is important to determine the pattern of emissions if detailed
emission data and projections for a specific pollutant are required.
For example, if levels of particulate or SOX emissions are critical,
the analysis should focus on stationary combustion and industrial
process sources in the areas mentioned above. If transportation
hydrocarbon emissions in the AQMA are critical, the analysis should
focus on data related to the BMATS program, even though the BMATS
area is much smaller geographically than the entire AQMA.
The Manual suggests that a number of growth factors be com-
puted before beginning the projections for any of the specific source
categories since they are referenced a number of times in
the projections, and because they can be used for comparison with
growth factors for the same activities developed from local data.
These growth factors include a population growth factor to be com-
puted from the best available local population projections as well as
economic growth factors which should be computed from the OBERS
projection data published by the U. S. Department of Commerce. ^» '
For this test, the appropriate growth factors were computed as
follows:
Population: The 1970 AQMA population was determined
from 1970 Census data by county. (4) AQMA population
projections for 1980 were developed by the Baltimore
Regional Planning Council (BRPC).^5) The population
growth over the ten year period is expected to be 17. 1
percent. If it is assumed that the annual growth rate will
remain constant during that period, the annual growth rate
will be 1. 59 percent per year. The population growth factor
for the six-year period (1974-1980) is therefore 1. 10. This
is the population growth factor which was used in the test.
II-2
-------
Industrial Growth; The OBERS growth factors for the nine
major NER process categories in the AQMA and the growth
factor for the entire manufacturing sector were computed.
Earnings for 1980 were taken from the OBERS projections
for SMSAs'3) (based on series E population projections).
Since these projections contain no data for any years earlier
than 1980, the 1975 earnings were taken from OBERS
AQCR projections. <2) (The Baltimore AQCR, SMSA and
AQKIA are coincident. ) The correspondence between OBERS
sectors and NER process categories given in the Manual was
used in computing the data (see footnotes 1, 2 and 3).
Earnings 6 Year Growth'
NER Process (millions of 1967 dollars) Factor
Category 1975 1980 (1974-1980)
Chemical Manufacturing 126.8 157.9 1.29
Food/Agriculture 177.2 181.8 1.03
Primary Metals 450.2 445.3 0.99
Mineral Products 166 197.6 1.23
Petroleum 8.5 11.4 1.41
Wood Products" 105 124.3 1.22
3
Evaporation 1957 2086 1.08
Metal Fabrication 228.5 235 1.03
Other Manufacturing 166 197.6 1.23
Tot'al Manufacturing 1957 2086 1.08
Earnings for "Other Manufacturing" sector
2
Earnings for "Lumber Products and Furniture" and "Paper and
Allied Products" sectors
3
Earnings for "Total Manufacturing"
II-3
-------
The six-year growth factor for total manufacturing (1. 08)
indicates a forecast of relatively slow growth. This growth
rate is slightly greater than historic growth as determined
from data published for the period 1967-1972 by BRPC^5"8)
which indicate an equivalent six-year growth factor of 1. 05.
This is based on an increase in value added by the manu-
facturing sector of 20. 8 percent, and a wholesale price
increase of 17 percent over the same period due to inflation.
The real increase in value added during this period (in
constant dollars) was only 3. 8 percent, which is equivalent
to a yearly increase of 0. 75 percent.
Commercial/Institutional Employment: Employment
forecasts published by BRPC(5-8) are as follows:
Employment (000)
Category SIC 1970 1980
Retail 52-59 141.7 161.0
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate 60-67 44.9 53.0
Service 70-79, 81, 88.7 108.0
88, 89
Government Institution 80, 82, 86, 261.8 310.0
91- 93
Extensive Industry 1-17, 159.6 177.0
(including transportation) 40-50
Manufacturing 19-39 204.2 210.0
In the absence of more detailed data the commercial/
institutional sector was assumed to be composed of the
first five categories (all groups except manufacturing).
The increase in commercial/institutional employment
over the ten year period is expected to be 16. 1 percent.
This is equivalent to a growth rate of 1. 5 percent per
year, or a growth factor of 1. 094 for the six year period.
II-4
-------
Agricultural Activity: Projected earnings for the OBERS
agriculture sector for 1975 and 1980 are $31 million and
$39. 7 million respectively (1967 dollars) and can be found
in the same sources^, 3) cited previously. From this data
a six-year growth factor of 1. 33 was computed.
Transportation Sector Growth; Earnings data for the
transportation sector were taken from the OBERS pro-
jections (2, 3) referenced previously. Projected earnings
for 1980 and actual earnings for 1970 are $668.4 million
and $508. 1 million respectively (1967 dollars). This
yields a six-year growth factor of 1. 19.
Results of the preliminary test classified by emission source
category are presented and discussed in six sections as follows:
Industrial Process
Fuel Combustion
Transportation
Electric Generation
Incineration
Miscellaneous Area Sources
The structure of the presentation is keyed directly to the format given
in the Manual. In reviewing these results it is useful to refer to the
appropriate sections of the Manual in parallel.
II-5
-------
1. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
This section contains the test results for the procedures to deter-
mine present and future industrial process emissions.
(1) Inventory Update
Summary: Net emissions for each individual point source
and for each facility were available from the MEI; these data
were sorted and accumulated in the NEDS process category format.
Approach; Base year emissions were taken from the MEI
Summary of Emissions by Premise, which gives aggregated
process emissions for each facility or plant in the AQMA. The
company's name and its principal product were interpreted to
assign all the emissions for the facility to one NEDS process
category. These emissions were entered in columns 7-11,
Table 1. 1. Since there is no emission-producing activity for the
leather and textile industries in the AQMA, those lines were left
blank. At the aggregated level of this MEI printout, secondary
metals industries could not be differentiated from primary metals,
therefore all such activity was included in the primary metals
category. In addition, all emissions from inprocess fuel com-
bustion at each facility are included in the emissions in the single
NEDS process category for that facility, thus the inprocess fuel.
category was also left blank. If NEDS emission inventory data
were used, emissions for these categories could be easily deter-
mined from the SCC code. The two-digit SIC codes for each
process category are shown on the left side of Table 1. 1.
A more accurate but time consuming approach for aggre-
gating MEI data into NER process categories would be to assign
the emissions for each point source to a specific NER process
category and then add up all point source data to produce totals
for each process category. This approach is more accurate
because all the emission-producing activities at a given facility
are not necessarily limited to one NER process category. How
ever, to use this method it would be necessary to determine the
appropriate NER category based on the four digit SIC code and
three digit HEW equipment code, because point sources in the
MEI are not categorized by SCC code.
II-6
-------
(2) Emission Projections
Summary: The general procedure used to project emissions
was first to develop growth factors for each NER process category
and then to use these factors to project net base year emissions
to net emissions for the projection year. This method is essen-
tially equivalent to that of Level 1, Method 1, with the exception
of the procedure for including future emission control regulations.
This point is discussed in detail below.
Approach: The instructions for Method 1 of Level 1, in addi-
tion to developing process category growth factors, require
computing weighted emission-control factors which reflect the
change in required emission control for each source category
between the base year and the projection year. In this test,
it was not possible to include controls since current emission
control efficiency is not reported for each source in the MEI
The MEI data includes only a written description of the general
type of emission control, if any, and not the actual control
efficiency. Thus even a qualitative estimate of the extent of the
emission control in the base year could not be determined.
Consequently, the space in Table 1. 1 for control factor data
(columns 13-17) was left blank. In effect the results of the test
describe future emissions subject to controls currently in place.
The growth factors used for each process category were
those computed earlier in this chapter from the OBERS projec-
tions. These growth factors were entered in column 12,
Table 1. 1. Net baseline emissions were multiplied.by the growth
factor to produce 1980 emissions and were entered in Table 7. 2.
Conclusions; The most accurate method for forecasting
process emissions, as described in the Level 3 procedures,
involves forecasting on an individual point source basis rather
than on an aggregated source basis. This is because source-
specific data on base year emission control, equipment age and
operating capacity are needed to determine the equivalent source
activity level and projected net emissions as affected by future
emission control requirements. Individual source calculations
for Baltimore would be greatly assisted by using automatic data
processing programs accessing the existing computerized
source inventories, rather than using hand calculations only.
Such an effort was, however, well outside the scope of this
preliminary test.
II-7
-------
The effect of future emission controls was not included
in the projections because base year emission control efficiency
is not reported by the MEI. More stringent regulations to become
effective before 1980 will presumably cause a reduction in process
emissions, so the emission projections developed in this section
probably overestimate the levels which should reasonably be expected.
II-8
-------
2. FUEL COMBUSTION
This section contains the test results for the procedures to
determine present and future emissions from all stationary fuel
combustion sources except electric'generation which is considered
in Section 4.
(1) Inventory Update
Summary; Current fuel- use data were available from the
MEI; these data were sorted and accumulated to conform to the
NEDS fuel data format as given in Table 2. 1.
