United States Air and Radiation EPA420-R-02-019
Environmental Protection July 2002
Agency
&EPA Commercial Marine Emission
Inventory Development
Final Report
> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA420-R-02-019
July 2002
Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development
Final Report
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
Environ International Corporation
EPA Contract No. 68-D-00-265
Work Assignment No. 1-11
-------
COMMERCIAL MARINE
EMISSION INVENTORY
DEVELOPMENT
PECHAN
FINAL REPORT
5528-B Hempstead Way
Springfield, VA 22151
703-813-6700 telephone
703-813-6729 facsimile
3622 Lyckan Parkway
Suite 2002
Durham, NC 27707
919-493-3144 telephone
919-493-3182 facsimile
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by:
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.
5528-B Hempstead Way
Springfield, VA 22151
ENVIRON International Corporation
101 Rowland Way
Suite 220
Novato, CA 94945
April 2002
P.O. Box 1575
Shingle Springs, CA 95682
530-672-0441 telephone
530-672-0504 facsimile
EPA Contract No. 68-D-00-265
Work Assignment 1-11
Pechan Rpt. No. 02.04.002/9012.111
-------
International Corporation
Air Sciences
Revised
Draft Final Report
COMMERCIAL MARINE
EMISSION INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT
EPA Contract No. 68-D-00-265
Work Assignment 1-11
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Under subcontract to:
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.
5528 B Hempstead Way
Springfield, VA 22151
Prepared by:
ENVIRON International Corporation
101 Rowland Way, Suite 220
Novato, CA 94945
April 2002
101 Rowland Way, Suite 220, Novato, CA 94945 415.899.0700
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1. REVIEW OF EMISSION FACTORS 1-1
Introduction 1-1
EPA Emission Factors Guidance 1-2
Published Revised EPA Emission Factors 1-3
Review of Emissions Studies 1-5
Emission Rate Recommended Averages 1-9
Steamship Emissions 1-15
2. PORT MATCHING 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Results 2-2
3 1996 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES AND CALCULATION
PROCEDURE 3-1
Introduction and Summary 3-1
Detailed Ports Estimates 3-4
Methodology for Matched Ports 3-8
4. BETWEEN PORT EMISSIONS 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Tow and Push Boat Traffic 4-1
Activity Estimates 4-3
Emission Factors 4-4
Results 4-5
5. FUTURE YEAR PORT EMISSION ESTIMATES 5-1
Introduction 5-1
Freight Projections 5-1
Incorporation of the Growth in the Emission Calculations 5-2
Emission Rates Including Fleet Turnover 5-2
Results 5-6
-------
6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 6-1
Introduction 6-1
Reduced Speed Zone and Maneuvering Modal Loads 6-3
Emission Factors 6-5
Steamships 6-6
Load Assumptions 6-7
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Detailed Ports Emissions
Appendix B: Texas Ports Example Calculations
Appendix C: Maps USAGE Waterway Link Network
Appendix D: Domestic Fleet Traffic
Appendix E: Comparison with Corbett and Fischbeck (1998)
TABLES
Table ES-1. Emission estimates for Category 3 engines ES-1
Table 1-1. EPA definition of engine categories 1-1
Table 1-2. EPA emission factors for large ships propulsion power 1-2
Table 1-3. EPA (1992) emission factors for small ship propulsion power 1-2
Table 1-4. EPA (1992) emission factors for auxiliary engine power 1-3
Table 1-5. Baseline emission factors for category 1 marine engines
(taken from Table 5-3, EPA 1999b) 1-4
Table 1-6. EPA (1999b) baseline emission factors for category 2 and 3 engines 1-4
Table 1-7. Auxiliary boilers emission factors (EPA, 1992) 1-5
Table 1-8. Diesel engine specifications from Lloyds (1995) where
emission values were considered accurate by EPA (2000) tested at
single or multiple modes over the load range 1-6
Table 1-9. Engine specifications from ETC (1997) 1-7
Table 1-10. Diesel engine specifications from Lloyds (1997) from
information supplied by Environment Canada (1999) 1-8
Table 1-11. Engine specifications for Environment Canada (1997) 1-9
Table 1-12. Summary data for category 3 slow speed engines at
maximum operating point tested 1-10
Table 1-13. Summary data for category 3 medium speed engines at
maximum operating point tested 1-11
Table 1-14. Summary data for category 2 medium speed engines 1-13
Table 1-15. Ratio of maneuvering emissions factors at 10% load to full load
emission rates used in this sensitivity analysis 1-15
Table 1-16. Hotelling emission factors for steamships 1-15
-------
Table 2-1. Ports included in each detailed deep-sea port to be
matched with other ports 2-2
Table 2-2. Summary of the Atlantic Coast deep-sea ports and
the matched detailed port 2-3
Table 2-3. Summary of the Gulf Coast deep-sea ports and
the matched detailed port 2-4
Table 2-4. Summary of the Pacific Coast deep-sea ports and
the matched detailed port 2-5
Table 2-5. Summary of the Great Lakes ports and the matched detailed port 2-6
Table 3-1. Summary of the US emission estimates by ship type (tons/year) 3-1
Table 3-2 Summary of the US emission estimates by mode (tons/year) 3-1
Table 3-3. Cruise (to and from 25 miles from coast) emissions by
ship type (tons/year) 3-2
Table 3-4. Reduce Speed Zone (RSZ) emissions by ship type (tons/year) 3-2
Table 3-5. Maneuvering emissions by ship type (tons/year) 3-3
Table 3-6. Hotelling emissions by ship type (tons/year 3-3
Table 3-7. Average speed during RSZ and Cruise modes for detailed ports 3-5
Table 3-8. Emission factors (g/hp-hr) for transit modes 3-6
Table 3-9. Emission factors (g/hp-hr) for hotelling modes
(category 2 medium speed engines except steam boilers) 3-6
Table 3-10. Summary emission estimates for the detailed ports (tons/year) 3-7
Table 3-11. Fraction of steamship calls at different ports in 1996 3-8
Table 3-12. Emission estimates and reduced speed zone parameters by port 3-10
Table 4-1. Tonnage activity relative to 1996 base year 4-4
Table 4-2. 1996 emission factors (g/ton-nautical-mile) for
Category 3 propulsion engines 4-4
Table 4-3. Future year emission factors (g/ton-nautical-mile) for
Category 3 propulsion engines 4-5
Table 4-4. Transit emissions (tons per year) for all vessel traffic on ocean links 4-6
Table 4-5. Transit emissions (tons per year) for domestic vessel
traffic on ocean links 4-6
Table 4-6. Transit emissions (tons per year) for all vessel traffic
on Great Lakes links 4-6
Table 4-7. Transit emissions (tons per year) for domestic vessel
traffic on Great Lakes links 4-6
Table 5-1. MARAD supplied estimates of US foreign demand
growth from McGraw-Hill 5-1
Table 5-2. Normal scrappage distribution 5-3
Table 5-3. MARAD supplied estimates of historic fleet growth 5-4
Table 5-4. Age distribution of merchant vessels calculated for 2010 5-4
Table 5-5. NOx emission factors (g/hp-hr) and % reduction from
baseline emissions with the implementation of the
MARPOL standard and in BOLD adjusted by
increasing emissions by 10% with the use of residual fuel 5-6
-------
April 2002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this report, emissions were estimated for vessels propelled by Category 3 engines (those with
cylinder displacements above 30 liters). Chapter 1 reviews the emissions data available for these
types of engines and provides estimates of average emission factors to be used in later emission
estimates. Chapter 2 details which ports were considered similar and matched to each of several
ports for which detailed port call data was available from earlier EPA work (Arcadis, 1999a and
1999b) in order to estimate emissions for all ports. Chapter 3 provides a description of how the
emission estimates near and at US ports were performed and summarizes results for all ports
combined. Chapter 4 describes and summarizes emissions estimates for these type of vessels
operating in US waters outside the area covered by the Chapter 3 estimates. Chapter 5 estimates
future year emissions at US ports. Chapter 6 provides a sensitivity analysis for a number of
assumptions and estimates used in the compilation of the Chapter 3 results.
In this analysis, the Category 3 engine emissions, shown below in Table ES-1, were considered
to be the emissions from propulsion engines of merchant vessels (including passenger vessels but
excluding barge carriers, fishing, supply vessels, and tug) and from auxiliary engines for
passenger and reefer vessels only, while other vessel's propulsion and auxiliary engines were
considered to be Category 2 or 1. Auxiliary loads were calculated for all merchant vessels, but
evidence was discovered indicating that Category 3 engines were used only for auxiliary loads
for two types of vessels (passenger and reefer) that have high electrical loads. The ports work
was not able to distinguish between US and foreign flagged vessels from the data available. The
"Between Port" estimates include transit between 25 nautical miles and 200 statute miles from
US shores but may exclude some vessel traffic transit within 25 nautical miles of shore but not
within 25 nautical miles of the next or last port of call.
Table ES-1. Emission estimates for Category 3 engines. (1,000 tons/year).
Emission Estimate
Chapter 3 Category 3 *
HC
5.2
CO
11.5
NOx
101.0
PM
9.2
SO2
68.2
1996 Near Ports
Chapter 4 Category 3* 2.1 4.2 88.8 7.8 58.9
1996 Between Ports
1996 Total Emissions 7.3 15.7 189.8 17_0 127.1
* Category 3 were summed as transit mode emissions of merchant vessels plus hotelling emissions for passenger
and reefer vessels including steamships.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Executive Summaiy.wpd
ES-1
-------
April 2002
1. REVIEW OF EMISSION FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an estimate of the emission factors for Category 3
engines for use in estimating emissions at US ports. EPA has defined 3 categories of marine
engines as described in Table 1-1 (EPA, 1999b). Many previous reviews and emission studies
[EPA (2000), Environment Canada (1997), Lloyds (1995), ETC (1997), BAH (1991),
Environment Canada (1999), and TRC (1989)] have determined and reviewed emission
estimates, but did not distinguished between these EPA-defined Categories. Based on these
reviews and studies, this review seeks to determine appropriate emission factors for Category 3
engines specifically. Based on the Arcadis (1999a and 1999b) reports, activity information was
available in units of engine power (kW) and hours of use, so emission factors in emissions per
work units (g/kW-hr) were needed.
Table 1-1. EPA definition of engine categories.
Category Displacement (liters/cylinder)
Category 1 <5.0
Category 2 5.0 < disp. <30
Category 3 >30
Historic EPA emission rate estimates include the official guidance for emission inventory
preparation (EPA, 1992), which are found in BAH (1991), but support documents for recent
rulemakings (1999a and 1999b) used different emission factors. Historic estimates were
reviewed here for comparison with recommended emission factors for Category 3 engines.
Much of the data from which these official guidance EPA emission factors were derived was not
referenced, and a number of studies [ETC (1997), Lloyds (1995), Environment Canada (1997),
Lloyds (1997) or Environment Canada (1999)] determining emissions rates have been completed
since the time of that guidance. Some of the more recent data has been incorporated into SIP
emission inventories for the Houston-Galveston and California ports, which are currently used
for ozone modeling and planning for attainment demonstration (Acurex, 1996; Starcrest, 2000).
A review of the emissions data for Category 3 marine engines is presented here with a
recommendation of the average values to use in emission inventory estimates.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-1
-------
April 2002
EPA EMISSION FACTORS GUIDANCE
Official EPA guidance for emission factors for large commercial vessels is shown in
Table 1-2. (BAH, 1991 and EPA 1992) The guidance for emission factors did not distinguish
between slow speed (direct-drive) and medium speed (geared or electric drive) engines and was
limited in its consideration of engine displacement. This emission factor guidance did include
estimates for steamships that represent a small number of aging steamships still operating in US
waters powered by steam generated from boilers.
Table 1-2. EPA emission factors for large ships propulsion power(BAH, 1991).
NtoHCCO PM
Propulsion Type (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne)
Motorships
Steamships (full power)
Steamship (maneuvering)
69.6
8.1
7.1
3.0
0.2
0.1
7.7
0.9
0.4
4.2
7.2
2.5
All emission estimates were converted from lb/1000 gallons units using 7.9 Ib/gallon fuel density for heavy fuel oil.
For smaller vessels, such as push boats, tugs, ferries, and other similar sized work boats, EPA
provided emission estimates ranked by size of engine as shown in Table 1-3. The data shown in
Table 1-3 exhibited many inconsistencies from one power level to another that were not
explained.
Table 1-3. EPA (1992) emission factors for small ship propulsion power.
NtoHC CO PM
Engine Size Mode (kg/tonne (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne)
< 500 hp
500-1 000 hp
1000-1 500 hp
1500-2000
2000+ hp
Full
Cruise
Slow
Full
Cruise
Slow
Full
Cruise
Slow
Full
Cruise
Slow
Full
Cruise
Slow
38.7
54.8
47.5
42.3
42.3
23.5
42.3
42.3
42.3
66.5
87.8
52.3
56.3
55.2
59 .1
3.0
7.2
8.0
3.4
2.4
2.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
2.4
3.4
3.4
3.0
2.4
32
8.2
6.7
8.3
8.6
11.4
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.6
33.5
6.3
17.2
13.5
11.0
84
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
All emission estimates were converted from lb/1000 gallons units using 7.1 Ib/gallon fuel density for diesel fuel.
Estimates for auxiliary engines were also provided by engine size and are shown in Table 1-4.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
-------
April 2002
This data also displayed many inconsistencies from one power level to another that were not
explained. Auxiliary engines are primarily used to provide electric power for the ship while in
dock, but may also be used for powering cranes, winches, pumps, bow thrusters, and other uses
for the vessel. The larger ocean-going vessels have been reported to typically use 500 to 2,000
kW auxiliary engines for onboard electrical power while only smaller fishing or recreational
boats would use engines at 40kW or below for similar purposes.
Table 1-4. EPA (1992) emission factors for auxiliary engine power.
NtoHC CO PM
Engine Power (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne)
20 kW
40 kW
200 kW
500+ kW
Steamship
67.2
31.8
19.7
41.3
4.6
20.3
40.1
2.5
11.5
0.4
7.5
9.5
8.8
6.8
0.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.3
Emission estimates converted from lb/1000 gallons using 7.1 Ib/gallon fuel density for diesel fuel.
In addition to auxiliary engines generating electricity, large vessels often maintain small heater
boilers for a variety of reasons, such as to provide hot water, regardless of the propulsion engine
type. EPA has no guidance for incorporating emissions from these boilers, though the steamship
emissions rates in Table 1-4 would likely be appropriate because the boilers are likely to be of
similar design and use similar fuels.
PUBLISHED REVISED EPA EMISSION FACTORS
EPA has recently revised emission factor estimates in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and
published a rulemaking for commercial marine vessels. (EPA, 1999a &1999b) In the absence of
a revised official EPA guidance for determining emissions from commercial marine vessels, the
emission factors used in the EPA's RIA have been used as the best available information.