Approach: The MEI Fuel Combustion inventory gives
the total nonresidential fuel use for bituminous coal, distillate
oil, residual oil and natural gas for each county (including
point and area sources). While small quantities of minor fuels
are burned in the AQMA, their contribution to total fuel com-
bustion emissions is insignificant and consequently these
minor fuels have not been included in the calculations. In ad-
dition, differentiation between fuel use for external and inter-
nal combustion is not given in the MEI, so all fuel data was
entered in the external combustion columns of Table 2. 1. The
summation of point source fuel use for each industrial, com-
mercial/institutional and power generation facility is available
from the MEI Summary of Emissions by Premise. Data for
each facility were summed to give point source fuel use in the
county for these three customer categories. Industrial and
commercial/institutional fuel data were used in this section;
fuel data for electric generation was used in Section 4. For
each county, area source fuel use for each fuel was computed
as the difference between total fuel use and point-source fuel
use. County totals for point-source industrial, point-source
commercial/institutional, and area-source fuel use were
added to give AQMA totals. Area-source fuel use was then
allocated to industrial and commercial/institutional sources
by using the point-source proportions. These data were en-
tered in Table 2. 1. Residential (area-source) fuel use, since
it is not included in the MEI inventory, was taken from addi-
tional emissions, and fuel data supplied by BAQC '^) and was
also entered in Table 2. 1. The amount of electricity used for
space heat in the AQMA was estimated from the Census of
II-9
-------
Housing (1970)(4' and entered in Table 2. 1; the accuracy of that
data is adequate for this purpose.
The sulfur content of oil, and sulfur and ash content of
coal is given in the MEI Fuel Combustion inventory for each
source. Weighted sulfur and ash contents were estimated
from this data according to the Manual instructions and were
entered in Table 2. 3.
Emission factors were taken from AP-42. ' ' While
these emission factors are usually given as a function of only
fuel and customer category, in some cases they are also de-
termined by the type and size of the furnace. Since the MEI
gives the furnace size (in Btu/hr. heat input) for all fuel burn-
ing sources, weighted emission factors reflecting the mix of
furnace type and size could be estimated. The emission fac-
tors are shown on Worksheet 2. 1. Emissions were computed
by multiplying fuel use by the weighted emission factors, and
sulfur or ash content if necessary, and were entered in
Table 7. 1.
Conclusions; The most accurate method for determining
emissions from fuel combustion involves estimating emissions
for each individual source and then adding up the emissions to
the NER source category level, rather than aggregating fuel
use data first and then converting to emissions. Raw source-
specific emissions data necessary for the former approach
are available in the MEI system but the printouts used for this
test did not contain summarized emission data in a format
directly compatible with the NER fuel-source categories.
These printouts contained:
Total fuel combustion emissions for each facility,
but not emissions for each fuel
Total emissions for each fuel, but with no infor-
mation on customer category (industrial, com-
mercial/institutional).
Summarizing MEI source-specific emission data into the NER
source category-format could be accomplished only by summing
11-10
-------
Worksheet 2.1
Fuel Emission Factors
Units
PART
SOX
CO HC NOX
Industrial
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Commercial/
Institutional
Bituminous
Coal2
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Residential
O.b
4 3
n 3
-Ta-
c
-------
emissions for each fuel, for each facility, manually or by
using a computer-processing routine. Since both of these ap-
proaches were outside the scope of the study, the alternative
method described previously was used.
In order to compute emissions from aggregated fuel
totals, some simplifications were made which affect the ac-
curacy of the emission totals entered in Table 7. 1. These in-
cluded using weighted emission factors (reflecting the mix of
furnace type and size), using weighted sulfur and ash contents,
and distributing area-source fuel use to customer categories
based on the point source proportions for those categories.
These simplifications are not necessary if the individual source
calculations recommended in Level 3 in the Manual are em-
ployed.
(2) Emission Projections
Summary; The methodology used was essentially that
recommended for Level 2. Industrial, commercial/institutional,
and residential growth factors were determined and the future
Btu demand for those customer categories was projected. The
net Btu increase between 1974 and 1980 was then computed.
The fuels expected to be used to meet this additional Btu de-
mand were determined, and were combined with the base year
fuel mix to produce the fuel mix for 1980.
Approach; Level 2 procedures as given in the Manual
were followed. The baseline fuel use was converted to Btu
equivalents using the following Btu conversion factors ap-
propriate for the AQMA as supplied by BAQC:
Residual oil : 150, 000 Btu per gallon
Distillate oil : 170,000 Btu per gallon
Natural gas : 1,000 Btu per cubic foot
Bituminous coal: 25,000,000 Btu per ton.
The base year Btu demand was entered in Table 2. 6.
11-12
-------
Growth factors used were as follows:
Residential: The population growth factor
Industrial: The growth rate for the total manu-
facturing sector
Commercial/institutional; The expected growth
in employment for commercial and institutional
sectors.
The growth factors were entered in Table 2. 7. These were
used to project the Btu demand for each customer category
and the results were also entered in Table 2. 7. By comparing
the projected Btu demand to the base year Btu demand, the
change in Btu demand for each customer category, was de-
termined and was also added to Table 2. 7. The increase in
residential Btu demand was allocated to 75 percent electricity
and 25 percent distillate oil in view of the fact that few new
residential customers for natural gas are being accepted in
the AQMA. The increases in industrial and commercial/
institutional Btu demand were allocated to 80 percent oil and
20 percent natural gas. The base year residual and distillate
proportions were used to distribute the fuel oil increase be-
tween residual and distillate; the base year point source and
area source proportions were also used to distribute the pro-
jected fuel increases between point and area sources.
The emission factors used for computing projected
emissions were the base year emission factors, weighted to
reflect the mix of furnace type and size in the AQMA. The
base year sulfur and ash contents were also used, with one
exception: the sulfur cpntent of residual oil was estimated to
be 0. 5 percent, as suggested in the trial AQMP. ^-' Emissions
for 1980 were computed by multiplying fuel use by the emission
factors, and by the sulfur and ash content, if necessary, and
were entered in Table 7. 2.
It was assumed that the 1980 control requirements for
fuel combustion would be the same as those in 1974. This was
based on the fact that the only fuel combustion controls specified
in the Control Factor/Mobile Source document are for power
plants. (11)
11-13
-------
Conclusions; As explained previously in the conclusions
to the inventory update section, the most accurate approach
for estimating present or future fuel combustion emissions
involves calculations on an individual source basis rather than
an aggregated source basis. With respect to accuracy, the
most critical aspects of projecting fuel combustion emissions
include not only the forecast of the future Btu demand but also
the very careful determination of the future fuel mix.
11-14
-------
3. TR ANSPOR TATION
This section contains the test results for the procedures to
determine present and future emissions from all transportation
sources. Highway vehicles; off-highway vehicles, rail locomotives,
vessels and aircraft are discussed separately.
(1) Highway Vehicles
1. Inventory Update
Summary; The Manual instructions for a Level 1
inventory update for light-duty vehicles (LDV) were
followed with a few exceptions, as described below.
These procedures involve computing weighted emission
factors (which include the effects of the vehicle model
year distribution and deterioration of control devices),
determining vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from gasoline
sales data, and multiplying VMT by the weighted emis-
sion factors to produce emissions.
Approach; The fraction of vehicles in use, the
annual miles driven and the weighted annual travel were
taken from Table A-21 of the Control Factor/Mobile
Source document. ^^ The test emission factors for
HC (exhaust), CO, and NOX were taken from AP-42. d°)
These emission factors reflect the effect of deterioration
of control devices with vehicle age; they were calculated
only for light-duty gasoline vehicles (excluding light-
duty trucks and motorcycles) because emissions in the
AQMA for light-duty trucks and motorcycles were as-
sumed to be negligible compared to automobile emissions.
The test emission factors for HC (evaporation) were
taken from Table 3. 1. 2-3 of AP-42 and those for particu-
lates and SOX were taken from Table 3. 1. 2-8 of AP-42.
The test emission factors for HC (exhaust), HC
(evaporation), CO, and NOX were multiplied by the
corresponding weighted annual travel for each year and
the results were entered in the boxes on lines 16 through
19 of Table 3. 2. The contents of boxes on each line
11-15
-------
were added to obtain the weighted emission factors as
shown in the lower right-hand corner of Table 3.2. The
effect of deterioration on particulate and SOX emissions
is minor, so the test emission factors for particulates
and SOX were used as the weighted emission factors.
The weighted emission factors obtained in Table 3. 2
were transferred to Table 3. 4. In the absence of local
data on vehicle speeds, the speed correction factors
given in Chapter III of the Manual for Level 1 inventory
update were used and entered in Table 3. 4. The total
VMT for the AQMA were estimated by multiplying the
gasoline sales in gallons for LDV by an average of 13.6
miles per gallon for LDV (all average mileage factors
were taken from the Manual). The result was entered
in Table 3. 4. This average mileage and all others used
in this section are given in the Manual.
The total emissions in 1974 were obtained by
multiplying the total VMT by the speed correction factors
and the corresponding weighted emission factors to ob-
tain the emissions of HC (exhaust), CO and NOX. Emis-
sions for HC (evaporation), particulates and SOX \
were obtained by multiplying the total VMT by the
corresponding weighted emission factors. The emis-
sions of HC (exhaust) and HC (evaporation) were-
added to obtain the total HC emissions. The base year
emissions were entered on Worksheet 3. 1 and in Table 7. 1.
Baseline emission estimates for heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles (HDG) were obtained as the Manual suggests for
Level 1. The total VMT for this class were obtained by
multiplying the gasoline sales in gallons by an average
of 8. 4 miles per gallon. The speed correction factors
used for LDV were used for HDG vehicles as well. The
emission factors were taken from AP-42. Since fuel use
for this class was a small fraction of that for LDV, de-
tailed calculations to obtain weighted emission factors
were considered unnecessary. Using the total VMT, the
speed correction factors and the emission factors, as
shown in Table 3. 4, the total emissions for HDG were
obtained iri the same manner as those for LDV. The
results were entered in Worksheet 3. 1 and Table 7. 1.
11-16
-------
Worksheet 3.1
Highway Vehicle Emissions
Vehicle 1974 Emissions, TPY
Class PART SOX NOX HC CO
LDV
HDV
HDD 3<0i n^? I0.3ol | ,0^0
6m
Vehicle 1980 Emissions, TPY
Class PART SQX NOX HC CO
LDV (j&IH IkioO
HDV H 33
HDD *< ' I
1T38
11-17
-------
In the case of heavy-duty dieseI vehicles (HDD),
the total VMT were obtained by multiplying the diese I
sales in gallons by an average of 5. 1 miles per gallon.
The emission factors were taken from AP-42. Using the
total VMT and the emission factors as shown in Table 3. 4,
the emissions for HDD were obtained and entered in
Worksheet 3. 1 and Table 7. 1.
2. Emission Projections
Approach; Level 2 procedures were carried out to
estimate projected highway vehicle emissions for 1980.
The growth factor used was the population growth factor.
The VMT for the base year and the growth factor were
entered in Table 3. 4. Weighted emission factors for
LDV appropriate for 1980 were computed according to
the Manual instructions, and another Table 3. 2 was com-
pleted for the projection year. Weighted emission fac-
tors and speed correction factors (the same as the base
year) were entered in Table 3. 4. These data were used
to compute projected emissions which were entered on
Worksheet 3. 1 and Table 7. 2.
Conclusions: The accuracy of both the inventory
update and emission projection could be improved by
using vehicle age distribution and weighted annual travel
for automobiles in the Baltimore AQMA rather than the
average national data taken from the Control Factor/
Mobile Source document. Detailed forecasts for vehicle
travel in 1980 in the AQMA would also improve the
accuracy of the projections.
(2) Off-Highway Vehicles
1. Inventory Update
The three principal off-highway vehicle categories
in the AQMA are gasoline and diesel tractors and diesel
construction equipment. Fuel-use data by county are
11-18
-------
tabulated by the BAQC for these three categories and
are estimated based on tractor registrations and con-
struction sector employment as described in all levels
of Chapter III. Fuel-use data were entered in Table 3.1.
The following emission factors were supplied by BAQC:
Pollutant
Part.
sox
NOX
HC
CO
Units
lb/1,000 gal.
lb/l,QOO gal.
lb/1,000 gal.
lb/1,000 gal.
lb/1,000 gal.
Tractors
(Gasoline)
12
.4.4
173. 9
466.3
2500
Tractors and
Construction
Equipment
(Diesel)
13
27
370
37
225
Fuel use data were multiplied by the emission factors
and the results were then entered in Table 7. 1.
2. Emission Projections
The approach used follows the Level 1 procedures.
The growth factor used was that for agricultural activity
computed at the beginning of this chapter. That growth
factor, 1.33, was entered in Table 3. 1. The industrial
growth factor (1. 08), was used to approximate growth
for the construction sector, and was also entered in
Table 3. 1. Emissions were calculated using the base
year emissions factors given above and the results were
then entered in Table 7. 2.
(3) Rail Locomotives
1. Inventory Update
Summary; The procedures for all levels are iden-
tical. Since regional railroad statistics are usually not
tabulated below the state level, diesel fuel consumption
11-19
-------
by locomotives for the state was determined, and the
share of fuel for the AQMA was calculated.
Approach; The names of railroads operating in
Maryland, total locomotive-miles for each of these rail-
roads, and the percentage of total miles traveled in
Maryland by each railroad were determined from two
publications of the Association of American Railroads'(A AR),
"Railroad Mileage by State"(12) and "Operating and
Traffic Statistics. "(") These data were added to produce
total locomotive mileage in the state. The average
nationwide fuel-consumption rate for locomotives was
computed using the total nationwide locomotive mileage
and fuel consumption from "Statistics of Railroads of
Class 1, "(14) published by the AAR. The amount of fuel
used in Maryland was computed by dividing locomotive
miles in the state by the average miles per gallon. The
share of fuel for the AQMA was based on the AQMA's
share of the state population and was entered in Table 3.1.
These calculations are shown on Worksheet 3. 2. Emis-
sions were calculated using the emission factors in
AP-42 and were entered in Table 7. 1.
2. Emission Projections
The difference between the levels given in the
Manual reflects the difference in effort required to
identify and evaluate alternative sources for projection
data. Publications of the AAR consulted for the inven-
tory update are typical of the data sources recommended
for Level 1; these publications indicated that the growth
in fuel consumption from 1970 to 1973 was 2. 8 percent
per year. The assumption that the same rate of growth
will occur in the near future yields a six-year growth
factor (1974-1980) of 1. 17. This growth factor and the
projected fuel use were entered in Table 3. 1; projected
emissions were computed using the emission factors in .
AP-42 and were entered in Table 7. 2.
11-20
-------
Worksheet 3.2
Rail Locomotive Fuel Consumption
Locomotive -
Miles
% in
State
Locomotive -
Miles in State
B&O
Norfolk &
Western
Perm Central
Western Md.
23
Total
Total Locomotive Miles (U.S.)
Total Fuel Consumed Cu-^-')
Avg. miles per gallon «
Gallons consumed in state - <
GS o , I"»O , "^84 M
IOS
/
AQMA population /state population ~ o >
Gallons consumed in AQMA ^-
11-21
-------
(4) Vessels
1. Inventory Update
The instructions for all three levels are identical,
and involve determining the fuel use for the vessel cate-
gories in Table 3. 1. Fuel information was not directly
available from the data supplied by the BAQC, but net
emissions from vessels were given. (9) Emission data
by county was aggregated to the NER format as given in
Table 3. 1 and was entered on Worksheet 3. 3 and Table 7. 1.
2. Emission Projection
The growth factors used for vessels were as follows:
Commercial vessels (diesel and residual oil):
the growth in employment for the transpor-
tation sector
Recreational vessels (gasoline): the popu-
lation growth factor.
These growth factors are given in Worksheet 3. 3. Since
vessel emissions are not a major source of pollution in
the Baltimore AQMA, the more time-consuming technique
of interviewing port authority officials and reviewing
various sources for projection information as suggested
in the Manual were not employed. Base year emissions
were multiplied by the growth factors and entered in
Table 7. 2. In computing future vessel emissions di-
rectly by multiplying base year emissions by a growth
factor, it was assumed that the emission factors for
1980 would not differ from present emission factors. It
was also assumed that the ratio of inport to underway
fuel consumption and the ratio of diesel- to residual-fueled
vessels would remain constant.
11-22
-------
Worksheet 3. 3
Vessel Emissions (1974), TPY
PART SOX NOX HC CO
DIESEL In port 5" <3 \S 'o
Underway «. nd
-------
(5) Aircraft
1. Inventory Update
The activity index used to compute aircraft
emissions is the number of landing and takeoff cycles
(LTO). The instructions for all three levels are virtually
identical, and include a number of suggested sources for
LTO data. Baltimore-Washington International Airport
is the single major commercial airport in the AQMA.
The only aircraft activity data collected for the inventory
update were for this airport, since emissions from other
civil or military airports are comparatively negligible.
LTO data by aircraft type were obtained from'"Air--
port Activity Statistics" (AAS), ^5) an annual publication
compiled jointly by the CAB and DOT. AP-42 (10) and
AAS were consulted to determine the relationship be-
tween aircraft types (e.g., B-747, L-1011, DC-10) and
each aircraft class as given in Table 3. 5 (e. g., jumbo
jet). Since emission factors in AP-42 are given in terms
of Ib/engine/LTO for each class, and types of aircraft
within a class have varying engine configurations, it
was necessary to compute engine landing/take off cycles
(ELTO) for each class by multiplying LTO for each type
by the number of engines in that type of aircraft, and
adding the results to produce the total ELTO cycles for
the class. This was done on Worksheet 3. 4, and the ag-
gregated ELTO data were entered on Table 3. 5. Since
data for military or commercial activity were not
collected, those lines in Table 3. 5 were left blank.
Emission factors were taken from AP-42 and 1974
sions were computed and entered in Table 7. 1.
2. Emission Projections
Level 3 specifies a growth factor to be computed
for each aircraft type. This more detailed approach was
not followed because of the small relative contribution of
aircraft emissions. Level 2 procedures, for which one
growth factor reflecting the change in commercial
11-24
-------
Worksheet 3.4
Aircraft Activity and Emissions
(1974)
Class /Type LTO Engines EL TO
Jumbo Jet _
B747 Ib3 1 kbT.
L-1011 ^ 3 3 36,S\?l
BAC-111
-------
aircraft activity is required, were followed instead.
This is equivalent to assuming the mix of aircraft types
will remain static.
"Terminal Area Forecast, 1975-1985, "(16) a
publication of DOT, was consulted to determine the
growth factor; the growth factor and projected ELTO
cycles for 1980 were entered in Table 3. 5. Note that
the data in Table 3. 5 are the number of engine landing-
takeoff cycles (ELTO) since emission factors are defined
on this basis. Emissions were computed using the emis-
sion factors in AP-42 and were entered in Table 7. 2.