(Starcrest, 2000)
In the RIA (EPA, 1999b), EPA estimated the emission factors in accordance with the defined
engine categories. In Tables 1-5 and Table 1-6 are the EPA-estimated base emission factors for
marine engines for each category of engine. These emission factors were applied to both
propulsion and auxiliary engines.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-3
-------
April 2002
Table 1-5. Baseline emission factors for category 1 marine engines (taken from Table 5-3,
EPA 1999b).
Power Range
[kW]
37-75
75-130
130-225
225-450
450-560
560-1000
1000+
HC
[g/kW-hr]
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
NOx
[g/kW-hr]
11
10
10
10
10
10
13
CO
[g/kW-hr]
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
PM
[g/kW-hr]
0.90
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
For Category 2 and 3 engines, EPA (1999b) estimated emission rates as shown in Table 1-6. For
the Category 2 engines, the average values shown in Table 1-6 were those average values used to
estimate the emissions reductions from the new emission standards. (Samulski, 1999) Category
2 engines have been either 2-stroke (GM-EMD or Fairbanks-Morse engines) or 4-stroke engine
designs with rated speeds typically above 700 rpm using either geared or diesel-electric
propulsion drives. For Category 3 engines, EPA relied on base emission estimates by Corbett and
Fischbeck (1998) who in turn used emission factors determined from Lloyds (1995). In order to
convert the Lloyds emission factors from kilogram per tonne of fuel consumed to gram per
kilowatt-hr, the fuel consumption estimates in Lloyds (1995) of 195 (g/kW-hr) for "slow speed"
and 210 (g/kW-hr) for "medium speed" engines were used. The term "slow speed" engine refers
to engines that have rated speeds below 300 rpm and are exclusively 2-stroke engines directly
driving the propeller. The term "medium speed" refers to Category 3 engines with rated speeds
typically of 300 to 700 rpm that are typically 4-stroke engines either geared or diesel-electric
driving the propeller.
Table 1-6. EPA (1999b) baseline emission factors for category 2 and 3 engines.
HC NtoCO PM
Engine Category [g/kW-hr] [g/kW-hr] [g/kW-hr] [g/kW-hr]
# 2
(5-30 I/cylinder)
# 3 Medium Speed
(> 300 rpm)
(> 30 I/cylinder)
# 3 Slow Speed
(< 300 rpm)
(> 30 I/cylinder)
0.134
0.5*
0.5*
13.36
12*
17*
2.48
1.6*
1.6*
0.32
Fuel sulfur
dependence
Fuel sulfur
dependence
* Converted from kg/tonne units in Lloyds (1995) using the 195 (g/kW-hr) for "slow speed" and 210 (g/kW-hr) for
"medium speed" engines.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-4
-------
April 2002
Corbett and Fischbeck (1998) used one average emission factor for particulate determined from
Lloyds, however Lloyds (1995) found the particulate emissions from marine engines are highly
dependent on the fuel sulfur. In order to take advantage of this functional dependence, the Lloyds
information was incorporated into an equation as shown in Figure 1-1 and converted to a useful
unit (g/kW-hr) using the fuel consumption estimates above.
Also, vessels will use auxiliary boilers to provide steam and hot water. These emission sources
are typically very small and insignificant sources of emissions. So only for the sake of
completeness, the current emission factors for these boilers are shown in Table 1-7.
Table 1-7. Auxiliary boilers emission factors (EPA, 1992).
Engine/Boiler Type
Heavy Fuel
Distillate Fuel
NOx
(kg/tonne)
4.6
2.8
HC
(kg/tonne)
0.4
0.4
CO
(kg/tonne)
0.5
PM
(kg/tonne)
1.3
1.9
REVIEW OF EMISSIONS STUDIES
The review of the available emission studies is presented here with an estimate of the average
emission rate to be used in estimating the emissions inventory for Category 3 marine engines.
More data are available for NOx emissions with some data on carbon monoxide (CO). In most
cases, total hydrocarbon (THC) data was collected with grab samples, which are known to under
represent the actual hydrocarbon emissions because of hydrocarbon losses to the walls of the bag
or other collection container used to "grab" a sample, so very little data are available on THC
emissions. Discussed in more detail below, data on particulate matter (PM) emissions are
sensitive to the sulfur level of the fuel, so the range in emissions levels was found to be
dependent on the quality of the fuel used during emission testing and an alternate recommended
approach was suggested.
EPA (2000)
EPA (2000) contracted a review of emission factors and fuel consumption for commercial marine
vessels. The summary emission estimates relied exclusively on data from ETC (1997) and Lloyds
(1995). Other studies available [Environment Canada (1997), Lloyds (1997) or Environment
Canada (1999), TRC (1989)] were not considered because emission measurements would need to
be converted from the measured units in kg/tonne to g/kW-hr units through a conversion with an
estimated average fuel efficiency value. The EPA (2000) study did not attempt to distinguish
emissions by the EPA-defmed engine categories.
The emission estimates provided by EPA (2000) were not explicitly included because those
estimates did not distinguish between engine categories, used a limited data set, and included no
"slow speed" engines. EPA (2000) had included data only if the engine were tested over a range
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd 1 -5
-------
April 2002
of operating loads to investigate the effect of load on emissions and fuel consumption. As
discussed for the Lloyds (1995) data below, no "slow speed" engines were tested on multiple
operating modes, so EPA (2000) included no slow speed engines in their analysis. The analysis
in this report attempted to include as much data as possible, so the average emission rates were
determined at one similar operating load level, the highest load for which data existed. However,
as estimated by EPA (2000) for a consistent set of data including Category 1, 2, and 3 medium
speed engines, one would expect that specific emissions (in units of g/kW-hr) would increase as
the relative load (expressed as a percentage of full power) load decreases for slow speed engines
as well as that demonstrated in EPA (2000) for medium speed engines.
Lloyds (1995)
In the EPA (2000) report, the contractors concluded that many of the emission measurements
presented by Lloyds (1995) had inconsistent or unrealistic air fuel ratios making the results
suspect. EPA provided the individual emission data points from Lloyds (1995) for which the
contractors deemed the emission estimates to meet their quality assurance criteria. Data was
supplied over a wide range of operating modes for some engines and only over few or single
operating modes for the other engines. The engine specifications were not provided by Lloyds
(1995) except for engine rated power and speed.
From a scan of engine specifications found in MER (2001), Category 3 engines are rarely found
to have ratings less than 2,000 kW or rated speeds greater 750 rpm therefore Lloyds engines with
less than 2,000 kW ratings were considered Category 2 engines for purposes of determining
emission estimates. Using this definition to determine engine category and type and as shown in
Table 1-8, the data from this study used in EPA (2000), which only used the data where vessels
were tested over the full range of loads, was from medium speed (>300 rpm) Category 2 and 3
engines.
Table 1-8. Diesel engine specifications from Lloyds (1995) where emission values were
considered accurate by EPA (2000) tested at single or multiple modes over the load range.
Model Speed Rated Power Estimated
Vessel Load Range Year (rpm) # of Engines (kW) Category*
B5
Dl
R2port
RSport
RSstbd
R4
RVgen
R7port
TK3
TK5
TGI push
TG6push
R2cent
R7cent
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Partial
Partial
1986
1975
1987
1978
1978
1978
1987
1987
1978
1979
1965
1989
1987
1987
595
600
510
512
520
570
1050
510
450
750
445
735
510
1050
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3963
3042
6545
4780
4780
4246
1400
7700
3257
745
1350
1270
6900
1400
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-6
-------
April 2002
Vessel
TK1
TGSfrun
RSport
RSstbd
R9port
R9stbd
TK6
TKQ
Load Range
Partial
Partial
One Point
One Point
One Point
One Point
One Point
One Point
Model
Year
1978
1969
1980
1980
1980
1980
1970
1977
Speed
(rpm)
735
600
155
155
153
155
131
110
# of Engines
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
Rated Power
(kW)
745
1260
5300
5300
5300
5300
4297
13313
Estimated
Category*
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
* This estimate made so that Category 2 engines are those with less than 2,000 kW ratings.
The data in Table 1-8 is a more complete listing of valid available data from Lloyds (1995) than
was used in the EPA (2000), which had only used the data where the emissions tests were tested
over the full load range.
ETC (1997)
The ETC report determined emissions for a variety of engines found on Coast Guard vessels.
From the engine models and specifications found in MER (2001), none of the engines tested
could be considered Category 3 with the engines fitting either the Category 2 or Category 1
classification. Emissions data is complete for many operational modes for NOx and CO and
partial data exists for PM emissions. THC emissions were taken with grab samples, which are
expected to be underestimate emissions. Engines were tested at many different load points from
cruise to idle.
Table 1-9 displays the engines sampled for emissions with the engine specifications gleaned from
MER (2001). All engines were either Category 1 or 2 medium-speed engines or a turbine engine,
which defies categorization. So coupled with Lloyds (1995) data described above, the EPA
(2000) report relied on data from engines that do not fit the Category 3 classifications.
Table 1-9. Engine specifications from ETC (1997).
Vessel
Steadfast
Sherman
Sherman
Tybee
Long Island
Thetis
41ftUTB
Engine
Alco 16V-251-B
Faibanks-Morse
3800 TD 8 1/8
Pratt - Whitney
Paxman Type 16 RP
200MValentaV-16
Caterpillar 35 16
DITA V Type
AlcoV-18251-C
Cummins VT-903M
Engine
Type
Diesel
Diesel
Turbine
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Rated
Power
(kW)
1864
2610
13423
2148
2036
2722
237
Vessel
Type
Cutter
Cutter
Cutter
Cutter
Cutter
Cutter
Utilitv
^J L111LV
Boat
Speed Bore
(rpm) (mm)
1000
900
-
1500
1910
1025
2300
229
206
-
197
170
229
140
Stroke Displacement
(mm) (I/cylinder) Category
267
254
-
216
190
267
152
11
8
-
7
4
11
2
2
2
-
2
1
2
1
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-7
-------
April 2002
Lloyds (1997); Environment Canada (1999)
These two reports detailed the same emissions data, so the discussion here combines the two
reports as one study. This study investigated emissions found on ferries but produced emission
estimates only in units of kg/tonne for two operating modes (idle, and full power). As shown in
Table 1-10, all three engine categories were included in the test program. Of the Category 3
engines, only medium speed engines were included.
Table 1-10. Diesel engine specifications from Lloyds (1997) from information supplied by
Environment Canada (1999).
Engine
MAK12M551AK
Wartsilla 9R32D
MAK9MU551AK
Mirlees VSSM*
Mitsubishi S12R**
Bergen KRGB9
Engine 1: Caterpillar 3412
Engine 2: Caterpillar 3412
MAN 6C40/54
Waukesha F2896
Mitsuibishi* * *
Caterpillar 398
Power
(kW)
3430
2535
3024
2490
800
1800
242
242
2807
242
221
164
Type
Ferry
Ferry
Ferry
Ferry
Ferry
Ferry
Ferry
Ferry
Ferry
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Speed
(rpm)
500
750
500
381
1534
900
1600
1600
550
1020
1210
1205
Bore
(mm)
450
320
450
457
160
250
137
137
400
216
240
159
Stroke Displacement
(mm) (I/cylinder) Category
520
350
520
320
180
300
152
152
540
216
260
203
83
28
83
52
4
15
2
2
68
8
12
4
3
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
3
2
2
1
* Assumed to be the K Major design based on reported rated power and speed.
** Assumed to be the SM design based on reported rated power and speed.
*** Assumed to be the SU design based on reported rated power and speed.
Environment Canada (1997)
This study performed by Environment Canada investigated emissions measured on vessels
producing emission estimates only in units of kg/tonne. The THC emissions were collected using
grab samples using bags or other collection devices. This type of sampling is known to under
represent average emission rates because the walls of the collection device allows heavier
hydrocarbons to condense.
In Table 1-11 are the engine specifications determined from the engine model and MER (2001).
This was a large data source for slow speed engines with some Category 3 medium-speed
engines as well.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-8
-------
April 2002
Table 1-11. Engine specifications
Engine
Sulzer 7RTA 52U
K MAN K7SZ70/125
M MAN 5S60MC
Sulzer RND90
Sulzer RND90
KMAN 10L90MC
MKD
KMAN 10L90MC
MKD
Sulzer 9RTA 84C
B&W Mitsui 7K67GF*
DDC Series 149 1
MAK12M551AK
3xMAN B&W
7L23/30H
3xBergen KRG-6
Sulzer V 12 12ZAV40
3xWaukesha F2896
Snl/erVI? 177AV40
Year
1996
1978
1992
1980
1980
1997
1997
1991
1978
1986
1976
1995
1991
Power
(kW)
11066
9918
9508
22371
22371
43699
43699
33557
9769
895
4362
922
1074
8752
608
8757.
for Environment Canada (1997).
Bore
Type Stroke(mm)
Cargo
Cargo
Cargo
Cargo
Cargo
Container
Container
Container
Cargo
Tug
Ferry
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Cruise**
Auxiliary
Cruise**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
520
700
600
900
900
900
900
840
670
146
450
225
250
400
216
400
Stroke Displacement
(mm) (I/cylinder)
1800
2674
2292
1900
1900
2916
2916
2400
1700
146
520
300
300
560
216
560
382
1029
648
1209
1209
1855
1855
1330
599
2
83
12
15
70
8
70
Speed
Category (rpm)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
3
2
3
98-135
68-91
79 - 105
90-101
90-101
62-82
62-82
73 - 102
123
1900
500
825 - 900
720 - 900
510
600-1215
510
* Mitsui never produced a slow speed "67" model but B&W MAN did, so B&W MAN engine specifications are
provided.
** These engines were listed as both propulsion and auxiliary engines, so presumably these vessels used diesel-
electric drives.
TRC (1989)
Data in this study included emission estimates only in kg/tonne for auxiliary engines with engine
rating less than 2,000 kW. Data existed on steamship emission rates also in kg/tonne units for
hotelling emissions from both auxiliary and main boilers. But no information about the engines
was available other than rated powers, which were all under 2,000 kW, and therefore were
considered Category 2 engines as described above for the Lloyds (1995). A table of the engine
specifications therefore could not be created.
EMISSION RATE RECOMMENDED AVERAGES
For recommending emission factors for Category 3 marine engines, the emissions data was
separated into different categories by displacement (to distinguish between Category 2 and 3
engines) and by engine speed (above or below 300 rpm) for Category 3 engines before
determining average emissions estimates. The reason for distinguishing these categories was that
historical data (Lloyds, 1995) had demonstrated that slow speed engines produced higher NOx
emissions than medium speed engines. Also, the purpose of this assignment was to review
Category 3 engine emission factors separate of other engine types.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd 1 -9
-------
April 2002
The intention of this work was to include as much of the available accurate data as possible in
determining the average emission rates. Because the greatest number of engines were tested at
the load of the service speed (i.e. during the cruise mode) of the vessel, this highest load point
was used to compute an average emission rate for all similar types of engines. Emission rate
averages were determined first in units of kg/tonne and converted with the average of the
available information on fuel efficiency. Another reason for using the load point at the service
speed was that EPA (2000) found that the emissions rates and fuel efficiency of engines becomes
less (or not at all) a function of load for loads above about 20%, so the test point on one engine
could be considered equivalent to another.