11-26
-------
4. ELECTRIC GENERATION
This section contains the test results for the procedures to
determine present and future emissions from stationary fuel combus-
tion to generate electricity. All other stationary fuel combustion
sources are considered in Section 2.
(1) Inventory Update
Summary: Current fuel use data and net emissions were
available from the MEI; these data were sorted and accumulated
to conform to the NEDS fuel data format.
Approach: Annual fuel consumption and net annual emissions
are given in the MEI Fuel Combustion Inventory for each equip-
ment unit at each facility. Fuel use for all facilities by fuel
type and sulfur content were summed on Worksheet 4. 1. This
produced data for the following categories:
Residual oil;(l% sulfur)
Residual oil (0. 8% sulfur)
Distillate oil (0. 3% sulfur)
Distillate oil (0. 2% sulfur)
Bituminous coal
Natural gas.
Total fuel use for distillate and residual oil were determined,
and fuel use was then entered in Table 4. 1. Net emissions
from the MEI for each of these six fuel categories were entered
on Worksheet 4. 1 and net emissions for the four NEDS fuel
categories were entered in Table 7.1.
(2) Emission Projections
Summary: The Level 1 projection methodology involves
projecting the amount of electricity to be generated and then
determining the amount of fuels which will be burned to generate
that electricity. Levels 2 and 3 specify determining directly
the quantities of fuels which will be burned at each plant. The
plant-specific approach is more accurate because changes in
11-27
-------
Worksheet 4.1
Electric Generation Emissions
Residual
Residual
Residual
Distillate
Distillate
Distillate
Bit. Coal
Nat. Gas
(1974) TPY
Amount %S %A PART
o.fc
03
i-o 8
Total
15"!
3141
NOX
SOX
HC
Ho
5*
HI
10
BTU
(,/L
Fuel
Residual
Residual
Residual
Distillate
Distillate
Distillate
Bit. Coal
Nat. Gas
(i)
(2)
Projected Emissions (1980)
(TPY)
Growth
Factor %S
(1)
i.O
0,fc
1,0
Total
Base year sulfur content
Change in sulfur content
PART
NOX
SOX
HC
-53 «?
to
8)0$"
70 1,0
11-28
-------
plant-specific emission control can be included. Neither of these
two approaches were followed for two reasons:
Plant-specific projection data were not available, but
forecasts fo the total fuel input demand in Btu's were
available
The MEI does not include point or plant specific
emission control data explicitly.
The general approach taken was to determine an overall growth
factor for fossil fuel power generation, and to use this growth
factor to project net emissions to 1980.
Approach: The available forecast data included the following:
Growth projection data given in terms of the future
fuel input demand (Btu equivalents)
Future control data, including the maximum allowable
sulfur content and control efficiencies required by
Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
New source performance standards for power plants given in the
Control Factor/Mobile Source document indicate that the regula-
tions are expected to become effective in 1975. Thus all new
equipment installed between 1975 and 1980 would be governed
by these regulations. However, because equipment-specific
control information was not available in the MEI, the effect
of these NSPS could not be determined. It was assumed for,>' '
purposes of this test that the impact of standards governing new
or retrofit equipment installed between 1975 and 1980 would be
minor. This assumption is supported by the fact that much of
the equipment presently operational is controlled to some extent,
and that since the Btu input requirements will decrease by half
during that time, little new equipment will probably be installed
anyway. This approach is equivalent to assuming that new
equipment would have the same emission control as existing
equipment.
Fuel use for 1974, as given on Worksheet 4. 1, was con-
verted to Btu equivalents and added to produce the 1974 fuel Btu
demand, (115 x 10*2 .Btu) also shown on Worksheet 4. 1. The
11-29
-------
trial AQMP indicates that the electricity demand in the region
is expected to continue to increase, but the fossil fuel demand
decreases until 1978 and then starts to increase again. This
decrease is due to the addition of nuclear generating capacity.
The estimated fossil fuel Btu demand for 1980 is 57 x 1012 Btu,
and the growth factor is, therefore, 57/115 or 0. 496.
Projected emissions for all pollutants except SOX from
residual oil were calculated by multiplying 1974 net emissions
for each fuel by the growth factor. SOX emissions are affected
by restrictions on the sulfur content of fuel oil expected to
become effective in 1975 as given in the trial AQMP. (*' The
maximum sulfur content of residual oil will be 0. 5 percent and
of distillate oil will be 0. 3 percent. Almost all of the distillate
oil used in 1974 was 0. 3 percent sulfur or less, so distillate oil
emissions will not be affected by this restriction. Most residual
oil used in 1974 exceeded 0. 5 percent, however. Thus, SOX
emissions for residual oil were computed by multiplying 1974
emissions by the growth factor and by a factor reflecting the
change in sulfur content. This factor is 0. 5 (change from
1 percent to 0. 5 percent) or 0. 625 (change from 0.8 percent to
0. 5 percent). Projected emissions for the six fuel categories
are shown on Worksheet 4. 1, and were aggregated to the NEDS
fuel categories and entered in Table 7.2.
Conclusions: The most accurate projection method, as
stated before, involves projection on a plant or equipment
basis. This approach would include consideration of planned
conversions to different fuels and the installation of new gen-
erating facilities. A new 600 MW plant in the AQMA is expected
to become operational in 1978. The fuel demand for 1980
reflects the impact of the new plant but not fuel information,
emission control and operating characteristics specific to that
facility.
11-30
-------
5. INCINERATION
This section contains the test results for the procedures to
determine present and future emissions from incineration of solid
waste.
(1) Inventory Update
Summary: MEI data were converted and aggregated to
NER format.
Approach: Data from the MEI incineration inventory
summarized by county were aggregated to produce net annual
emissions for the AQMA from solid waste disposal. Tonnage
burned per year was not directly available, so Table 5. 1 could
not be completed. Emission data are shown on Worksheet 5. 1.
Additional data supplied by the BAQC'^' indicated that incin-
eration is the only method of disposal presently used in any of
the jurisdictions of the AQMA, although other methods (princi-
pally open burning and coal refuse incineration) are used else-
where in the state. Emissions were entered in Table 7. 1.
(2) Emission Projections
It is quite likely that incineration emissions in the AQMA
will not follow demographic or industrial growth indicators
because of future restrictions on incinerator operation. Incin-
eration contributes only slightly to the total emissions of the
AQMA, therefore little effort was spent attempting to quantify
future regulations concerning buring of solid waste. It was
assumed that there would be no increase in emissions from
this source category, so net emissions for 1980, equal to
those for 1974, were entered in Table 7.2.
11-31
-------
Worksheet 5.1
Emissions from Incineration
1974 (TPY)
Source PART NOX CO SOX HC
Industrial Zg> ^3 G3 4 3
Commercial ^CTia 7 To
Institutional
Residential 0 1
NOTE: 1. Govt incinerators included in commercial institutional.
2. Point source emissions only
3. Unclassified sources included in commercial-institutional
category.
11-32
-------
6. MISCELLANEOUS AREA SOURCES
This final section contains the test results for the procedures
to determine present and future emissions from miscellaneous area
sources not considered in other sections.
(1) Inventory Update
Annual retail gasoline sales and an estimate of annual
solvent use in the AQMA were included in the data supplied
by BAQC. * ' The solvent estimate was based on a factor of
2 Ib/capita/year. These data were entered in Table 6. 1. The
HC emission factors suggested by BAQC were 10.4 lb/1, 000 gallons
(filling service station tanks) and 11. 67 lb/1, 000 gallons (filling
automobile tanks) for gasoline handling, and 305 Ib/ton for
solvent use. The HC emissions were entered in Table 7. 1.
No other emissions from miscellaneous area sources were
included in this preliminary test analysis.
(2) Emission Projections
Level 3 procedures were followed. Future solvent use
was estimated using the population growth factor (1. 10) and
was entered in Table 6. 1. As suggested in Level 3, the growth
factor for automobile travel (1.10) computed previously was used
to forecast gasoline sales, since vehicle travel and gasoline
sales have historically been closely related (though for a variety
of reasons they may not be so in the future). Future gasoline
sales were also entered in Table 6.1. Projected emissions
were computed using the same emission factors as were used
in the inventory update section and the results were entered in
Table 7. 2.
The discussion and analysis presented in the preceding sections
are intended to illustrate how the procedures given in the Manuall
can be applied using actual data for an AQMA. When data constraints
11-33
-------
made strict adherence to the specified procedure infeasible, alternative
approaches were used and described. This illustrates the flexibility
which should characterize the use of the Manual in practice.
The results for the Baltimore AQMA which are presented here
are for illustrative purposes only, and do not represent a full emissions
projection for the planning area. Many assumptions which require
modification and omissions resulting from the limited scope of this
test effort limit the validity of the actual results, and a much more
thorough study is recommended before the maintenance plan is finalized.
This preliminary test served its primary purpose well in that it
identified areas in the Manual instructions requiring clarification and
it confirmed the applicability of the December 12, 1974, version.
11-34
-------
REFERENCES
(1) Environmental Protection Agency, Development of Trial Air
Quality Maintenance Plan Using the Baltimore Air Quality
Control Region, EPA-450/3-74-050, September 1974.
(2) U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Projections of Economic Activity for Air Quality Control
Regions, (PEERS projections), August 1973.
(3) U. S. Water Resources Council, The OBERS Projections,
Regional Economic Activity in the U.S., Volume 5; Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the U. S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, April 1974.
(4) Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Maryland, 1970 Fourth
Count Census Data Regional Planning Districts, April 1972.
(5) Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Maryland, various issues
of the Economic Review, a publication containing current and
future trends and forecasts for the manufacturing and retail in-
dustries, population, housing and other economic parameters.
(6) Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Maryland, The Structure
of the Metropolitan Baltimore Economy, September 1972.
(7) Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Maryland, Potentials for
Retail Growth in the Baltimore Region, December 1970.
(8) Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Maryland, various mem-
oranda dealing with projections and allocations concerning
employment and real growth in all industrial and commercial
sectors of the region's economy.
(9) Maryland Bureau of Air Quality Control, emission and fuel data
by county for the state of Maryland
(10) Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, publication number AP-42, April 1973.
II-35
-------
(11) Environmental Protection Agency, Control Factor/Mobile Source
Document, November 1974. This draft document contains the
latest mobile source emission factors and estimated emission
reduction due to promulgated and proposed Federal New Source
Performance Standards.
(12) Association of American Railroads, Economics and Finance
Department, Railroad Mileage by States as of December 1971,
Washington, D. C., December 1972.
(13) Association of American Railroads, Economics and Finance
Department, Operating and Traffic Statistics, Washington, D. C.
1973.
(14) Association of American Railroads, Statistics of Railroads of
Class I in the United States for the Years 1963 to 1973.
Washington, D. C., August 1974.
(15) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
and the U. S. Civil Aeronautics board, Aircraft Activity Statistics
of Certified Route Air Carriers (12 month period ended
December 31, 1973)
(16) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, Terminal Area Forecast 1975-1985, July 1973.
11-36
-------
Table 1. 1
Baseline Emissions, Growth Factors and Controls
NEDS PROCESS
CATEGORY
COLUMN
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
FOOD/AGRICULTURE
PRIMARY METALS
SECONDARY METALS
MINERAL PRODUCTS
PETROLEUM
WOOD PRODUCTS
EVAPORATION
METAL FABRICATION
LEATHER
TEXTILE
INPROCESSFUEL
OTHER
NEDS DATA YR
PART
1
SOX
2
NOX
3
HC
4
CO
5
f
6
'
BASELINE YR I^Tt
PART
7
1203
/0fc
12/07
i20P
47
fe
12.
//<*
5-
SOX
8
4318
2.37
25*85
3*4
2/7
0
0
/37
-?8
NOX
9
yas-
a37
3I7S-/
503
2.4
0
**
t2J
f&
HC
10
3^b
/3S
JIZ73
/IU-
5-7
/7^
4V7
/44Z.
tssx
*
CO
11
3
0
ff/O
/4
0
o
£>
O
O
GROWTH!
FACTOR
12
\.11
1.03
0.11
1. 2L3
A*/
/.X2
/.08
/.OS
/.ZZ
CONTROLS (1-EQUIVALENT
CONTROL EFFICIENCY)
PART
13
SOX
14
NOX
15
HC
16
CO
17
Vc.
10
M %,
BASELINE CALCULATION LEVEL , METHOD
PROJECTION CALCULATION LEVEL \ , METHOD
DATA SOURCES:
*iNCOMC>ee'nr
PROJECTION YEAR
-------
Table 2.1
Baseline County Fuel Use
(External Combustion Unless Noted Otherwise)
i
ro
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
RESIDENTIAL
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
AREA
UNITS
MAJOR
FUELS
COAL
ANTHRACITE
BITUMINOUS
O
O
+
10
33.7
LIGNITE
lOfcOJONS
OIL
RESIDUAL
ICO
44
21
3^
O
LLATE
fc
O
30
24
78
/oo
24>8
LLATE
ERNAL)'
£z
o =
1000, 0»O
GALLONS
NATURAL GAS
/O
5
2.1
/o
33
NATURAL GAS
(INTERNAL)"
10* CU FT
MINOR
FUELS
PROCESS GAS
§
1000
GAL
UJ
*
8
O
o
BAGASSE
TONS
DIESEL (INTERNAL)'
INE (INTERNAL)"
O
VJ
<
O
1000
GALLONS
ENGINE TESTING
(INTERNAL)"
OTHER
OTHER (INTERNAL)"
ELEC-
TRIC-
ITY
(USED AS
FUEL SUBSTITUTE)
0
o
.*,*
KWH
CALCULATION LEVEL.
DATA SOURCES
'ALL INTERNAL COMBUSTION REFERS TO STATIONARY SOURCES ONLY
H
v>
cr
i'
0)
-------
Table 2. 2
Sulfur and Ash Content of Coal and Heating Oil (Projections)
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
RESIDENTIAL
ELECTRICITY
RENFRATION
PROJECTION
YEAR
YR: /fgO
YR:
YR:
YR: /?££>
YR:
YR:
YR: /?££>
YR:
YR:
YR: /?0O
YR:
YR:
PERCENT SULFUR*
O
CJ
LU
0
<
I
H
*
O
CJ
co
D '
O
Z
3
m
z.o
2.0
f.O
o
o
LU
Z
o
J
o
_J
D
O
CO
oc
^.s-
o<5-
o.s1
LU
CO
o
0.3
0.3
O.Z
,a.-.3
PERCENT ASH*
8
LU
H
CJ
DC
I
<
8
CO
O
Z
5
h-
CQ
8
8
8
o
0
LU
Z
a
-1
CALCULATION LEVEL
DATA SOURCES
*SULFUR AND ASH CONTENT ARE GIVEN PER
UNIT WEIGHT FOR COAL, PER UNIT VOLUME FOR OIL
-------
Table 2.3
Sulfur and Ash Content of Coal and Heating Oil
i
-pr
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
RESIDENTIAL
ELECTRICITY
GENERATION
PERCENT SULFUR*
8
HI
o
^
cc
I
z
<
8
co
o
z
H
m
ZX>
2-0
X.0
o
o
01
1-
z
o
-1
0
^
^
Q
CO
HI
CC
e.e
c.e
I.O
_,
o
01
i
_j
H
CO
o
<,.*
°'*
0-3
PERCENT ASH*
8
HI
1-
CJ
^
cc
I
z
**
R
CO
o
z
^
1-
m
S
s
8
8
HI
I-
z
a
-1
DATA SOURCES:
BASE YEAR:
*SULFUR AND ASH CONTENT ARE GIVEN PER UNIT
WEIGHT FOR COAL. PER UNIT VOLUME FOR OIL
ro
to
(JO
-------
Table 2.6
Baseline County Fuel Use (Btu Equivalents)
(External Combustion Unless Noted Otherwise)
DATA '. 10
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
RESIDENTIAL
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
AREA
MAJOR
FUELS
COAL
UJ
ANTHRACIT
O
0
o
o
O
BITUMINOU
O
0
.1
.25-
.&*
LIGNITE
0
o
0
. 0
0
OiL
RESIDUAL
,r
6.fo
3-/^
5-f
3*X
w
NATURAL G
(INTERNAL)
MINOR
FUELS
in
PROCESS GA
O
UJ
B
Q
O
BAGASSE
3
z
DC
UJ
DIESEL (INT
£
Z
oc
UJ
ASOLINE (IN
O
O
z
ENGINE TES
(INTERNAL)
OTHER
_t
Z
IT
UJ
OTHER (INT
ELEC-
TRIC-
ITY
K
D
K
(USED AS
FUELSUBST
o
o
.s&
BTU
DE-
MAND
IZ-
ID1
R>TU
44-.i
-------
Table 2.7
Fuel Combustion Growth Factor
and Projected Btu Demand
M
M
M
I
SOURCE
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
GROWTH
FACTOR
YR13BO
/.08?
/./o<*
/.oe>
PROJECTED
BTU
DEMAND
79-09
?/.&?
4?.^
x68TU
+<,.4t>
+ b.*7
*3.S~3
CALCULATION LEVEL
DATA SOURCES
H
P
cr
^'
tt)
to
-------
Table 2.8
Projected County Fuel Use
(External Combustion Unless Noted Otherwise)
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
RESIDENTIAL
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
AREA
UNITS
MAJOR
FUELS
COAL
LU
ANTHRACIT
_
BITUMINOU!
0
0
4
/*
33.7
UJ
K
Z
O
_l
|00o TONS
OIL
RESIDUAL
HO
4B.1
2.4.2.
41. *
0
DISTILLATE
32,4
2*1
»&.?
t,s.e
zrt.s
,
DISTILLATE
(INTERNAL)
}000,OOO
GALLONS
co
<
NATURAL G
*.*
s-i
2/.9
te.4
33
CO
< .
NATURAL G
(INTERNAL)
lO^CU FT
MINOR
FUELS
00
PROCESS GA
a
a.
1000
GAL
UJ
8
Q
O
BAGASSE
TONS
_j
<
z
oc
UJ
DIESEL (INT
_i
<
Z
DC
LU
t
ASOLINEdN
0
1000
GALLONS
I
ENGINE TES
(INTERNAL!