For slow speed engines, those under 300 rpm which are typically direct-drive, the average
emission estimates are shown in Table 1-12. Of note here was the influence of the two K MAN
engines with extraordinary NOx emission rates raising the average from 97.7 to 107.8 kg/tonne,
but there was no reason determined to exclude this data. Also, these results compare with the
reported average values from Lloyds (1995) for these types of engines of 87 (kg/tonne) of NOx
converted to 17 (g/kW-hr) with a fuel efficiency of 0.195 (kg/kW-hr). The Lloyds (1995)
estimate represents a lower range of a possible emission factor to be demonstrated in the
sensitivity analysis in a later chapter.
Table 1-12. Summary data for category 3 slow speed engines at maximum operating point
tested.
Study
Lloyds
Lloyds
Lloyds
Lloyds
Lloyds
Lloyds
Env. C
Env. C
Env. C
Env. C
Env. C
Env. C
Env. C
Env. C
Env. C
(1995)
(1995)
(1995)
(1995)
(1995)
(1995)
. (1997)
. (1997)
. (1997)
. (1997)
. (1997)
. (1997)
. (1997)
. (1997)
. (1997)
Vessel
(Year)
RSport
(1980)
RSstbd
(1980)
R9port
(1980)
R9stbd
(1980)
TK6
(1970)
TK9
(1977)
(1996)
(1978)
(1992)
(1980)
(1980)
(1997)
(1997)
(1991)
(1978)
Speed Percent BSFC JNOx CO
Engine (i"pm) Power* (kg/kW-hr) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sulzer 7RTA 52U
KMAN
K7SZ70/125
MMAN5S60MC
Sulzer RND90
Sulzer RND 90
K MAN 10L90MC
MKD
KMAN10L90MC
MKD
Sulzer 9RTA 84C
B&W Mitsui
7K67GF
155 0.221
155 0.221
153 0.225
155 0.194
131 0.243
110 0.208
125 93%
135 93%
90 99%
117 87%
116 86%
75 67%
79 77%
95 84%
122 70%
105
110
86.
115
58.
123
84.
99.
51.
83.
120
178
168
119
111
.6
.2
4
.9
0
.2
8
3 9.7
7 5.02
6 1.45
.1 6.7
.9 5.51
.1 4.72
.5 3.5
.3 3.94
PM
(kg/tonne)
6.24
6.4
7.43
1.04
10.49
16.32
11.84
8.03
4.9
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-10
-------
April 2002
Average
Average (s/kW-hr)
121
84%
0.219
107.8
23.6
5.1
1.1
8.1
1.8
* Percent of rated power at cruise.
Trade literature and manufacturers claims of specific fuel consumption rate and emissions levels
have been reported to be much lower than the data in Table 1-12 indicate. The trade journal The
Motor Ship (1999) reported that a Wartsila NSD engine has fuel efficiency of-165 g/kW-hr and
produces NOx at 17 g/kW-hr while a MAN B&W engine has fuel efficiency of-190 g/kW-hr
and produces NOx at 18.6 g/kW-hr. These engines then both produce NOx at levels at about 100
kg/tonne or close to the average determined from the data shown above. The specific fuel
consumption rate in the measured data reported specifically for those engine models shown
above is significantly higher than that reported by the manufacturers as between 160-179 g/kW-
hr (MER, 1999). Because the emissions data was measured in kg/tonne units, the specific fuel
consumption was an important estimate in determining the specific emission rate. However for
this work, the measured data was used to estimate specific emission rates rather than the
manufacturer's reported estimates because the measured data was better understood. But further
investigation is needed to reconcile this conflict in the fuel consumption rate estimates.
For medium speed Category 3 engines, the results are shown in Table 1-13. These results have
higher emissions rates than the reported average values from Lloyds (1995) for these types of
engines of 57 (kg/tonne) of NOx converted to 12 (g/kW-hr) with a fuel efficiency of 0.211
(kg/kW-hr). However, as described above, the Lloyds results did not distinguish between small
and large displacement medium speed engines. Table 1-14 shows that the NOx emission results
for Category 2 medium speed engines indicate a much closer correlation with the Lloyds (1995)
averages indicating that the medium speed average reported by Lloyds (1995) was primarily
influenced by smaller displacement engines. The difference between emission rates for Category
2 and 3 medium speed engines is considered sufficiently significant to recommend separate
emission rates.
Table 1-13. Summary data for category 3 medium speed engines at maximum operating point
tested.
Study Vessel (Year) Engine Speed BSFC NUx CD FM
(rpm) (kg/kW-hr) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne) (kg/tonne)
Lloyds (1995) B5 (1986) NA
Lloyds (1995) Dl (1975) NA
Lloyds (1995) R2port (1987)NA
Lloyds (1995) R3port (1978)NA
Lloyds (1995) RSstbd (1978)NA
Lloyds (1995) R4 (1978) NA
Lloyds (1995) R7port (1987)NA
Lloyds (1995) TK3 (1978) NA
Lloyds (1995) R2cent (1987)NA
Env. C. (1997) (1976) MaK 12M551AK
Env. C. (1997) (1995) SulzerV12 12ZAV40
Env. C. (1997) (1991) SulzerV12 12ZAV40
Env. C. (1999) Not reported MaK 12M551AK
Env. C. (1999) Not reported Wartsilla 9R32D*
595
600
510
512
520
570
510
450
510
500
510
510
500
750*
0.219
0.200
0.269
0.224
0.224
0.233
0.220
0.235
0.220
0.212
0.212
70.71
65.32
80.44
71.97
70.54
55.11
81.69
50.52
75.69
82.79
86.22 4.07
76.28 3.04
69.9 1.8
78.9 2.5
6.64
0.65
5.53
1.1
2.8
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-11
-------
April 2002
Study
Env. C. (1999)
Env. C. (1999)
Env. C. (1999)
Average
Vessel (Year) Engine
Not
Not
Not
reported
reported
reported
MaK9MU551AK
Mirlees VSSM
MAN 6C40/54
Speed
(rpm)
500
600
550
540
BSFC
(kg/kW-hr)
0.
0.
0.
0.
244
220
176
222
Average (g/kW-hr)
NOx
(kg/tonne)
104
72.
79.
74.
16.
o
.5
6
6
9
6
CO
(kg/tonne)
4.
3.
3.
3.
0.
2
0
6
2
7
PM
(kg/tonne)
0.9
3.0
4.4
3.1
0.7
* This engine has a displacement of 28 I/cylinder, close to Category 3 but technically a Category 2 engine.
The PM emission rates in the Tables 1-13 and 1-14 show considerable variability, which are
probably explained by the fuel sulfur level during the test. Lloyds (1995) compared the PM
emission rates for different fuel sulfur levels and are shown in Figure 1-1. For comparison to the
data, the sulfate-related PM was calculated using equations found in EPA (1998) and shown as
the dotted line in Figure 1-1. This calculated sulfate PM uses the estimate that 2.2% of the fuel
sulfur directly converts in the engine to H2SO4:7H2O, and explains much of the increased PM
with higher fuel sulfur level fuels in the data. The fuel sulfur level needs to be specified in order
to estimate the emission factor from commercial marine engines according to the best-fit estimate
in Figure 1-1. While the best fit to the data indicates an exponential function with fuel sulfur, this
nonlinear fit may be an artifact of the data set used to determine this fit.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-12
-------
April. 2002
€NVIRON
12
10-
4-
2-
• Uyods( 1995) Data
• Calculated SulfatePM
•Best Fit to Etta
y = 0.9016 *<0.7238x)
R2 = 0.9306
0.5
1.5 2
Rid Sulfur (vrt.%)
2.5
3.5
Figure 1-1. Effect of fuel sulfur on particulate emissions rates.
The available data for smaller engines, likely Category 2, were available for comparison with the
Category 3 results. The Category 2 data shown in Table 1-14 was taken on 4-stroke medium and
high speed engines and the average computed indicates that the Category 2 NOx emissions were
found to be significantly lower than the Category 3 NOx emission rates in equivalent units.
Table 1-14. Summary data for category 2 medium speed engines.
Study Vessel
Env. Canada (1999) N/A
Env. Canada (1999) N/A
Env. Canada (1999) N/A
Env. Canada (1999) N/A
Env. Canada (1999) N/A
Env. Canada (1997) N/A
Env. Canada (1997) N/A
Env. Canada (1997) N/A
ETC (1997) Steadfast
ETC (1997) Steadfast
ETC (1997) Sherman
Engine
Bergen KRGB9
Engine 1: Caterpillar 3412
Engine 2: Caterpillar 3412
Waukesha F2896
Mitsubishi
3 x MAN B&W 7L23/30 H
3 x Bergen KRG-6
3 x Waukesha F2896 DSIM
Alco 16V-251-B (Starboard)
Alco 16V-251-B(Port)
Faibanks-Morse 3800 TD 8 1/8, 12Cy (starboard)
Use
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
NOx
(kg/tonne)
40.60
54.40
44.90
47.70
98.70
24.44
43.69
36.74
81.51
62.56
42.50
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-13
-------
April 2002
Study
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
TRC(1989)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Average
Vessel
Sherman
Tybee
Tybee
Thetis
Thetis
President Adams
President Adams
Madame Butterfly
Spring Bride
Beltimber
President Washington
Hyundai Challenger
California Jupiter
Manhattan Bridge
National Dignity
Evergroup
Sealand Explorer
Aurora Ace
Thorseggen
Walter Jacob
Star Esperanza
Dynachem
R7gen
TK5
TGlpush
TG6push
R7cent
TK1
TGSfrun
Engine
Faibanks-Morse 3800 TD 8 1/8, 12Cy (Port)
Paxman Type 16 RP 200M Valenta V-16 (starboard)
Paxman Type 16 RP 200M Valenta V-16 (port)
Alco V-18 251-C (starboard)
AlcoV-18251-C(port)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Use
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
NUx
(kg/tonne)
44.90
39.01
38.27
48.58
47.29
59.94
56.09
74.91
92.68
44.97
35.54
50.53
51.34
72.27
18.14
36.05
79.25
52.94
100.58
64.37
47.28
42.17
52.88
60.21
56.96
61.22
52.88
58.79
51.76
54.2
The THC emissions data was not well characterized in these studies, so the average emissions
rate is recommended to be the Lloyds (1995) average, 2.4 (kg/tonne) converted to 0.53 g/kW-hr,
where emissions were determined at the stack and did not rely on grab samples.
At loads below 20%, the relative emissions (in g/kW-hr units) and fuel consumption may be
higher as indicated by EPA (2000), and slow and medium speed emission factors were adjusted
as described here. At low loads there was evidence (EPA, 2000) described in Chapter 1 that
specific emissions (in g/kW-hr units) at low loads could increase markedly compared with the
high load emission rates used in this work. In order to estimate this effect, the ratio in emissions
levels at 10% load (maneuvering load) compared to the loads used in the cruise emission rates
84% load for slow speed (the cruise speed average load) and 99% load for medium speed engines
(cruise speed load especially with ferry engines) were determined from with results as shown in
Table 1-15. As the load decreases, one expects specific (relative to shaft work in kW-hr)
emissions to increase as parasitic loads (loads which do not produce shaft work) become a
greater fraction of the engine work.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-14
-------
April 2002
Table 1-15. Ratio of maneuvering emissions factors at 10% load to full load
emission rates used in this sensitivity analysis.
Pollutant
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SO2
Slow Speed Engines
5.28
8.52
1.36
1.69
1.57
Medium Speed Engines
5.50
7.41
1.36
1.68
1.55
STEAMSHIP EMISSIONS
The data for steamship emissions was available only during hotelling operation, while emissions
will be primarily calculated for transit operation. As shown in Table 1-16, the data and EPA
guidance were similar, so the official EPA guidance is recommended for steamship emission
rates.
Table 1-16. Hotelling emission factors for steamships.
Engine/Boiler Type
Main Boilers TRC ( 1989)
Smaller Boilers TRC (1989)
EPA Guidance (BAH, 1991)
NOx
(kg/tonne)
9.8
12.3
8.1
(2.8 g/kW-hr)
HC
(kg/tonne)
N/A
0.2
(0.07 g/kW-hr)
CO
(kg/tonne)
0.4
4.6
0.9
(0.3 g/kW-hr)
PM
(kg/tonne)
N/A
7.2
(2.5 g/kW-hr)
* For emissions rates labeled N/A, EPA guidance was used.
In order to use the emission rates, the emission factor needs to be converted to units of g/kW-hr
through a fuel efficiency estimate. BAH (1991) provides estimates of daily fuel consumption at
full power and average power for steamships of dead weight tonnage (DWT) 50 - 75 kton and 75
- 100 kton. Using the BAH (1991) estimate that full power constitutes 80% of installed power,
the calculated fuel efficiency for steamships was 0.350 and 0.334 (kg/kW-hr) for the two DWT
ranges. Using the average fuel efficiency of 0.342 (kg/kW-hr), the recommended emission rates
are shown in Table 1-16 for steamships. The steamships are being retired, so errors in this
emission rate will have less effect on the overall emissions inventory with future year
predictions.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter l.wpd
1-15
-------
April 2002
2. PORT MATCHING
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the matching criteria used to associate ports that have
detailed ship information (such as installed power, cruise speed, and hotelling hours per call)
with those without such information. With the results of this work, it was possible to define the
typical ship size and therefore the installed engine power for any port according to the procedure
outlined in Arcadis (1999a and 1999b) and also described in Chapter 3. This procedure provides
a method for using ratios in general vessel calls between like ports to estimate vessel activity at
ports where only general vessel activity was available. Vessel characteristics were available for
some detailed ports, which could be used at other ports matched to these ports. It was important
to match the best estimate of detailed vessel characteristics to ports where such vessels would
likely be operating. The detailed ports average vessel characteristics were then matched to other
ports, with the total number of vessel calls by ship type determined by the ratio of overall vessel
calls.
There were two criteria involved in port matching: regional differences and maximum vessel
draft. The first cut used general geographical area to group the top ports into four regions: the
Pacific Coast, the Atlantic Coast, the Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes. This followed the
assumption that the geographical area of a port was a primary influence on the characteristics
(mainly size and installed power) of vessels calling these ports. The service for each of these
regions was also likely unique in terms of the foreign or domestic previous and next ports of call,
which is another factor affecting the type of vessel calling on each port in light of regional
competition for business. In each of the four regions, there were at least two "typical ports" with
detailed activity information in the EPA documents (Arcadis, 1999a and 1999b). The top deep
sea and Great Lake ports without detailed activity information were then each matched to a
typical port in the same region based on the maximum vessel draft of ships that entered the port
during the given year (1996). Maximum vessel draft was assumed to correlate to the size of a
vessel, and the size was considered to correspond to the horsepower of the vessel engines within
each vessel type. In cases where more than one typical port in a given region had the same
maximum vessel draft, geographical area was again the deciding factor for the ports that matched
to that value. The port and its matched typical port were then assumed to have many of the same
vessel activity patterns, including engine power breakdown by vessel type, vessel speed, and time
in modes. Once matched, the number of vessel calls by vessel type were appropriately scaled for
those ports without the specific call information using data that was gathered for the detailed
ports.
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 2.wpd
2-1
-------
April 2002
RESULTS
This work resulted in tables of matched ports by region based on the criteria described above.
The port matching was executed for the top ports available in the 1996 and 1999 USAGE (2001)
data, which were not necessarily the same as the top ports provided in the Arcadis work (1999a
and 1999b) based on 1995 vessel call information. But the 1995 vessel call information was used
for determining the activity of the matched ports described in Chapter 3.
The available detailed deep-sea port information from Arcadis (1999a and 1999b) often included
vessel calls for several ports combined. For the detailed ports constituted of several ports,
average or typical characteristics were used to determine the matching described below. Shown
below in Table 2-1 are the individual ports included in the deep-sea detailed ports and maximum
drafts for vessels at those ports.
Table 2-1. Ports included in each detailed deep-sea port to be matched with other ports.
Waterway Port Name
Max Draft (ft) Region
Detailed Port
0700 Baltimore, MD
0398 New York, NY and NJ
0297 Chester, PA
0298 Penn Manor, PA
0299 New Castle, DE
0552 Philadelphia, PA
5251 Marcus Hook, PA
5252 Paulsboro, NJ
0551 Camden,NJ
0554 Wilmington, DE
2251 New Orleans, LA
2253 S outh Loui si ana, LA
2255 Plaquemine, LA
2252 Baton Rouge, LA
2423 Corpus Christi, TX
2021 Tampa, FL
4702 Grays Harbor, WA
4708 Port Angeles, WA
4730 Anacortes, WA
4720 Tacoma, WA
4725 Everett, WA
4722 Seattle, WA
4718 Olympia, WA
4732 Bellingham, WA
4660 Coos Bay, OR
48
48
43
43
43
43
43
43
41
41
48
48
48
43
45
39
36
52
50
45
39
38
33
33
38
A Maryland MEPA
A Port of New York MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
A Philadelphia MEPA
G New Orleans MEPA
G New Orleans MEPA
G New Orleans MEPA
G New Orleans MEPA
G Corpus Christi MEPA
G Tampa MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Columbia River MEPA
1 Key; A = Atlantic Coast, G = Gulf Coast, P = Pacific Coast
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 2.wpd
2-2
-------
April 2002
The summary of the matching for the Atlantic Coast ports is shown in Table 2-2 The detailed
data from Philadelphia would be primarily used because the other detailed ports, Maryland and
New York, represented the ability to receive greater vessel drafts. The maximum draft of the
Philadelphia ports was 43 feet, an already larger vessel draft than many ports can receive. Thus,
the ports with smaller draft, some as low as 15-foot draft, likely will be associated with larger
vessels than could normally call on these ports. Other work might investigate whether the
maximum draft can be associated with maximum dead-weight tonnage to avoid using oversized
vessels in the emissions calculations for the lower draft ports. A remedy for this issue is to
determine detailed vessel information for one or more smaller and shallow draft ports more
similar to other smaller ports.
Table 2-2.
Waterway
0128
0736
0776
5735
0110
0112
0135
0146
0149
0189
0191
0311
0317
0522
0737
0738
0764
0766
0772
0773
0780
1507
2017
2136
2160
2162
2164
2139
2151
3303
Summary of the Atlantic
Port Name
Portland, ME
Newport News, VA
Savannah, GA
Norfolk, VA
Bucksport, ME
Searsport, ME
Portsmouth, NH
Salem, MA
Boston, MA
Fall River, MA
Providence, RI
Bridgeport, CT
Stamford, CT
Port Jefferson, NY
Richmond, VA
Hopewell, VA
Morehead City, NC
Wilmington, NC
Georgetown, SC
Charleston, SC
Brunswick, GA
New Haven, CT
Jacksonville, FL
San Juan, PR
Canaveral, FL
Palm Beach, FL
Miami, FL
Fajardo, PR
Ponce, PR
Trenton, NJ
Coast deep-sea ports and the
Max Draft (ft)
46
49
46
50
34
35
37
35
41
36
39
38
15
33
22
27
34
38
28
42
35
38
40
41
37
33
41
32
31
20
Region
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
matched detailed port.
Detailed Port Matched To
Port of New York MEPA
Maryland MEPA
Maryland MEPA
Maryland MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 2.wpd
2-3
-------
April 2002
Table 2-3 shows the matched ports for the Gulf Coast. Again there is the potential problem with
ports associated with the detailed port of Tampa, where the maximum draft was 39 feet. Tampa
represents the available detailed port with the smallest maximum vessel draft, but its vessel sizes
are still much larger than some other ports can realistically handle. Also noted here is that a
detailed study of the Houston area ports (Starcrest, 2000) was used instead of the general
methodology, so no port association was needed for those four ports covered by this work.
Table 2-3. Summary of the Gulf Coast deep-sea ports
Waterway
2002
2004
2005
2007
2012
2016
2083
2163
2167
2254
2395
2404
2408
2410
2411
2416
2417
2420
2116
Port Name
Biloxi, MS
Pascagoula, MS
Mobile, AL
Pensacola, FL
Houston, TX
Panama City, FL
Gulfport, MS
Port Everglades, FL
Weedon Island, FL
Lake Charles, LA
Beaumont, TX
Texas City, TX
Freeport, TX
Matagorda Ship
Victoria, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Galveston, TX
Brownsville, TX
Charlotte, FL
Max Draft (ft)
15
38
43
33
44
31
32
47
30
43
43
44
42
37
12
40
42
36
28
and the matched detailed port
Region
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Typical Port Matched To
Tampa MEPA
Tampa MEPA
Corpus Christi MEPA
Tampa MEPA
Starcrest (2000)
Tampa MEPA
Tampa MEPA
New Orleans MEPA
Tampa MEPA
Corpus Christi MEPA
Corpus Christi MEPA
Starcrest (2000)
Starcrest (2000)
Tampa MEPA
Tampa MEPA
Tampa MEPA
Starcrest (2000)
Tampa MEPA
Tampa MEPA
The California ports, for which the Air Resources Board produced emission estimates, dominate
the Pacific Coast ports. Also, other work (Arcadis, 1999c) prepared vessel activity and emissions
estimates for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which may be included in the expected
ARE data.
A concern for other port matching with following the strict criteria described was that the Puget
Sound MEPA data was considered applicable only for maximum vessel drafts of 52 feet based on
the draft at Port Angeles or 50 feet at the Port of Anacortes. This 52 feet maximum vessel draft
for the Puget Sound MEPA data was considered unrepresentative of the typical vessels calling on
the Puget Sound because the bulk of the vessels in the Puget Sound were those calling the Port of
Seattle (-60% of vessel calls) with a vessel draft of 38 feet and the Port of Tacoma (-20% of
vessel calls) with a vessel draft of 45 feet. The deep draft ports within the Puget Sound MEPA,
Port Angeles and Anacortes, accounted for only a small
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 2.wpd
2-4
-------
April 2002
fraction of all vessel calls (-12%) in the Puget Sound MEPA data. Therefore, it was determined
that non-California Pacific Coast ports with vessel drafts greater than 38 feet, especially the
Columbia River ports of Kalama, Longview, Vancouver, and Portland, be associated with the
Puget Sound MEPA data rather than the port of Coos Bay. The Pacific Coast port matching is
shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4. Summary of the Pacific Coast deep-sea ports and the matched detailed port
WTWY Port Name
Max Draft (ft) Region Typical Port Matched To
4100 San Diego, CA 40
4110 Long Beach, C A 58
4120 Los Angeles, C A 51
4150 Port Hueneme, CA 35
4240 Sacramento, CA 33
4270 Stockton, CA 32
4335 San Francisco, C A 49
4340 Redwood City, CA 33
4345 Oakland, CA 38
4350 Richmond, CA 49
4375 Humboldt, CA 34
4400 Hilo, HI 32
4405 Kawaihae, HI 19
4410 Kahului, Maui, HI 34
4420 Honolulu, HI 40
4430 Nawiliwili, Kauai, HI 33
4457 Barbers Point, HI 55
4622 Longview, WA 40
4626 Kalama, WA 42
4636 Vancouver, WA 40
4644 Portland, OR 40
4800 Ketchikan, AK 37
4816 Valdez, AK 72
4820 Anchorage, AK 36
4831 Nikishka, AK 39
4978 Kivilina, AK 20
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Separate CARB-supplied Data
P Columbia River MEPA
P Columbia River MEPA
P Columbia River MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Columbia River MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Puget Sound MEPA
P Columbia River MEPA
P Columbia River MEPA
P Columbia River MEPA
The Great Lakes port matching shown in Table 2-5 was straight-forward using the criteria
described though the maximum vessel draft for Burns Harbor (28 feet) and Cleveland (29 feet)
are nearly indistinguishable (see Table 2-5).
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 2.wpd
2-5
-------
April 2002
Table 2-5. Summary of the Great Lakes ports and the matched detailed port
Waterway Port Name
Max Draft (ft) Matched to 1996 Typical Port
3924 Duluth-Superior, MN & WI
3749 Port of Chicago, IL
3738 Indiana Harbor, IN
3321 Port of Detroit, MI
3216 Lorain Harbor, OH
3204 Toledo Harbor, OH
3845 Presque Isle Harbor, MI
3219 Ashtabula Harbor, OH
3736 Gary Harbor, IN
3929 Taconite Harbor, MN
3795 Escanaba, MI
3619 Stoneport, MI
3620 Calcite, MI
3926 Two Harbors, MN
3501 St. Clair, MI
3220 Conneaut Harbor, OH
3803 Port Inland, MI
3928 Silver Bay, MN
3506 MarineCity, MI
3213 Sandusky Harbor, OH
3212 Marblehead, OH
3756 Milwaukee Harbor, WI
3627 Port Dolomite, MI
3218 Fairport Harbor, OH
3617 Alpena Harbor, MI
3778 Green Bay Harbor, WI
3202 Monroe Harbor, MI
3230 Port of Buffalo, NY
3725 Muskegon Harbor, MI
3813 Drummond Isl and, MI
3706 Charlevoix Harbor, MI
3737 Buffmgton Harbor, IN
3722 Ludington Harbor, MI
3214 Huron Harbor, OH
3221 Erie Harbor, PA
3726 Grand Haven Harbor, MI
29
28
31
29
29
30
29
31
29
29
31
28
28
29
30
30
28
29
29
29
26
28
28
27
27
26
28
27
28
27
22
27
30
28
28
25
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 2.wpd
2-6
-------
April 2002
3. 1996 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES AND CALCULATION PROCEDURE
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This chapter describes estimates of the national emissions inventory for the US ports from
activity of merchant vessels and other ships that use Category 3 engines. The emissions from the
activity of merchant vessels in the United States were determined by ship type and by each of
four modes of operation (cruise, reduced speed zone (RSZ), maneuvering, and hotelling). These
four modes encompass merchant vessel activity out 25 nautical miles from ocean coasts and 10
nautical miles from Great Lakes' coasts. The propulsion power for these ships was supplied
predominately by Category 3 2-stroke diesel engines with some Category 3 4-stroke and
steamship engines, and auxiliary power was typically supplied by Category 2 or smaller 4-stroke
diesel engines.
Summaries are provided in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of all merchant vessels including those propelled
by motor and steam ships excluding vessel types that likely use only smaller propulsion engines
than Category 3, excluding vessels such as barge carriers, fishing, and supply vessels. The data
used to determine vessel activity and vessel characteristics (overall engine power, vessel speed,
hotelling times, etc.) was provided in earlier EPA contracted work (Arcadis, 1999a and 1999b).
Table 3-1. Summary of the US emission estimates by ship type (tons/year).
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier (BC)
Container Ship (CS)
General Cargo (GC)
Miscellaneous (OT)
Passenger (PA)
Reefer (RF)
Roll-on roll-off (RO)
Tanker (TA)
Vehicle Carrier (VC)
Total
HC
1,461
2,360
478
179
344
257
140
1,175
259
6.650
CO
5,906
5,797
2,060
1,066
879
756
567
3,950
570
21.529
NOx
45,196
38,404
16,078
5,914
6,143
4,160
4,830
32,022
3,732
156.478
PM
2,668
3,125
996
245
747
263
421
3,048
293
1 1 .794
SO,
18,812
23,881
6,940
1,552
5,804
1,952
3,114
22,507
2,247
86.763
Table 3-2. Summary of the US emission estimates by mode (tons/year).
Mode Type
Cruise
RSZ
Maneuvering
Hotelling
Total
HC
739
2,587
1,762
1,563
6.650
CO
1,484
4,635
4,726
10,685
21.529
NOx
31,423
58,707
7,120
59,219
156.478
PM
2,909
5,215
895
2,774
1 1 .794
SO,
21,894
39,936
4,912
19,925
86.763
The propulsion engines of the vessels included in the Arcadis (1999c) data were considered to be
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd
3-1
-------
April 2002
Category 3 engines with the exception of the steamships. The auxiliary generator engines used
during hotelling (also called dwelling or berthing) are not likely Category 3 engines except for
some generators on specific types of vessels that require high electrical loads, such as some
refrigerated cargo (reefers) and cruise ships. Because the Category 3 engines are used for
propulsion, the transit (cruise, RSZ, and maneuvering) emission totals most closely represent the
Category 3 emission estimates for vessels calling on US ports. The cruise, reduce speed zone
(RSZ), maneuvering, and hotelling totals are shown by ship type in Tables 3-3 through 3-6. All
transit emissions but only a small part of the hotelling should be considered as derived from
Category 3 engines. While steamship emissions do not fit into the diesel engine categorization,
ships that use steam propulsion systems will likely be retired, and vessels with diesel engines
will be eventually nearly entirely replace steamships.
Table 3-3. Cruise (to and from 25 miles from coast) emissions by ship type (tons/year).
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
204
202
70
11
46
14
32
142
18
7.19
CO
415
407
130
18
88
29
63
300
34
1.484
NOx
8,909
8,648
2,850
410
1,771
626
1,343
6,116
749
.11.42.1
PM
684
762
235
38
266
47
122
697
58
2.90.9
SO,
5,083
5,577
1,742
283
2,048
349
916
5,329
430
21.894
Table 3-4. Reduce Speed Zone (RSZ) emissions by ship type (tons/year).