OTHER
_j
<
Z
cc
H
Z
LC
UJ
I
s
ELEC-
TRIC-
ITY
_
|
(USED AS
FUELSUBST
**
**
A-V
ff
-------
Table 3. 1
Transportation Activity (Off-Highway Vehicles, Rail and Vessels)
Baseline and Projections
SOURCE
OFF-HIGHWAY
VEHICLES
TRACTORS
OTHER
TRACTORS
CONSTRUCTION
OTHER
RAIL
VESSELS
FUEL
GASOLINE
GASOLINE
DIESEL
DIESEL
DIESEL
DIESEL
DIESEL
RESIDUAL
OIL
COAL
GASOLINE
UNITS
1000 GAL
1000 GAL
1000 GAL
1000 GAL
1000 GAL
1000 GAL
1000 GAL
1000 GAL
TONS
1000 GAL
L
I
N
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BASELINE
YR74
AMOUNT
39BS-
o
232S-
f^3oS
0
/Z.IB2-
(/)
(0
0
(I)
PROJECTIONS
YR &0
GROWTH
FACTOR
/.33
/33
I.&&
A/7
/-/?
/.If
h't>
AMOUNT
S-300
0
3012-
7/?
O
L/V/7*
(/)
(l>
O
(n
YR
GROWTH
FACTOR
AMOUNT
YR
GROWTH
FACTOR
AMOUNT
CO
BASELINE CALCULATION LEVEL
(O
PROJECTION CALCULATION LEVEL \
DATA SOURCES
-------
Table 3.2
Weighted Emission Factors for Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (Base Year or Projections)
VEHICLE AGE, YEARS (i)
VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
FRACTiON OF VEHICLES IN USE (fj»
ANNUAL MILES DRIVEN (t|)
fjtj (line 3 x line 4)
WEIGHTED ANNUAL TRAVEL
DETERIORATION
FACTOR
TEST
EMISSION
FACTOR
(6/m)
WEIGHTED
EMISSION
FACTOR
C&/nr)
HC (EXH)
CO
NOX
HC(EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
SOX
HC(EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
SOX
LINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
§8
^'Mi
f-Vf
2&
m
m
"sd|
>s.5?..
'"'^
X
'&
' -£TII
'-*;
;'
"'^
J
.s*
.13
' / ***
* ll
1
7+
.<#?
T&o
9t>o
.07?
3.2.
0--2-
3%0
*,l
-.';,
* s--.
0.31
o.&l
3-7S
e>.Jf>
f * -"
2
73
./?3
tliee
22 3/
.225"
3.*
0.2-
3?.°
3.3
-
/ , -;
o.W
0.0₯S
e.77
0.74
Ay.
3
72.
,/za
H?9&
/4?S
tfs
3-e
0.2-
4 i.o
4.SS
\ -
o.SS-
&OZ1
?.?*
O.bb
'.<. '
4
71
./t>7
/fft^O
f/y?
.//S"
4.7
O.f
Sb-O
4.30
v '
0.9*
0-057
to.44
0.1ft
5
70
.095
fsst>
ee&
.ogj
?>.&
3.0
SB-S
4.-SS
> -
0.&
0.2.7
S-1-
0.38
6
(,?
.093
f&s-
0S7
.o&>
5.9
3-0
t.B.4
s.ae,
? t '
t>.St>
0-Z.<*
S-.&B
o.*3
'," "
7
(,B
.oee
067*
?<*3
.077
?.+
3.0
70,*-
4. 32.
;/ , &'
0.57
0.23
*4Z
o-33
',' -" ,"
8
t,7
.072.
0*75
t>/o
.Ot>l
6.1
3.e
15.0
*.*+
N ' /
1, "'
o.SS
0. 23
s.n
0-*°
-, -
9
fcfo
,05t>
7*00
442-
.0*f
&.f
3.Z
ir.o
3.3+
.i*
' ''', i
10
fcS-
.03?
72**
2&I
,oZ&
&.1
3.S.
9*.°
3.3*
0.25
e./ot>
,..(>*>
o.ot
> $ \
11 OR
MORE
(*4
.057
5BS9
3l&
-03/
e.7
3.&
9S.o
3-T>4
"/">,
IHIMU^Im
\^#*<,
6.-Z7
0.11
Z-74
o-io
3&«
?* "
t"^
SUM: 1.0
rtsv.f.
SUM: 1.0
', -*'
%&"<* ~t.
7^-v; * *
"ff*/,v " '
".*:f
''. . , *
^'
"*%ft?' '/
-Vl/- v
<.*.' * e ':
y.23
/**-
^7jt>
3.e7
o.S*
<5.13
SUM FOR LINE 5
IZfjV
HC (EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
YEAR.
CALCULATION LEVEL.
DATA SOURCES
WEIGHTED
EMISSION
FACTOR
U/MT)
-3
6
ro
-------
M
O
Table 3.2
Weighted Emission Factors for Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (Base Year or Projections)
VEHICLE AGE, YEARS (i)
VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
FRACTION OF VEHICLES IN USE (fj)
ANNUAL MILES DRIVEN (tj)
fjtj (line 3 x line 4)
WEIGHTED ANNUAL TRAVEL
DETERIORATION
FACTOR
TEST
EMISSION
FACTOR
(6-/Kl>
WEIGHTED
EMISSION
FACTOR
(6-rni^
HC (EXH)
CO
NOX
HC(EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
SOX
HC(EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
SOX
LINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
' '<*
/;-^
nim-i 3
~'sV<
*»
:!
&
*y |
*/
- 1
t in t.1 1.1111
*
' ;
'
o.&
0.<3
-
,
1
SO
.0^7
1*x>
f6>0
0.09?
e.2-7
0-2-
z..e
2.0
f
0-03
0- CV-
er. 2.7
O.I?
2
7?
.173
ii'roo
Zt3/
.Z2&
o-36
0-2.
^.i
2.0S-
0.08
o.oS
o.?
0.4t>
.
3
78
.123
//75O
/+**
./+5
o.4S
o.*.
3,4
2..'
; ,
O.07
0.&3>
o.SB
0-30
4
77
JO?
/O&5&
//3f
.//S
O.S+
O.-z-
3.7
2../S-
O.&o
0.023
0*3-
0.**
5
7t>
,£>93
1S5&
ee»
.089
/&
0-z-
I2.6>
3>.S-
O.HO
O.CH&
/-/z.
O.BI
6
75-
.093
K&S
0&7
.C&b
z.o
0.2-
/3.r
3.£>
047
o,&7
/./6>
£>.3/
" :
7
7-f
,o8&
&,?$
?t>*
.077
s.o
O-2-
41.0
4.3
:
0-38
o.ots
3.77
0 33
8
73
.072-
e+ts"
$10
Ot»l
S.3
0*2-
!?f.t>
4-*
0.32.
0.01
a.//
0.2-7
9
7-2-
.osfe
79oe>
+*Z-
.C4S
S".fe
0.2-
5T3.0
4.Sf
'\
0.2.5
o.ool
Z.3B
0.2£>
11
10
7/
.03?
72-^S
2&/
.028
7.1
o.s-
7t.O
*30
0.2-
&.0H
i ?8&
O,/?.
\
11 OR
MORE
70
.OS&
&3&t
3/B
.031
g.8
d-3
7B.S-
43S-
,^
02.7
0.093
Z20
£>./3
j. f
- ,
v . .. . .v
SUM: 1.0
??3%fr
SUM: 1.0
'
'
'* ,
<;.'"''" .
innnrfmiMMini
niiiiiiiiiiiiumit
"
*' ' ' J
'. .. . " *
I'll
0.3
/7.72-
Z..0-?
o.s*
o.<3
SUM FOR LINE 5
HC (EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
SOX
YEAR.
CALCULATION LEVEL.
DATA SOURCES
WEIGHTED
EMISSION
FACTOR
CO
to
-------
Table 3.4
Highway Vehicle Transportation Activity,
Baseline and Projections
VEHICLE TYPE
AND FUEL
COLUMN
BASELINE YR_!±2iL
ACTIVITY (VMT)
GROWTH
FACTOR
(PROJECTION
YEAR)
SPEED COR-
RECTION
FACTORS
WEIGHTED
EMISSION
FACTORS**
(G/M.)
YR
HC.(EXH)
CO
NOX
HC(EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
SOX
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
LIGHT DUTY
GASOLINE VEHICLES*
1
8
I 04 . 5 * IO
0,3
o.S
i- \
Srt
\ .$^
S~7. »o
3.S-?
o.S^
o.i3
LIGHT DUTY
TRUCKS
2
MOTORCYCLES
3
HEAVY DUTY
GASOLINE VEHICLES
4
ft
IO
0.8
0,8
t.i
It.S
tt
7.3
oXS
0<1*>
HEAVY DUTY
DIESEL VEHICLES
5
'3.03 * »08
3.^
T^,.*/
34
I.Z.
*.t
H
P
cr
n>
oo
BASELINE CALCULATION LEVEI
PROJECTION CALCULATION LEVEL.
DATA SOURCES
*IF THREE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION IS USED, AND ALL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES ARE CONSIDERED IN AGGREGATE, USE THIS COLUMN
FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE DATA.
"USE LOW MILEAGE TEST EMISSION FACTORS IF ADJUSTMENT FOR VEHICLE AGE, MODEL YEAR AND CONTROL DETERIORATION
(TABLE 3.2) ARE NOT MADE.