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
553
942
185
51
124
97
48
477
109
2.587
CO
1,026
1,644
334
86
211
164
93
891
187
4.6.15
NOx
15,424
16,996
5,386
773
2,020
1,405
1,468
13,251
1,984
58.707
PM
1,223
1,513
442
68
208
123
145
1,325
168
5.215
SO,
9,276
11,945
3,249
527
1,656
991
1,116
9,847
1,327
.19.9.16
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd
3-2
-------
April 2002
Table 3-5. Maneuvering emissions by ship type (tons/year).
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
362
703
95
43
97
81
29
275
80
1.762
CO
994
1,894
259
120
236
220
78
728
218
4.726
NOx
1,931
2,204
451
128
362
233
168
1,404
241
7.1 20.
PM
218
294
54
18
54
33
20
183
33
895
SO,
1,238
1,462
301
90
315
155
119
1,116
161
4.912
Table 3-6. Hotelling emissions by ship type (tons/year)
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
343
512
128
73
77
66
31
281
52
1 .56.1
CO
3,472
1,853
1,336
842
344
342
334
2,031
130
10..685
NOx
18,932
10,557
7,391
4,603
1,991
1,895
1,851
11,247
753
59.219
PM
543
556
265
121
220
60
134
842
32
2.774
SO,
3,181
4,755
1,639
650
1,774
458
964
6,180
325
19.925
The emissions estimates were generated by determining the ratio of vessel activity for each port
within the US by the vessel activity within one of several consolidated ports detailed by Arcadis
(1999a and 1999b). Each port was matched according to criteria described in Chapter 2. A ratio
between each port and the detailed port in terms of load and time in mode for the RSZ mode was
also determined from information gathered on the speed and distance of the RSZ for each port.
These ratios of port call activity and the RSZ load and time in mode were applied to the emission
estimates of the detailed ports to calculate emissions by ship and mode type. The use of the ratio
of vessel calls implies that the average vessel size by ship type at each port were identical to
those of its matched consolidated ports.
Special information was available for the Houston area (Starcrest, 2000) and California (ARE,
2001) ports. The Houston area data may have been underestimated because the cruise mode did
not appear to have been included in the emission estimates. The emission estimates in Houston
were adjusted to reflect the emission factors estimated in this work. The California estimates
were provided directly from ARE staff and were not adjusted for time, load, or emission factors.
California data included transit emissions from the time a ship leaves a harbor till it enters the
outer continental shelf area, while the Arcadis results included cruise time out to 25 miles into
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd 3 -3
-------
April 2002
the open ocean. The California estimates were not adjusted for the emission factors estimates in
Task 1 because the emission factors used by ARB were unknown. Documentation for the
California estimates was not available, however the emissions provided were consistent with
those provided to SCAQMD (Arcadis, 1999) for the San Pedro Bay ports.
This emission summary does not include emissions generated by ships within US waters that do
not call on US ports or those emissions generated in transit to US ports but not within the cruise
zone defined by Arcadis (1999). These estimates therefore do not include some transit emissions
off the ocean coasts and within the Great Lakes that could affect air quality within the US.
DETAILED PORTS ESTIMATES
In order to estimate the emissions at all ports, it was first necessary to estimate emissions at ports
where detailed information about vessel activity and characteristics were available. The emission
estimates for the detailed ports provided the basis for estimating emissions at all ports.
Arcadis (1999a and 1999b) provided estimates of the ocean-going vessel activity for several deep
sea and Great Lakes ports. The activity estimates that were provided included vessel trips, vessel
power, vessel cruise speed, vessel speed in mode, and time in mode where modes were defined
as cruise, reduce speed zone (RSZ), maneuvering, and hotelling. The vessel calls were
distinguished by vessel (e.g. container, tanker, general cargo, etc.) and propulsion engine type,
either 2-stroke slow speed, 4-stroke medium speed, or steamship. The Arcadis reports provided
all the required information to estimate emissions except the load and emission factors.
The emissions were calculated by associating and summing the product of the vessel trips or
calls, vessel power, average load factor by mode of operation and time in mode for all modes of
operation. The equation used for calculating emissions from vessels is shown below. The vessel
and engine types were kept as distinct as possible to allow subtotals by vessel, mode, and engine
type for each port.
Emissions = Trips * Power * LF in mode * Time in mode * EF
Trips - number of trips or vessel calls by vessel and engine type
Power - rated power of propulsion engine by vessel and engine type
LF - load factor (fraction of rated power) by mode
Time - average time for each mode by vessel and engine type per call or trip
EF - emission factor in mode and by engine type
The vessel power was assumed to have a load factor of 10% for hotelling and 80% at cruise,
following the estimates provided in BAH (1991), which are official EPA guidance at this point.
Data from Environment Canada indicated that the cruise mode averaged 84% load for their
study. Also, Starcrest (2000) indicated that the hotelling load may be as low as 6% of the engine
power. However, these reports indicate that the BAH (1991) values are reasonable average
estimates.
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd 3 -4
-------
April 2002
For maneuvering and reduced speed zone modes, it was necessary to estimate the load at
intermediate levels. In order to estimate the load at vessel speeds other than cruise, a cubic
relationship was used and is shown in the equation below. This equation assumes that an
auxiliary load of 10% is demanded at a minimum even when the vessel speed is zero. However,
there is a question over whether the 10% load for auxiliary equipment is provided by the
propulsion engine through a power take-off or from onboard generators. The actual speed of the
vessels at each port was estimated from discussions with harbor pilots, while the cruise speed
was provided by Arcadis (1999a and 1999b) by vessel type. The equation below demonstrates
how the engine load was calculated for intermediate speeds.
Load Factor = 0.1 + 0.7 * (Actual Speed / Cruise Speed)3
The maneuvering speed was estimated as 4 knots for all ports while the average RSZ speed
varied for ports with an average used for the initial calculations shown in Table 3-7 for the
detailed ports. The RSZ speed determined the load during this mode through the equation above
using the cruise (also called service) speed of the individual vessel types also shown in Table 3-
7.
Table 3-7. Average speed during RSZ and Cruise modes for detailed ports.
Port Indicator
Lower Mississippi area
New York area
Delaware area
Puget Sound area
Corpus Christi
Tampa
Baltimore
Coos Bay
Cleveland *
Burns Harbor *
LM
NY
DE
PS
CC
TA
BA
CB
CL
BH
RSZ Speed Cruise Speed by Ship Type (knots)
(knots) BC CS GC OT PA RF RO TA VC
10
10
10
13
10
9
14
7
9
9
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
14
14
(13)
14
H41
20
21
19
21
24
22
20
-
15
-
15
16
14
16
16
14
15
15
14
13
14
14
14
14
13
13
15
15
_
-
21
21
22
19
-
20
21
-
_
-
19
22
19
16
-
18
19
-
_
-
17
18
16
23
-
14
18
-
_
-
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
-
14
14
15
18
18
18
-
18
18
-
_
-
* Vessels are labeled (Laker) or "Salty" referring to transit within the Great Lakes or out to sea.
The motor ship hotelling loads were assumed to be supplied by smaller auxiliary engines
themselves operating at higher relative loads but at only 10% of the installed power (installed
power was provided by Lloyds and averaged by Arcadis for the detailed ports) on the vessel.
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd
3-5
-------
April 2002
The emission factors for the calculations, taken from Chapter 1 in Table 1-12 for slow speed
propulsion, Table 1-13 for medium speed propulsion, Table 1-14 for medium speed auxiliary,
and Table 1-15 for steamship power found in the emission factors chapter are summarized in
Tables 3-8 and 3- 9. There remains a question about whether the emission factors are constant
over the entire range of engine loads, however as demonstrated in EPA (2000) the emission
factors (in g/hp-hr units) only increase for loads below about 10%.
Table 3-8. Emission factors (g/hp-hr) for transit modes.
Engine Type
Slow Speed
Medium Speed
Steam Boiler
HC
0.395
0.395
0.05
CO
0.82
0.52
0.22
NOx
17.60
12.38
2.09
PM*
1.29
1.31
1.86
SO,
9.56
9.69
15.0
''Using an average fuel sulfur level of 3%.
Table 3-9. Emission factors (g/hp-hr) for hotelling modes (Category 2 medium speed engines
except steam boilers).
Propulsion
Engine Type
Slow Speed
Medium Speed
Steam Boiler
HC
0.1
0.1
0.05
CO
1.85
1.85
0.22
NOx
9.96
9.96
2.09
PM*
0.239
0.239
1.86
SO2
1.07
1.07
15.0
Using an average fuel sulfur level of 0.33% for engines and 3% sulfur for steam boilers.
The assumptions for fuel use in the emission rates shown above are that propulsion engines and
steamships use high sulfur (3% by weight) fuel (an approximate average among a summary of
bunker fuels found at http://www.marinelink.com/members/stats/), but lower sulfur (0.33%) fuel
was assumed to be used at dock with auxiliary engines derived from the average nonroad diesel
fuel sulfur level found in EPA (1998). However, steamships were assumed to have used high
sulfur fuel while at dock though auxiliary diesel generators may supply the electric loads with the
steamship boilers shut down.
There is confusion among several knowledgeable parties over the type of fuel used near ports.
Some harbor pilots (Starcrest, 2000) have indicated that vessels use low sulfur diesel fuel at some
point starting either during the Reduced Speed Zone or Maneuvering modes when the harbor
pilots are in command. Once at dock, most vessels use smaller onboard generators running on
low sulfur diesel fuel (Starcrest, 2000), so Category 2 medium-speed 4-stroke emission factors
using low sulfur fuel were used for hotelling emissions on each vessel. Important for some ports
was the estimate, based on information from TRC (1989), that steamship tankers burn heavy fuel
oil during hotelling operations. On the other hand, Greg Rideout (2001) indicated that, during his
work in the Puget Sound and Vancouver areas (Environment Canada, 1997), there was no
evidence that lower sulfur fuels were used near ports in engines for either propulsion or electrical
generation, and that on-board diesel generators appeared to run during transit as well as during
hotelling modes. One Florida pilot (PCPA, 2001) estimated that only about 5-10% of ships are
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd 3 -6
-------
April 2002
equipped with separate tanks to be able to switch to other fuels (either lighter weight and\or
lower sulfur fuels) during transit modes.
The emissions results for each of the 10 detailed ports are shown in Appendix A by vessel and
propulsion engine type and by mode of operation and for total emissions for all modes. The
hotelling emissions for slow speed 2-stroke and medium speed 4-stroke propulsion engines are
expected to be generated from Category 2 medium speed engines. Summary estimates are shown
below in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10. Summary emission estimates for the detailed ports (tons/year).
Consolidated Detailed Port
Lower Mississippi
New York
Delaware River (Philadelphia et al.)
Puget Sound
Corpus Christi
Tampa
Baltimore
Coos Bay
Cleveland
Burns Harbor
HC
437
189
124
231
44
41
160
5
9
2
CO
2,560
937
674
986
191
241
586
36
36
10
NOx
23,204
8,745
6,284
11,174
1,862
2,055
7,444
287
243
82
PM
1,337
685
403
1,135
209
140
530
14
16
5
SO2
9,243
4,953
2,837
8,511
1,573
987
3,844
89
111
36
Relative emissions by mode differed between ports due to the geographic and operational
differences between ports and by vessel type. The geographic differences were mainly observed
in terms of the length of the RSZ and, to a lesser extent, the cruise mode lengths. At some ports,
such as the Lower Mississippi and Puget Sound area ports, the RSZ's begin much further out
from port in both distance and time than, for example, New York, Tampa, or Corpus Christi.
Hotelling times were important and depended in large part on the prevalent type of vessel call,
where, for instance, bulk carriers tend to spend longer in port than container ships.
Hotelling modes tended to be the largest source of NOx emissions for a port because of the
length of this operational mode in comparison with the transit modes. The transit modes for
cruise and RSZ tended to be of greater importance for PM emissions because of the high sulfur
fuel assumed to be used during transit. Maneuvering modes tended be less important because the
length of this mode was short and the engine load was low.
Some vessels in 1996 (the year for which the Arcadis, 1999a and 1999b data were valid) were
still propelled by steamship boilers and turbines, with the relative number of steamships varied
from port to port. The steamships are likely to be mostly replaced by Category 3 motorships
because of the greater efficiency of these engines. The steamship NOx emission rates are
significantly lower than those from motorships, so the NOx emissions will be higher in the future
even without growth in activity of large merchant vessels. The fraction of vessels with steamship
propulsion in 1996 for the detailed ports is summarized in Table 3-11. The transit emissions
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd 3 -7
-------
April 2002
included emissions from steamships which do not fall under the description of Category 3
engines, but the steamship vessel activity will be mostly served by vessels with Category 3
engines in the future.
Table 3-11. Fraction of steamship calls at different ports in 1996.
Steamship Fraction Steamship
Port of Tankers Fraction of Total
Lower Mississippi
New York
Delaware River (Philadelphia and others)
Puget Sound
Corpus Christi
Tampa
Baltimore
Coos Bay
Cleveland
Burns Harbor
1.2%
10.1%
10.4%
59.9%
40.3%
32.9%
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.2%
11.1%
4.0%
20.3%
34.5%
10.7%
3.8%
0.0%
6.2%
4.8%
METHODOLOGY FOR MATCHED PORTS
These ports were matched to the detailed vessel characteristics for the ports described above as
described in the Chapter 2 report using the procedure described by Arcadis (1999). The Arcadis
report detailed a 12 step process (outlined below) for determining activity estimates for the
matched (or Modeled) ports. In this work, the terminology "detailed" or "typical" ports refers to
the ports where detailed vessel characteristics and activity were summarized in the Arcadis
(1999) report. The term "matched" or "modeled" port refers to the ports where detailed activity
and vessel characteristics were not available.
Step 1. Determine a Modeled Port and a Typical Port
Step 2. List USACE Port Codes Within the MEPA Area
Step 3. Total All Trips for the Ports in Step 2
Step 4. Determine Trips for the Typical Port
Step 5. Determining the Number of Calls for the Typical Port
Step 6. Determine the Distance to the Port/Waterway
Step 7. Determine the Distance from the Breakwater to the Typical Port
Step 8. Compute RSZ for the Typical Port
Step 9. Determine Trips for the Modeled Port
Step 10. Compute the Number of Calls for the Modeled Port
Step 11. Compute the revised reduced speed zone
Step 12. Allocation to Counties
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd
3-8
-------
April 2002
For this work the steps described were generally followed with exceptions noted here below. In
order to produce national estimates for all Category 3 vessels, a more straight-forward
methodology was used compared to the Arcadis methodology.
Step 1 was provided in the Chapter 2 report. In our work, the 10 detailed ports provided by
Arcadis (1999) will be used for the detailed (or also called typical) port designation, rather than
using specific ports within the detailed port information as Arcadis (1999) described in their
example using Bellingham (one of many Puget Sound ports) as the typical port.