-------
Table 3. 4
Highway Vehicle Transportation Activity,
Baseline and Projections
t
»-
ro
VEHICLE TYPE
AND FUEL
COLUMN
BASELINE Y
ACTIVITY (\
GROWTH
FACTOR
(PROJECTION
YEAR)
SPEED COR-
RECTION
FACTORS
WEIGHTED
EMISSION
FACTORS**
(&/MO
R <474
MT)
YR »?ao
HC (EXH)
CO
NOX
HC(EXH)
HC (EVAP)
CO
NOX
PART
SOX
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
LIGHT DUTY
GASOLINE VEHICLES*
1
1C"*. 8 AIO
1.104
0.8
O.B
1. I
1.41
o.?>
n.~>i-
t.8->
0.*+
o.«^
LIGHT DUTY
TRUCKS
2
MOTORCYCLES
3
HEAVY DUTY
GASOLINE VEHICLES
4
4.2* /O6
1.104
0.8
o.S
M
d
^0
1.7.
o.8b
o.z^
HEAVY DUTY
DIESEL VEHICLES
5
8
3-03^/0
I,io4
^.^
Z0.4
T^
1.1-
Z,4
BASELINE CALCULATION LEVEI
PROJECTION CALCULATION LEVEL.
DATA SOURCES
H
P
*IF THREE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION IS USED, AND ALL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES ARE CONSIDERED IN AGGREGATE, USE THIS COLUMN
FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE DATA.
"USE LOW MILEAGE TEST EMISSION FACTORS IF ADJUSTMENT FOR VEHICLE AGE, MODEL YEAR AND CONTROL DETERIORATION
(TABLE 3.2) ARE NOT MADE.
-------
Table 3.5
Aircraft Activity, Baseline and Projections
AIRCRAFT
TYPE
COLUMN
YEAR
JUMBO JET
LONG RANGE JET
MEDIUM RANGE JET
AIR CARRIER - TURBOPROP
BUSINESS JET
GENERAL AVIATION TURBOPROP
GENERAL AVIATION PISTON
PISTON TRANSPORT
HELICOPTER
MILITARY TURBOPROP
MILITARY JET
MILITARY PISTON
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
CIVIL
CIVIL
CIVIL
CIVIL
MILITARY
MILITARY
MILITARY
MILITARY
BASELINE
LTD CYCLES
(414
1
6?7
34?5-6>
6&3&3
^02A
GROWTH
FACTOR
PROJECTED
LTD CYCLES
l
-------
Table 4. 1
Electric Generation, Baseline and Projections
M
M
I-*
-pr
FUEL3
COLUMN 1
fcES/DUAU
RESIDUAL.
DiSTlU-ATG.
DISTHU-ATE
BIT. eoAJ-
/VAT. feA3
UNITS
2
IOOO
&At_
1000
6AL
(000
6AL
|000
feAi-
Tt»4S
ItfetPT
BASELINE YR 7^
AMOUNT
3
27g300
2S7600
2fcl33
18&2-
7^240
48/3
SULF 1
4
|.0
0-8
0-2.
O.3
).0
ASH2
5
8
PROJECTIONS
YR
AMOUNT
6
SULF1
7
0-s-
o-S"
ASH2
8
YR
AMOUNT
9
SULF1
10
ASH2
11
YR
AMOUNT
12
SULF1
13
ASH2
14
BASELINE CALCULATION LEVEL
DATA SOURCES
H
P
cr
PROJECTION CALCULATION LEVEL
I
NOTES:
1. COAL AND OIL ONLY
2. COAL ONLY
3. TOTAL FUEL OF EACH TYPE BURNED BY ALL PLANTS
-------
Table 6. 1
Activity Producing Evaporation Emissions. Baseline and Projections
FACTO -
Ul
SOURCE
GASOLINE
SOLVENTS
UNITS
I OOO
GALLONS
TONS
BASELINE
YR IT74
^40000
7?^L*=»
PROJECTIONS
YR ItBO
-------
Table 7. 1
County Base Year Emissions Report
COUNTY
YEAR
SOURCE
FUEL
COMBUSTION:
EXTERNAL
RESIDENTIAL
FUEL
(AREA)
ELECTRIC
GENERATION
(POINT)
INDUSTRIAL
FUEL
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
DISTILLATE OIL
RESIDUAL OIL
NATURAL GAS
WOOD
TOTAL
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
LIGNITE
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
PROCESS GAS
COKE
SOLID WASTE/COAL
TOTAL
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
LIGNITE
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
PROCESS GAS
COKE
WOOD
LIQUID PETROL GAS
BAGASSE
OTHER
TOTAL
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
rOINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
EMISSIONS, TONS PER YEAR
PART
Z.tz.1
/Z40
3A3
/*Z2
/ 2.2-2.
tlbl
S73
/3V
3> <47
gob
J/SO
/BO
22*
*z
?0
731
/#&
SOX
12-80
S-78S
/O
707&
J423S-
40472.
J(*ZS
41
S&3»
2.71&
£>3fcO
576
6,4&
/
3
33/7
70U
NOX
101
IbOB.
(520
&09
6,7/1,
z&tsn
tstic
B30
42^8=
/3ZO
3000
720
400
475
950
2.5 JS
4&Z>
HC
yi
40-z-
132.
335
1/2-
6>/3
SB
3
-7B6>
4>6
/sro
74
4S"
7
/&
/&?
2./0
CO
/68
4,70
330
llt,B
se
ZOO
48
60
42.
&r
J7&
3+S
-------
Table 7. 1
Continued
SOURCE
FUEL
COMBUSTION:
EXTERNAL
(CONTINUED)
FUEL
COMBUSTION:
INTERNAL
COMMERCIAL-
INSTITUTIONAL
FUEL
OTHER
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
LIGNITE
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
WOOD
LIQUID PETROL GAS
OTHER
TOTAL
TOTAL EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
ELECTRIC
GENERATION
INDUSTRIAL
FUEL
COMMERCIAL-
INSTITUTIONAL FUE
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
DIESEL
OTHER
TOTAL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
GASOLINE
DIESEL
OTHER
TOTAL
DIESEL
L TOTAL
ENGINE TESTING AIRCRAFT
TOTAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION
TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION
AREA
POINT
PART
^80
112-
<4>+
Z.4I
750
s-es-
9^
/??
/S3*
//37
4I1Z.
&4J
SOX
3&C>
s<2-
Z3JfQ
/33fc
MbO
/£>&S
3
c>
630
3000
2.340
^£fO
tz&o
4730
42.SC>
/M?
577^3
HC
JO
4
4-
Z.-S*
^3L>
?*&
J232-
CO
30
12-
72-
42-
Z.GO
/$(?
too
2-/£>
«?OZ-
+ZO
17*8
7^r
o
o
c
0)
CL
-------
Table 7. 1
Continued
H
M
h-*
oo
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS
(POINT)
SOLID
WASTE
DISPOSAL
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
FOOD/AGRICULTURE
PRIMARY METAL
SECONDARY METALS
MINERAL PRODUCTS
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
WOOD PRODUCTS
PROCESS EVAPORATION
METAL FABRICATION
LEATHER PRODUCTS
TEXTILE MANUFACTURING
INPROCESS FUEL
OTHER/NOT CLASSIFIED
TOTAL
GOVERNMENT
(POINT)
RESIDENTIAL
(AREA)
COMMERCIAL-
INSTITUTIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
MUNIC. INCIN.
OPEN BURNING
OTHER
TOTAL
ON-SITE INCIN.
OPEN BURNING
TOTAL
ON-SITE INCIN-
ERATION
OPEN BURNING
APARTMENT
OTHER
TOTAL
ONrSITE INCIN-
ERATION
OPEN BURNING
AUTO BODY INCIN.
OTHER
TOTAL
TOTAL SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
PART
1303
/Ob
I2J07
2.2-00
47
6»
iz.
//£
sr
/5J02-
2.5^'TB
2,&
2-^06
SOX
(*3l&
2.37
2948S
32.4
i/7
/37
.2.6
3^?*£
33C*
4
3*0
NOX
785
2L37
3/7-57
5T03
2.4
2.G
i-z-l
te
33UA
f
25S>
63
3*
HC
32&b
/&
112.73
fib
5"7
l?4^
41 J 7
144-2-7
£82S
42S3f
/93
3
Wr
CO
3
sTo
I*
S-Z7
/
2.77
63
3f3
r
c
-------
Table 7. 1
Continued
M
M
B
SOURCE
TRANSPORTATION
(AREA)
LAND
VEHICLES
AIRCRAFT
VESSELS
GASOLINE
DIESEL
LIGHT DUTY
HEAVY DUTY
OFF HIGHWAY
TOTAL
HEAVY DUTY
OFF HIGHWAY
RAIL
TOTAL
MILITARY
CIVIL
COMMERCIAL
TOTAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
DIESEL FUEL
RESIDUAL OIL
GASOLINE
TOTAL
GAS HANDLING EVAPORATION LOSS *
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION
PART
&>245
3?Z
Z*
bli&l
363
4b/
30-2-
42-
42.
O
&
/63
o
22?