Step 2 was simplified by using the entire detailed port vessel characteristics (e.g. all of the ports
within the Puget Sound Marine Exchange and Port Authorities (MEPA)) rather than just
Bellingham as given in the example described by Arcadis (1999)) as the basis for matched port
vessels. In some cases, the detailed ports data set provided by Arcadis (1999) included vessel
information from all ports within the MEPA area. Instead of extracting individual port
information from the detailed data set, this work used the MEPA data in its entirety for port
matching. Also, the ports within each MEPA area (Table 1-1 in Arcadis, 1999) were excluded
from the matched port list as the activity at all ports was assumed to be included in the totals for
the detailed ports.
Steps 3 and 4 were followed for this work. The summary data for the detailed ports and the
individual matched ports used the Arcadis-supplied United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) trip data for 1995 to determine relative activity by vessel type. Based on a review of
several operators (e.g. Seabulk International, Crowley, and Foss), many types of vessels were not
considered to have Category 3 engines onboard, including barge carriers (B A), dry cargo barges
(BD), liquid barges (BL), supply vessels (SV) such as used for off-shore oil and gas production,
and tugs (TUG) or fishing vessels. There were also unclassified vessels, which were mapped
into the dry cargo vessels as described by Arcadis (1999). Matched ports may have trips
recorded for vessel types that were not found in the detailed port data, so these vessel types were
mapped into the OTHER or MISCELLANEOUS category characteristics for these vessels. This
is demonstrated in Appendix B for the Texas ports.
Step 5 was handled much as described by Arcadis except that the total estimate for detailed ports
(combination of the MEPA ports) was used instead of individual ports.
Steps 6 through 8 and Step 11 were handled differently and more directly than the described
approach by contacting individual ports for information about average vessel speed and distance
within each reduce speed zone (RSZ). This was done for each matched port except for Great
Lakes ports, which were assumed to be similar for all modes of operation.
Steps 9 and 10 formed the basis for determining the large ocean-going vessels (OGV) counts at
the matched ports using the Arcadis (1999) 1995 vessel trips data. An attempt was made to revise
the trip data using USAGE (2001) information for 1996 and 1999, but encountered difficulties in
determining reasonable trip counts between certain ports. The trip data included vessel trips by 6
general types: Self-Propelled Dry Cargo, Self-Propelled Tanker, Towboat, Non-Self Propelled
Dry Cargo, Non-Self Propelled Tanker, Other (undefined). Arcadis reported to have used a ratio
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd 3 -9
-------
April 2002
of the 6 general types to map into the more detailed classifications. However, this procedure led
to some unreasonable estimates of total trips for some ports, such as Seattle-Tacoma where self-
propelled dry cargo trips increased by 10 to 20 times between 1995 and 1996. This increase in
trips would have translated to an unreasonable increase from 1995 to 1996 for most vessel trips.
Additional work would be needed to determine which method is most correct for determining
vessel trips.
Step 12 was omitted in this work because county level emissions estimates were not requested.
In summary, the method used determined a ratio of the matched port to the detailed port
summaries in terms of vessel calls by ship type to calculate emissions directly for cruise,
maneuvering, and hotelling activity. The reduce speed zone (RSZ) load and time in mode was
calculated specifically for each port based on the geography and discussions with harbor pilots or
other officials. For other modes, each vessel call at the matched port is considered to be
equivalent to that of the detailed port. The summary emission and RSZ speed and distance
estimates by port are shown in Table 3-12 and were combined with the estimates for the detailed
ports in Table 3-10 to provide national totals. The Houston-Galveston and California ports
estimates were provided by the TNRCC and ARB and were not calculated in this work.
Table 3-12. Emission estimates and reduced speed zone parameters by port.
_ , Matched
Port Port*
Brownsville, TX
Gulfport Harbor, MS
Matagorda Ship Channel, TX
Orange, TX
Panama City Harbor, FL
Pascagoula Harbor, MS
Pensacola Harbor, FL
Port Arthur, TX
Beaumont, TX
Lake Charles, LA
Mobile Harbor, AL
Port Everglades Harbor, FL
Houston-Galveston Area Ports
Jacksonville Harbor, FL
Port of Boston, MA
Charleston Harbor, SC
New Haven Harbor, CT
Port of Wilmington, NC
Providence, RI
Morehead City Harbor, NC
Bridgeport Harbor, CT
Fall River Harbor, MA
Palm Beach Harbor, FL
Canaveral Harbor, FL
Portsmouth Harbor, NH
Port Jefferson Harbor, NY
Brunswick Harbor, GA
Searsport Harbor, ME
Bucksport Harbor, ME
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
CC
cc
CC
LM
-
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
HC
12
5
6
1
6
19
2
20
18
23
29
138
209
41
20
38
8
26
8
6
1
3
22
14
2
0
11
3
1
Emissions (tons/year)
CO NOx PM
85
49
34
2
41
111
17
114
72
110
130
1,304
867
255
132
222
69
156
58
43
11
24
172
103
17
0
58
19
5
644
322
284
25
332
937
129
978
757
1,007
1,263
8,601
8,810
2,122
1,054
1,899
486
1,318
445
346
77
185
1,261
759
121
2
545
146
38
34
13
20
2
18
66
7
86
89
103
91
465
573
118
67
111
25
77
26
19
4
9
62
51
7
0
31
8
2
SO,
227
81
143
11
119
465
45
628
675
767
656
3,086
3,437
estimated
802
466
764
167
529
179
132
23
59
402
354
48
1
215
55
17
KSZ (knots
Speed
8.8
10.0
7.3
7.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
11.0
7.5
6 to 12
10.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
13.0
9.0
9.0
and miles)
Distance
18.5
17.0
24.0
53.5
10.0
17.0
12.0
20.0
56.5
24.0
35.0
2.0
5 to 40
15.0
15.0
17.0
2.0
28.0
22.0
28.0
2.0
22.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
45.5
22.0
22.0
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd
3-10
-------
Port
Georgetown Harbor, SC
Port of Richmond, VA
Port of Hopewell, VA
Miami Harbor, FL
Newport News, VA
Savannah, GA
Norfolk Harbor, VA
Portland, ME
Portland, OR
Vancouver, WA
Kalama, WA
Longview, WA
Honolulu, HI
Barbers Point, HI
Valdez, AK
Ketchikan, AK
Port of Astoria, OR
Kahului, Maui, HI
Hilo, HI
Nawiliwili, Kauai, HI
Nikiski, AK
Anchorage, AK
ALL California ports
Duluth-Superior, MN & WI
Indiana Harbor, IN
Port of Detroit, MI
Lorain Harbor, OH
Toledo Harbor, OH
Presque Isle Harbor, MI
Ashtabula Harbor, OH
Gary Harbor, IN
Taconite Harbor, MN
Escanaba, MI
Two Harbors, MN
St. Clair, MI
Conneaut Harbor, OH
Silver Bay, MN
Marine City, MI
Sandusky Harbor, OH
Ludington Harbor, MI
Port of Chicago, IL
Stoneport, MI
Calcite, MI
Port Inland, MI
Marblehead, OH
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Port Dolomite, MI
Fairport Harbor, OH
Alpena Harbor, MI
Green Bay Harbor, WI
Monroe Harbor, MI
Port of Buffalo, NY
Muskegon Harbor, MI
Drummond Island, MI
Charlevoix Harbor, MI
Buffington Harbor, IN
Matched
Port*
DE
DE
DE
DE
BA
BA
BA
NY
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
-
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
HC
3
27
3
143
25
87
40
9
67
23
13
19
25
4
19
14
9
1
0
0
0
1
4,084
15
5
6
6
7
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
4
1
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Emissions (tons/year)
CO NOx PM
26
132
15
893
154
445
213
56
313
121
80
120
175
24
94
117
73
5
1
3
1
5
7,479
67
20
24
26
31
14
17
8
8
12
7
11
12
7
4
18
2
18
16
17
10
8
9
7
19
11
5
3
5
4
3
3
2
199
1,311
139
7,193
1,328
4,370
1,984
426
3,274
1,190
720
1,054
1,374
187
812
795
531
43
9
20
15
64
29,900
449
139
168
176
209
95
114
54
52
80
48
75
78
47
25
121
16
146
136
138
87
69
75
58
136
95
38
23
37
33
27
28
16
9
79
8
537
83
283
137
28
306
77
43
61
123
41
228
59
25
2
0
1
1
4
2,793
28
10
12
12
13
6
8
4
4
5
3
5
5
3
2
8
1
9
9
9
6
4
5
4
7
6
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
SO,
61
550
55
3,818
579
2,001
970
194
2,273
547
303
420
900
316
1,798
412
161
13
3
6
6
30
23,186
191
68
79
80
90
44
53
26
24
37
23
31
31
22
12
52
8
65
60
61
38
31
33
26
46
42
17
10
14
15
12
12
7
KSZ (knots and miles)
Speed Distance
12.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
4.0
4.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
14.5
14.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
17.0
100.0
82.0
3.0
22.0
45.5
24.0
11.0
93.0
94.0
69.0
59.0
7.0
7.0
27.0
14.0
14.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
84.0
144.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd
3-11
-------
April 2002
Port
Huron Harbor, OH
Erie Harbor, PA
nrflnrl Hnvpn Harbor MT
Matched
Port*
BH
BH
RH
Emissions (tons/year) KSZ (knots and miles)
HC CO NOx PM SO, Speed Distance
1
3
1
3
19
T.
21
134
9S
1
7
9
9
43
11 -
* Legend for the matched ports is given in Table 3-7
C:\MyFiles\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Clmpter S.wpd
3-12
-------
April 2002
4. BETWEEN PORT EMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION
The method to determine between port emissions was described by Corbett and Fischbeck (2000)
for emissions in the open ocean and Great Lakes by associating activity estimates from the
USAGE (2002) in terms of ton-miles of freight activity with emission rates in terms of ton-miles.
Other methods were considered, such as tracking the domestic fleet through next and last port of
call information from the Marine Exchange or Port Authority (MEPA), but were deemed
unreliable for determining the routes of passage of vessels powered by Category 3 engines. Often
next and last ports of call were unknown or indicated that foreign vessels were traveling between
two US ports, which is illegal according to US cabotage law. The estimates using the USAGE
(2002) activity estimates appear to significantly underestimate emissions between ports however.
River traffic other than those vessels used in the open ocean were considered to be powered by
Category 2 or smaller engines based on a review of many operators' fleets. Tow boats hauling
freight by barge were considered to not operate outside of 25 nautical miles from ocean and 10
miles from Great Lakes shores.
Passenger vessels were not explicitly characterized by this approach such as cruise ships because
freight tonnage was not a representative indicator of activity. The cruise vessel emissions were
incorporated through the emission factor estimates by summing cruise vessel emissions along
with the freight vessel emissions divided by the associated freight tonnage at each port.
TOW AND PUSH BOAT TRAFFIC
In previous work (Corbett and Fischbeck, 1998), Category 3 engines were projected to produce
emissions along river ways and near coasts. This section addresses whether Category 3 engines
are used to provide power by tugs for much of the traffic along these inland waterways and near
ocean coasts. Tugs (a term used here to indicate both tow and push boats) handle much (mostly
domestic) freight traffic on ocean and river links. A search of the many operators (described
below) indicated that most tugs are powered by engines not considered Category 3. Corbett and
Fischbeck (1998) found rare instances where tugs were powered by Category 3 engines though
these were few.
Except for river ports serving ocean-going traffic, all river traffic was assumed to be handled by
push boats or other craft propelled by Category 1 or 2 engines. From BTS (1999) quoted below,
it is clear that almost all of the river freight is handled by barges pushed by tugs.
"In 1997, barges transported 96 percent of the tonnage that moved on inland waterways."
A review of the fleets of several tug operators showed that such tugs overwhelmingly use smaller
displacement engines than Category 3. Large ocean-going tugs (up to 10,000 hp) and river
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 4.wpd
4-1
-------
April 2002
€NĄIRON
pushboats (up to 8,000 hp) use US manufactured engines, all Category 2 or smaller engine types.
Below are shown a variety of tugs and push boats operating in the U.S., and none of those shown
use Category 3 engines.
Crosby Tugs; Golden Meadow, LA
http://www.crosbytugs.com/fleet.htm
Examples of largest tugs
M/V Crosby Duke - (2) Caterpillar 3516 DITA SCAC "B HD; 9,000 hp; #570147
M/V Crosby Star - (2) 3516 Caterpillar w/ 6:1 Reduction (Kort Nozzles); 6,000 hp; #1060046
Crowley Marine Services, Inc.; Seattle, WA
http://www.crowley.com/cms/vessel_specs_one.asp
Examples of largest tugs
Nanuq - 2 Caterpillar 3612-B; 10,192 hp; #1074361
Garvey Marine, Inc.;St. Charles, IL
http ://www. garveyintl .com/marine/I emont.htm
Examples of largest tugs
Julie White, 1,900 hp (no Category 3 engines at this power level)
Hannah Marine Corporation; Lemont, IL
http://www.hannahmarine.com/equipment.htm
Examples of largest tugs
M/V SUSAN W.HANNAH; Two (2) EMD 12-645 E5; 4,350 hp; #582617
McDonough Marine Service; New Orleans, LA
http://www.mcdonoughmarine.com/
Examples of largest tugs
M/V CLAUDE R; (2) Detroit Diesel 8V-149 DDEC; 1,600 hp;
Riverway Company; Minneapolis, MN
http ://www.riverway. com/bootsieb .htm
Examples of largest tugs
M/V BOOTSIE B; EMD 16 cylinder 710G7B; 8,000 hp;
Seabulk International
http ://www. seabulkinternational .com/
Examples of largest tugs
Seabulk Montana; Alco 12-251; 5,600 hp
Seabulk Nevada; (2) EMD16-645-E5; 5,750 hp
Seabulk New Jersey; (2) Caterpillar 3606; 4,800 hp
For this work then, large ocean-going merchant vessels were considered the only vessel type that
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 4.wpd 4-2
-------
April 2002
use Category 3 engines. Category 3 engine emissions on rivers were considered to be derived
only from ocean-going vessels accessing river ports (such as Portland (OR), Vancouver (WA),
Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Albany (NY)) and were included in the emission estimates for those
ports serving ocean-going traffic. The emissions along the rivers were included in the reduced
speed zone and maneuvering operating modes for these ports. Other river traffic, such as push
boats and barges, was considered to be propelled by Category 1 and 2 engines.
ACTIVITY ESTIMATES
In order to determine the activity of vessels powered by Category 3 engines operating to and
from and between US ports, it was first determined that river traffic was handled by tugs
powered by Category 1 or 2 engines as indicated above. River activity was therefore ignored
except to the extent that large merchant ships, either ocean-going or Great Lakes, are involved in
transport.
The method used by Corbett and Fischbeck (2000) was recreated in this report. For ocean and
Great Lakes traffic, USAGE (2002) provided activity estimates of total and domestic tonnage by
waterway links. These estimates were converted to ton-miles estimates by multiplying tonnage
by link distance to estimate overall activity. In order to make these estimates correspond to the
previous method (Corbett and Fischbeck, 2000) and not double count the emissions estimated in
Chapter 3, a criteria was used to determine the links and fractional links appropriate for
estimating emissions. For ocean links, only links between 200 statute and 25 nautical miles from
shore were used to determine emissions. For Great Lakes links, links outside of 10 nautical miles
(7 miles of cruise and 3 miles of reduced speed activity) from shore were used to estimate
emissions. Traffic within 25 nautical miles from the coast were considered to have been
estimated in the by-port estimates in effect assuming that no transit emissions occur with 25
nautical miles from the coast other than vessels directly heading to and from ports.
The activity estimates were intended to be distinct from the port traffic by only applying the
activity outside of 25 nautical miles from shore, however vessel activity may occur within the 25
mile limit but not within 25 miles from next or last port of call. Appendix C includes maps of all
vessel links and maps of links within the 25 to 200 mile limits. Many coastal links are excluded
because it was not possible to exclude, from the USAGE (2002) data, barge traffic or near port
activity captured under the estimates provided in Chapter 3. For reference, a comparison of the
domestic ocean trip traffic from BTS (1999) and this work is provided in Appendix D indicating
that the activity estimates in this work are potentially low.
Future year relative tonnage emission estimates were determined from the sum of the detailed
ports tonnage estimates including the relative growth rates for container ship, tanker, and all
other freight traffic as described in Chapter 5.
Table 4-1. Tonnage activity relative to 1996 base year.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 4.wpd 4-3
-------
April 2002
Link type
Ocean
Great Lakes
2010
1.52
1.43
2020
2.05
1.91
2030
2.82
2.56
EMISSION FACTORS
The emission factors were determined from the calculation of emissions for the cruise mode at
each of the detailed ports described in Chapter 3. Cruise mode emissions were divided by the
freight tonnage reported for these ports and 50 nautical miles assuming that each port call results
in 50 miles of cruise (25 miles in and 25 miles out) for ocean traffic and 14 miles of cruise for
Great Lakes traffic according to activity estimated by Arcadis (1999a and 1999b).
Table 4-2. 1996 emission factors (g/ton-nautical-mile) for Category 3 propulsion engines.
Baltimore MEPA
Philadelphia MEPA
New York MEPA
New Orleans MEPA
Corpus Christi
Tampa
Puget Sound MEPA
Coos Bay
Avg. Ocean
Corbett and Fischbeck (2000)*
Ocean
Cleveland
Burns Harbor
Avg. Lakes
Corbett and Fischbeck (2000)*
Lakes
HC
0.0162
0.0078
0.0213
0.0090
0.0055
0.0103
0.0157
0.0121
0.0122
0.0105
0.0085
0.0058
0.0071
0.0087
CO
0.0330
0.0155
0.0434
0.0183
0.0118
0.0198
0.0337
0.0251
0.0251
0.0323
0.0164
0.0115
0.0140
0.0269
NOx
0.7075
0.3319
0.9172
0.3924
0.2368
0.4258
0.6902
0.5389
0.5301
0.3625
0.3535
0.2486
0.3101
0.3021
PM
0.0564
0.0275
0.0836
0.0308
0.0292
0.0389
0.0737
0.0396
0.0475
0.0295
0.0309
0.0196
0.0253
0.0246
SO2
0.4200
0.2052
0.6291
0.2294
0.2244
0.2913
0.5618
0.2935
0.3568
-
0.2311
0.1459
0.1885
-
* Diesel engine emissions uncorrected for steamships; and emissions were assumed to have been given by Corbett
and Fischbeck (2000) in terms of statute mile and converted here to like units.
The emission estimates per ton-mile in this work compared favorably with those of Corbett and
Fischbeck (2000) as shown in Table 4-2. The primary difference in NOx and PM emission rates
were that baseline emission factors in this work were higher (by about 38% for NOx and about
20% for PM for motorships) than those of Lloyds (1995), which were used by Corbett and
Fischbeck (2000). Another difference is that steamship emission were not included by Corbett
and Fischbeck (2000) estimates provided above, which would result in higher PM and lower
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 4.wpd 4-4
-------
April 2002
NOx emissions than those shown for Corbett and Fischbeck (2000).
Corbett and Fischbeck (2000) made a number of assumptions in deriving their estimates
including average vessel characteristic and typical freight loading, while the estimates in this
work used information on specific vessels and actual freight tonnage calling on the detailed ports.
The fact that both estimates, having been derived by completely unique methods, yield emission
rate estimates so similar provided confidence that these estimates were comparable.
Future year emission factors were determined using the same method described above but using
emission and activity estimates from Chapter 5. These future year average estimates are shown in
the Table 4-3. The change in emission factors from year to year is a combination of many factors
including growth rates in traffic served by increasing vessel size, emission controls for NOx
emissions, fraction of passenger ship activity, and lower fraction of steamship calls.
Table 4-3. Future year emission factors (g/ton-nautical-mile) for Category 3 propulsion engines.
Estimate
Avg. Ocean 2010
Avg. Ocean 2020
Avg. Ocean 2030
Avg. Lakes 2010
Avg. Lakes 2020
Avs. Lakes 2030
HC
0.0133
0.0145
0.0160
0.0070
0.0068
0.0067
CO
0.0272
0.0295
0.0323
0.0139
0.0136
0.0134
NOx
0.5047
0.4931
0.5124
0.2607
0.2293
0.2132
PM
0.0482
0.0508
0.0546
0.0242
0.0232
0.0225
SO2
0.3605
0.3785
0.4062
0.1802
0.1727
0.1672
RESULTS
The emission factors were associated with the ton-miles estimates in the 25 nautical mile and 200
statute mile region. These emission estimates are shown in the Tables 4-4 through 4-7 for all and
domestic-only traffic. The 'domestic' traffic label by USAGE may have included freight US
exports as well as between US port traffic, so it may have been carried by foreign flagged
vessels.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 4.wpd
4-5
-------
April 2002
Table 4-4. Transit emissions (tons per year) for all freight vessel traffic on ocean links.
Estimate
Ocean 1996
Ocean 20 10
Ocean 2020
Ocean 2030
HC
1,580
2,618
3,850
5.844
CO
3,251
5,354
7,832
11.797
NOx
68,705
99,428
131,015
187.279
PM
6,152
9,488
13,487
19.941
SO2
46,248
71,026
100,575
148.477
Table 4-5. Transit emissions (tons per year) for domestic freight vessel traffic on ocean links.
Estimate HC CO NOx PM SO2
Ocean 1996
Ocean 20 10
Ocean 2020
Ocean 2030
1,307
2,165
3,184
4.832
2,688
4,428
6,477
9.755
56,816
82,223
108,343
154.872
5,087
7,847
11,153
16.490
38,245
58,735
83,171
122.784
Table 4-6. Transit emissions (tons per year) for all freight vessel traffic on Great Lakes links.
Estimate
Lakes 1996
Lakes 20 10
Lakes 2020
Lakes 2030
HC
480
677
879
1.161
CO
935
1,327
1,735
2.291
NOx
20,132
24,203
28,433
35.434
PM
1,688
2,309
2,956
3.843
SO2
12,608
17,235
22,062
28.629
Table 4-7. Transit emissions (tons per year) for domestic freight vessel traffic on Great Lakes
links.
Estimate
Lakes 1996
Lakes 20 10
Lakes 2020
Lakes 2030
HC
320
451
586
773
CO
623
884
1,156
1.526
NOx
13,415
16,127
18,946
23.610
PM
1,125
1,538
1,970
2.561
SO2
8,401
11,484
14,701
19.076
Using this method, the total emissions for all vessels (sum of Table 4-4 and 4-6) in this zone, 25
nautical to 200 statute miles, is considerably lower than one would estimate extending the cruise
mode in Chapter 3 out to 200 statute miles. For instance in Chapter 3, a total of 31,423 tons per
year of NOx was found in cruise mode, such as 0 to 25 nautical miles from the ocean coasts,
compared with 88,837 tons per year of NOx found here though much more transit occurs within
this zone than the comparison indicates.
A comparison of the Corbett and Fischbeck (1998) and the results in this work (Chapter 3 and 4)
is provided in Appendix E indicating similar results.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 4.wpd 4-6
-------
April 2002
5. FUTURE YEAR PORT EMISSION ESTIMATES
INTRODUCTION
In order to project emission estimates to future years, several factors were taken into account,
including the overall activity growth, the type of vessel to be used to handle the demand growth,
and the fleet turnover to estimate the effect of the MARPOL regulations. Overall growth trends
relied on the freight demand forecasts to estimate the overall activity of vessels. In order to
determine the impact on the fleet, an assumption was made that the increased freight traffic
would be handled primarily by the largest ships (using slow speed engines), as ports and
shipbuilders accommodate increasing ship sizes. The effect of fleet turnover on fleet emission
factors was estimated using the MARPOL standards compared with the baseline emission rates
distributed over a normal scrappage distribution and applied by vessel propulsion type.
FREIGHT PROJECTIONS
The vessel activity demand was estimated using the freight forecasts described below. MARAD
supplied estimates for freight forecasts for 1999 through 2004 for several types of vessels. These
estimates were extrapolated using an exponential growth estimate and are comparable to other
freight growth estimates through 2020 as shown in Table 5-1. The growth was projected from the
1996 base year for the initial emission estimates, so the historic freight growth from 1996 to 1999
was used and then projected beyond 1999 with the 1999-2004 projection. Growth to 2030 was
extrapolated using the same exponential form as for the 2020 calculations with the understanding
that such a long projection or extrapolation is uncertain.
Table 5-1. MARAD supplied estimates of US foreign demand growth from McGraw-Hill.
Vessel Type
Tankers (tonnes)
Other Bulk and General Cargo (tonnes)
Container Ships (TEU)
Cruise (passengers)
Annual
Growth Rate
(1999 - 2004)
2.2 %
3.0%
6.2 %
6.6 %
Cumulative
Growth
(1996 - 2020)
80%
97%
337 %
381 %
Cumulative
Growth
(1996 - 2030)
124%
164%
700%
810%
FHWA (2001) provided overall freight projections, but the freight traffic presented by FHWA
was dominated by truck traffic, so these projections may not be necessarily applicable to marine
freight. This FHWA presentation showed the freight growth from 1998 through 2020 is expected
to be 2.9% per year for domestic and 3.4% per year for international trade. Regionally, the freight
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd
5-1
-------
Afr"2"02 CNVIRON
growth in the western states is expected to be 3.2% overall and 2.7% in the northeast states, with
midwest, gulf, and southeast Atlantic states at 2.9%. These overall freight projections provide
justification for the MARAD estimates that were provided above and used for this work.
INCORPORATION OF THE GROWTH IN THE EMISSION CALCULATIONS
In order to incorporate the growth into the emissions calculations, the overall dead weight
tonnage (DWT) calling annually at ports was increased in proportion to the projected freight
increases. While dead weight tonnage may not directly relate to freight, it was the only measure
of size afforded by the 1996 activity data to relate to freight tonnage. The total DWT for the
detailed ports was calculated by multiplying vessel calls by average dead weight tonnage for each
of several categories of vessels. The additional vessel calls needed to accommodate the growth in
activity were added to the largest DWT category of the vessels by type. This was estimated based
on assessments by MARAD and BTS (1999) that predominately larger vessels are being built to
handle replacement of old vessels and increased freight traffic, and that ports are accommodating
larger vessels.
EMISSION RATES INCLUDING FLEET TURNOVER
The proposed MARPOL regulations were developed under aegis of the International Maritime
Organization (EVIO). These regulations test the engine under three different loads and average the
results to compare with an overall emission standard. The emission standard is related to the rated
engine speed through the relationship shown below for new vessels constructed after January 1,
2000.
Engine Speed <130 rpm; 17.0 g/kW-hr
130 rpm < Engine Speed < 2,000 rpm; 45 * ri°'2 g/kW-hr
Engine Speed > 2,000 rpm; 9.8 g/kW-hr
where "n " is the engine speed in rpm units
In order to estimate the effect of the NOx emission standard on average emission rates, it was
first necessary to estimate the in-use fleet age distribution. Data was available from BTS (1999)
that estimated the average age of the in-use worldwide fleet at 13 years. Using an estimated
growth rate and scrappage distribution, a median age at the time of vessel scrappage (or "median
lifetime") was calculated to reflect the 13 year-old average age of the in-use fleet. The normal
scrappage rate distribution shown in Table 5-2 was taken from the default input to the
NONROAD model, which requires an estimate of the median (or average) age when vessels are
scrapped. The scrappage rate was applied to the initial (new vessels in each year) relative
population (demonstrate by example in Table 5-4 below where new vessels in each year
progressively increase) of vessel by model year to determine the remaining fleet age distribution.
This remaining fleet age distribution was then used to determine the average age of the in-use
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd 5-2
-------
April 2002
fleet to determine the age at the time of scrappage to produce a 13 year average age of the in-use fleet.
Table 5-2. Normal scrappage distribution.
Normal 1
Relative Age
0
0.06
0.12
0.17
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.3
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
1.6
1.7
.72
.74
.78
.83
.88
.94
2
Distribution
% Scrapped
0
1
2
3
4
4.5
5
6
8
10
11
13
14
15
18
19
21
24
25
31
50
69
75
76
79
81
82
85
86
87
89
90
92
94
95
95.5
96
97
98
99
100
The relative initial vessel population affected the calculated average age of the in-use fleet by
skewing the fleet age distribution. So a historic growth rate of the vessel fleet of 2.0% per year
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd
5-3
-------
Afr"2"02 CNVIRON
was estimated from data provided by MARAD (2001) from McGraw-Hill and shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. MARAD supplied estimates of historic fleet growth.
Vessel Type Growth per Year
Tankers 1.2%
Bulk Carriers 2.1%
Container Ships 11.8%
Using an average 2.0% growth rate and the normal scrappage distribution, the median age at the
time of scrappage (i.e. the median or average life of vessels) is 25 years in order to have the
average age of the in-use fleet be 13 years. Using 0.0% growth, the median age of vessels at the
time of scrappage was calculated to be 22 years, so the median age of scrapped vessels is not
very sensitive to the estimated fleet growth rate. The 25 year estimate was consistent with the
Corbett and Fishbeck (1998) information on the average age of broken up vessels. Shown in
Table 5-4 is the age distribution in 2010 calculated with the assumptions detailed above.
Table 5-4. Age distribution of merchant vessels calculated for 2010.