O
ec>sk>
SOX
/503
/2-0
1
/632
737
f58
690
63
63
O
57
£327
2.0
«&c*
0
j*et>
NOX
4?23Z
4ZJI,
341,
sn&'rt
/OBO2-
I3JZ&
4*77
4%
4?(,
O
3-6
/&&?
2LJ
I1(><*
0
es&z
HC
^Sf?6
7LZZ
?Z9
14S4&
/03&
73/3
1/37
B17
S?7
O
3b
7B
30O&
3t2&
S8t
-------
Table 7. 1
Continued
ro
o
SOURCE
MISCELLANEOUS
(AREA)
GRAND TOTAL
SOLVENT
EVAPORATION
FIRES
DUST CAUSED
BY HUMAN AGI-
TATION OF THE AIR
AIRBORNE DUST
CAUSED BY
NATURAL WINDS
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES (AREA)
DRY CLEANING
STRUCTURAL
FROST CONTROL
SLASH BURNING
WILD FOREST
AGRICULTURAL
UNPAVED ROADS
UNPAVED AIRSTRIPS
PAVED ROADS
MINERAL PROCESSING
TILLING ACTIVITIES
LOADING CRUSHED ROCK, SAND, GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION
STORAGE PILES
TILLED LAND
UNTILLED LAND
AREA
POINT
6?ANO "TOTAL
PART
0
122:48
2.4ZST7
SfoSOS^
SOX
o
2-47/4
(036S7
I2B37I
NOX
O
?sr*?o
G&W
jsiz^l
HC
33}
72-S?/
442^2.
J3feS53
CO
O
6Z4IB4
t7&7
bZST7l
-------
Table 7. 2
Projected County Emissions Report
COUNTY
YEAR
M
M
M
SOURCE
FUEL
COMBUSTION:
EXTERNAL
RESIDENTIAL
FUEL
(AREA!
ELECTRIC
GENERATION
(POINT)
INDUSTRIAL
FUEL
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
DISTILLATE OIL
RESIDUAL OIL
NATURAL GAS
WOOD
TOTAL
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
LIGNITE
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
PROCESS GAS
COKE
SOLID WASTE/COAL
TOTAL
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
LIGNITE
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
PROCESS GAS
COKE
WOOD
LIQUID PETROL GAS
BAGASSE
OTHf-R
TOTAL
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
POINT
POINT
ARLA
POINT
EMISSIONS. TONS PER YEAR
PART
2.70
I3B7
313
/?(>&
606
£25-
2.s4
75-
isy&
ssr
'/V^
/**
2.*3
4t>
?z
715
su>o
SOX
/2SO
S??4
10
-72&*
7£>t>0
MZAff
8as
2*4
WS4
/?2&
4372.
357
700
2.
3
2&I
SOTS'
NOX
tot
IbbS
/320
3o6fc
333/
)4i33
3/74
412-
2.M70
y-^9
3300
777
972.
4&f
fTB
2-7/0
5^50
HC
-SY
4\\o
132.
5^7
5S"
304
23
1
B&l
7&
J&&
37
41
&
/S"
//I
22.1
CO
/6g
£,94
330
IZOZ-
?7
22.0
S2.
&£
43
BB
/92.
373
-------
Table 7. 2
Continued
fO
ro
SOURCE
FUEL
COMBUSTION:
EXTERNAL
(CONTINUED)
FUEL
COMBUSTION:
INTERNAL
COMMERCIAL-
INSTITUTIONAL
FUEL
OTHER
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
LIGNITE
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
WOOD
LIQUID PETROL GAS
OTHER
TOTAL
TOTAL EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
ELECTRIC
GENERATION
INDUSTRIAL
FUEL - _
COMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL FUE
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
DIESEL
OTHER
TOTAL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
GASOLINE
DIESEL
OTHER
TOTAL
DIESEL
L TOTAL
ENGINE TESTING AIRCHAM
tOTAL INTERNAL COiVllUr, ! ION
TOTAL 1 LH I COMBUM IUN
Ai3
44t>*
44Z3,
-
4fer
4+Z3
SOX.
tfo
7d
*
/b54
1LZ.
Z4S&
/9S4,
3
~J
43C6
J&S
/+G?0
2.7/fb
#0?G
Z7/?t>
NOX
,50
2.0
/2&e
72J>
3*/y
2J^/
6,24
(B/4
*33t>
472S
^///32.
J3//₯/
///32-
3S/+/
HC
sS"
-f
62.
3t>
ni
133
42.
&B.
2SO
2£/
79B
87?
-------
Table 7. 2
C'ontinued
ro
10
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS
(POINT)
SOLID
WASTE
DISPOSAL
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
FOOD/AGRICULTURE
PRIMARY METAL
SECONDARY METALS
MINERAL PRODUCTS
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
WOOD PRODUCTS
PROCESS EVAPORATION
METAL FABRICATION
LEATHER PRODUCTS
TEXTILE MANUFACTURING
INPROCESS FUEL
OTHER/NOT CLASSIFIED
TOTAL
GOVERNMENT
(POINT)
RESIDENTIAL
(AREA)
COMMERCIAL-
INSTITUTIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
MUNIC. INCIN.
OPEN BURNING
OTHER
TOTAL
ON-SITE INCIN.
OPEN BURNING
TOTAL
ON-SITE INCIN-
ERATION
OPEN BURNING
APARTMENT
OTHER
TOTAL
ON-SITE INCIN-
ERATION
OPEN BURNING
AUTO BODY INCIN.
OTHER
TOTAL
TOTAL SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
POINT
POINT
AREA
POINT
AREA
POINT
PART
I(*SO
/09
ii ?&
2&££>
SOX
0/SD
Z4+
^'}/#o
399
267
l+l
34
3&4ZS
33fc
*
33
a*
HC
+2-3)
/+Z-
IllteO
f43>
70
2-/?0
S~3/0
t+eeo
e&s
46>5Cff
/?5
3
/?6
CO
*
SQS~
17
526
2.7?
^3
^3
-------
Table 7. 2
Continued
SOURCE
TRANSPORTATION
(AREA)
LAND
VEHICLES
AIRCRAFT
VESSELS
GASOLINE
DIESEL
LIGHT DUTY
HEAVY DUTY
OFF HIGHWAY
TOTAL
HEAVY DUTY
OFF HIGHWAY
RAIL
TOTAL
MILITARY
CIVIL
COMMERCIAL
TOTAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
DIESEL FUEL
RESIDUAL OIL
GASOLINE
TOTAL
GAS HANDLING EVAPORATION LOSS *"
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION
PART
637*
*33
32.
?4S?
*//
SD2.
^S3
JZ&&
so
STD
O
7b
S<94
O
2.7 O
O
e?*5
SOX
/660
/3.Z-
/2-
tso?
8ff?
SCX&
&O7
2.74(*
75
?S
O
6&
633?
2.2.
&23
O
//OS*
NOX
40300
3TI6>I
<&£>
4S?2-I
/z&f^
/J283
S~2-3B
3/76*
s?o
513O4-
/236
3O(i?6>
/2Sfc
J+29
/33&
4ocft
MX>7
/0t>?
O
43
93
330k
3*+*-
/o/?t>
4W/&
CO
l&oTM
s?o&
4623
2.40U,!
73S?
868£>
/B4G
I7&&Z
f703>
(7£>2>
o
S^
S2-
/J739
//87?
0
Z?M2&>
ro
-------
Table 7. 2
Continued
SOURCE
MISCELLANEOUS
(AREA)
GRAND TOTAL
SOLVENT
EVAPORATION
FIRES
DUST CAUSED
BY HUMAN AGI-
TATION OF THE AIR
AIRBORNE DUST
CAUSED BY
NATURAL WINDS
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES (AREA)
DRY CLEANING
STRUCTURAL
FROST CONTROL
SLASH BURNING
WILD FOREST
AGRICULTURAL
UNPAVED ROADS
UNPAVED AIRSTRIPS
PAVED ROADS
MINERAL PROCESSING
TILLING ACTIVITIES
LOADING CRUSHED ROCK, SAND, GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION
STORAGE PILES
TILLED LAND
UNTILLEDLAND
AREA
POINT
6J2AM& TOTAL-
PART
O
/3*/t>
ZS72J
37131
SOX
0
2S-/2*
65?S5
15-7171
HC
3*3
90*7
+ 7S&*
7
/674
2JStA\
I
ro
VJ1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-76-006
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOf*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Manual of Instructions for Projecting Emissions in
Small Geographic Areas - Preliminary Test Using
Baltimore AQMA Data
5. REPORT DATE
January 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.
4733 Bethesda Avenue
Bethesda, Maryland 20014
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1005
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This Manual provides guidance and direction for developing and improving a com-
prehensive emission inventory and for projecting future emissions at the county
level. It is divided into four chapters:
Chapter I: contains background information on emission source categories
and forecast techniques and an introduction to the content of the Manual
Chapter II: presents a summary of the data sources referenced in the
Manual
Chapter III: contains specific procedures, data sources and tabulating
formats for updating or creating a point and area source emission
inventory
Chapter IV: contains specific procedures, data sources and tabulating
formats for developing growth factors to project present activity and
emissions into the future.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Emissions
Data Sources
AQMA
NEDS
NER
ME I
Point Sources
Area Sources
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
f i pH
20. Sf'iRi-rv ci A<5S 'Thispage)
fnclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
_Z5_
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
IV-1
------- |