Model
Year
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
Normalized
Age
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
0.44
0.48
0.52
0.56
0.60
0.64
0.68
0.72
0.76
0.80
0.84
0.88
0.92
0.96
1.00
Initial Relative
Population
132
259
254
249
244
239
234
230
225
221
216
212
208
204
200
196
192
188
185
181
178
174
171
167
164
161
Remaining
Population
132
259
251
244
239
232
224
218
212
208
199
195
187
182
174
169
165
160
152
147
140
138
130
126
113
80
In-Use
Distribution
0.0257
0.0504
0.0489
0.0474
0.0465
0.0451
0.0436
0.0425
0.0412
0.0404
0.0388
0.0380
0.0365
0.0353
0.0339
0.0328
0.0322
0.0312
0.0295
0.0286
0.0273
0.0268
0.0253
0.0244
0.0220
0.0157
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd
5-4
-------
April 2002
Model Normalized
Year Age
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
.04
.08
.12
.16
.20
.24
.28
.32
.36
.40
.44
.48
.52
.56
.60
.64
.68
.72
.76
.80
.84
.88
.92
96
Initial Relative
Population
158
155
152
149
146
143
140
137
135
132
129
127
124
122
120
117
115
113
110
108
106
104
102
100
Remaining
Population
79
48
38
36
31
30
27
25
20
18
18
16
14
12
10
9
9
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
In-Use
Distribution
0.0154
0.0093
0.0074
0.0069
0.0060
0.0058
0.0052
0.0048
0.0039
0.0036
0.0035
0.0032
0.0027
0.0024
0.0019
0.0018
0.0018
0.0011
0.0010
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0004
00009
The results of the emission reductions were determined from the age distribution shown above,
projected for future years, and are shown in Table 5-5. For future year emission factor estimates,
only a fraction of the vessels in operation would have been built after 2000 resulting in a partial
emissions reduction associated with the emission standards beginning in 2000.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd
5-5
-------
Afr"2"02 CNVIRON
Table 5-5. NOx emission factors (g/hp-hr) and % reduction from baseline emissions with
the implementation of the MARPOL standard and in BOLD adjusted by increasing future year
engine emissions to 10% above the emission standards with the use of residual fuel.
Engine Type
Slow Speed
(~ 130rpm)
Medium Speed
(~ 520 rpm)
Auxiliary
(Category 2
(~ 800 mm)
Baseline
NOx
17.6
12.4
10.0
MARPOL
NOx
12.7
13.9
9.6
10.6
8.8
Reduction
by 2010
13.1%
9.8%
10.6%
6.9%
5.4 %
Reduction
by 2020
22.2 %
16.5%
17.9%
11.6%
9.2 %
Reduction
by 2030
26.6 %
19.8%
21.6%
14.0%
11.0%
RESULTS
Applying the growth estimate for DWT by adding port calls to the largest category slow speed
vessels, an estimate of the overall activity at all ports was determined. By adjusting the NOx
emission factors according to the expected effect from implementing the MARPOL standard, an
estimate of the emissions for future years was made, as shown in Table 5-6. Because the States'
of Texas and California estimates were used directly and not estimated in this work, the emission
estimates for the Houston area and California ports were adjusted according to the average effect
of the sensitivity analysis on all other ports.
Table 5-6. Ports emissions summary including activity growth.(tons/year)
Ports
1996
2010
2020
2030
HC
6,650
10,581
15,325
23,169
CO
21,529
33,745
48,268
71,958
NOx
156,478
229,307
312,933
456,772
PM
11,794
17,386
24,243
35,692
SO2
86,763
125,979
174,226
254,950
Because of the large growth rate of container and passenger vessels, the significance of these
types of vessels becomes much more important the further in the future that the projections are
made. Tables 5-7 through 5-10 compare the 1996 baseline emission estimates with those for
2010, 2020 (the future year where growth projections were provided by reference), and 2030 (the
furthest projected year estimated in this work).
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd
5-6
-------
April zuuz
Table 5-7. Summary
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Table 5-8. Summary
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
of the US emission estimates
HC
1,461
2,360
478
179
344
257
140
1,175
259
6.650
CO
5,906
5,797
2,060
1,066
879
756
567
3,950
570
21.529
of the US emission estimates
HC
1,985
5,288
578
253
890
363
187
1,683
373
10.581
CO
8,051
12,937
2,451
1,579
2,137
1,056
737
5,716
841
33.745
by ship type
NOx
45,196
38,404
16,078
5,914
6,143
4,160
4,830
32,022
3,732
156.478
by ship type
NOx
57,170
80,251
17,876
8,244
14,275
5,385
5,919
41,659
4,971
229.307
for 1996
PM
2,668
3,125
996
245
747
263
421
3,048
293
1 1 .794
for 20 10
PM
3,617
6,339
1,184
348
1,361
373
517
3,767
417
1 7.386
(tons/year).
SO2
18,812
23,881
6,940
1,552
5,804
1,952
3,114
22,507
2,247
86.763
(tons/year).
SO2
25,441
47,191
8,237
2,183
10,221
2,769
3,794
27,341
3,207
125.979
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd
5-7
-------
April zuuz
Table 5-9. Summary of the
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
US emission estimates
HC
2,543
9,497
685
332
1,658
475
238
2,090
448
1 5.325
CO
10,333
23,193
2,867
2,116
3,909
1,375
918
7,132
1,015
48.268
by ship type
NOx
69,366
135,672
19,934
10,592
25,188
6,620
7,042
48,535
5,618
312.933
for 2020
PM
4,627
10,964
1,385
456
2,224
489
620
4,350
502
24.243
(tons/year).
SO2
32,494
80,734
9,617
2,854
16,420
3,638
4,518
31,236
3,857
174.226
Table 5-10. Summary of the US emission estimates by ship type for 2030 (tons/year).
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
3,291
17,216
827
439
3,114
626
305
2,604
602
23.169
CO
13,391
42,014
3,425
2,848
7,274
1,804
1,160
8,926
1,377
71.958
NOx
87,354
237,971
23,133
13,897
44,857
8,415
8,686
58,369
7,289
456.772
PM
5,980
19,431
1,654
604
3,861
646
757
5,091
670
35.692
SO2
41,945
142,121
11,466
3,769
28,188
4,803
5,487
36,176
5,150
254.950
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 5.wpd
5-8
-------
April 2002
6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
A sensitivity analysis was performed to demonstrate the effect of the uncertainty in the some of
the estimates used to create the emissions inventory. The estimates tested and described below
were adjusting the load estimates at intermediate speeds between stopped and cruise speeds, the
emission factors of propulsion engines, the number of steamship port calls, the maximum and
minimum load estimates for the cruise and auxiliary engine loads, and the emission factors
during maneuvering modes only.
The emission estimates of each sensitivity analysis was compared with those estimates provided
in Chapter 3 and also below in Tables 6-1 through 6-5. In each sensitivity case, we adjusted the
assumptions used in the base emission estimates presented in Chapter 3 and carried them through
the emissions calculations for the US ports. Because the States' of Texas and California
estimates were used directly and not estimated in this work, the emission estimates for the
Houston area and California ports were adjusted according to the average effect of the sensitivity
analysis on all other ports.
Table 6-1. Baseline emission estimates for merchant vessels from Chapter 3 summed for all
modes (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
1,461
2,360
478
179
344
257
140
1,175
259
6.650
CO
5,906
5,797
2,060
1,066
879
756
567
3,950
570
21.529
NOx
45,196
38,404
16,078
5,914
6,143
4,160
4,830
32,022
3,732
156.478
PM
2,668
3,125
996
245
747
263
421
3,048
293
11.794
SO,
18,812
23,881
6,940
1,552
5,804
1,952
3,114
22,507
2,247
86.763
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 6.wpd
6-1
-------
April 2002
Table 6-2. Baseline emission estimates for merchant vessels from Chapter 3 for
cruise speed emissions (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
204
202
70
11
46
14
32
142
18
739
CO
415
407
130
18
88
29
63
300
34
1 484
NOx
8,909
8,648
2,850
410
1,771
626
1,343
6,116
749
31 423
PM
684
762
235
38
266
47
122
697
58
2909
SO,
5,083
5,577
1,742
283
2,048
349
916
5,329
430
21 894
Table 6-3. Baseline emission estimates for merchant vessels from Chapter 3 for
reduced speed zone (RSZ) emissions (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
553
942
185
51
124
97
48
477
109
2.587
CO
1,026
1,644
334
86
211
164
93
891
187
4635
NOx
15,424
16,996
5,386
773
2,020
1,405
1,468
13,251
1,984
58707
PM
1,223
1,513
442
68
208
123
145
1,325
169
5215
SO2
9,276
11,945
3,249
527
1,656
991
1,116
9,847
1,327
39936
Table 6-4. Baseline emission estimates for merchant vessels from Chapter 3 for
maneuvering emissions (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
362
703
95
43
97
81
29
275
80
1.762
CO
994
1,894
259
120
236
220
78
728
218
4726
NOx
1,931
2,204
451
128
362
233
168
1,404
241
7.120
PM
218
294
54
18
54
33
20
183
33
895
SO2
1,238
1,462
301
90
315
155
119
1,116
161
4912
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 6.wpd
6-2
-------
April 2002
Table 6-5. Baseline emission estimates for merchant vessels from Chapter 3 for
hotelling emissions (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
HC
343
512
128
73
77
66
31
281
52
1 563
CO
3,472
1,853
1,336
842
344
342
334
2,031
130
10685
NOx
18,932
10,557
7,391
4,603
1,991
1,895
1,851
11,247
753
59219
PM
543
556
265
121
220
60
134
842
32
2.774
SO2
3,181
4,755
1,639
650
1,774
458
964
6,180
325
19925
REDUCED SPEED ZONE AND MANEUVERING MODAL LOADS
In the course of interviewing knowledgeable sources (e.g. Rideout, 2001), we found it is possible
or likely that on-board generator engines (mostly Category 2) run continuously in transit as well as
at dock. In the equation for determining the engine load in the baseline emission estimates, an
assumption was made that the propulsion power would have 10% load for auxiliary power and
80% total load at cruise speed (80% load at cruise is EPA guidance but that assumption is also
supported by the Environment Canada data). Therefore, if auxiliary engines supply the 10% load
for auxiliary power instead of the propulsion engines, then the load on the propulsion engines may
be reduced for RSZ and maneuvering modes. So this sensitivity analysis provided emission
estimates using the follow equation for loads at intermediate speeds;
Load Fraction = 0.8 * (Speed/Cruise Speed)3
instead of the baseline estimates using the following equation;
Load Fraction = 0.1 + 0.7 * (Speed/Cruise Speed)3
The auxiliary engine emissions increased because the 10% auxiliary load would occur during
transit as well as hotelling modal operation to supply onboard electrical power. But the cruise
emissions remained unchanged because the cruise load estimate of 80% was still used.
Not considered in this sensitivity analysis was that specific emission factors (in g/kW-hr units) at
the lower load fractions (propulsion engine loads below 10% now occur at vessels speeds lower
than about 7 knots for bulk carriers or about 11 knots for container ships for this sensitivity
analysis) have been reported to increase significantly. The maneuvering mode was assumed (and
confirmed by discussions with Harbor Pilots) to be 4 knots resulting in loads of 3% or less. This
likely increase in the specific emission factors during maneuvering and some RSZ modes may
cancel the effect of the reduced load calculated at slower vessel speeds.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd 6-3
-------
April 2002
The results shown in Tables 6-6 through 6-9 demonstrate that while overall emissions did not
change significantly, RSZ and maneuvering modes emissions decreased, and auxiliary engine
emissions increased. Cruise mode propulsion emissions were unchanged by this sensitivity
analysis.
Table 6-6. Emissions with an alternative form of the load equation for all modes and ports
(tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Baseline Total
HC
1,112
1,646
389
141
257
157
114
926
193
4,903
6.650
CO
5,421
4,392
2,044
1,001
788
540
594
3,765
402
18,948
27.529
NOx
44,670
36,624
16,461
6,075
6,363
3,783
5,046
32,112
3,593
154,876
156.478
PM
2,418
2,665
932
233
784
201
407
2,953
248
10,934
/ /. 794
SO2
17,105
21,266
6,469
1,492
6,233
1,551
2,995
22,033
2,037
81,891
86. 763
Table 6-7. Emissions with an alternative form of the load equation for the RSZ
mode of all ports (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Subtotal
Baseline Subtotal
HC
482
655
160
47
82
65
39
396
87
2,100
2.587
CO
894
1,144
289
80
138
109
74
742
149
3,765
4.635
NOx
13,430
11,828
4,651
707
1,330
937
1,177
10,969
1,584
47,680
58.707
PM
1,067
1,045
383
62
131
82
111
1,108
135
4,232
5.2/5
SO2
8,095
8,248
2,814
488
1,042
662
848
8,277
1,060
32,407
39.936
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 6.wpd
6-4
-------
April 2002
Table 6-8. Emissions with an alternative form of the load equation for
maneuvering of all ports (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Subtotal
Baseline Subtotal
HC
27
12
6
2
2
2
1
16
2
77
1.762
CO
71
26
15
4
4
3
4
42
4
186
4.726
NOx
286
112
59
17
17
14
15
173
15
111
7.120
PM
30
13
6
2
3
2
2
22
2
89
#95
SO2
180
72
38
11
15
9
10
138
10
518
4.912
Table 6-9. Emissions with an alternative form of the load equation for auxiliary
engines at all ports (This now includes auxiliary engine emission during transit
and hotelling modes.) (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Baseline Subtotal
(Hotelline onlv)
HC
399
778
154
80
127
76
41
371
86
1,986
1,563
CO
4,042
2,815
1,610
900
558
398
453
2,682
215
13,514
10,685
NOx
22,044
16,036
8,901
4,942
3,245
2,205
2,511
14,851
1,240
74,990
59,219
PM
636
845
308
131
384
70
172
1,125
53
3,703
2,774
SO,
3,744
7,232
1,873
709
3,127
532
1,222
8,279
535
27,055
19,925
EMISSION FACTORS
There was considerable uncertainty in the specific NOx and PM emission factors (in units of
g/kW-hr) estimates because of the fuel type and specific combustion efficiency estimate employed
to convert fuel-based emission factors (in units of kg/tonne). The emission factors determined as
described in Chapter 1 and used to produce the baseline emission estimates as described in
Chapter 3 were generally higher for NOx and, depending upon fuel sulfur assumptions, either
lower or higher in PM and SO2 than previous comparable emission factors.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter S.wpd 6-5
-------
April 2002
The NOx emission factors used in the baseline emissions estimates relied on the available data for
specific fuel consumption in g/kW-hr units and emissions data in kg/tonne units. Therefore an
error in either one will contribute to an error in the specific emissions rates in g/kW-hr units used
in the emission estimates. For 2-stroke low speed Category 3 engines, the type most prevalent
among merchant ships, manufacturers reported emission rates of 17 - 19 g/kW-hr though the test
data indicated an average of 23.6 g/kW-hr. A value of 17 g/kW-hr reported by Lloyds (1995) was
used for the sensitivity run as a lower limit for comparison purposes. For 4-stroke medium speed
engines, Lloyds (1995) reported the NOx emission rate of 12 g/kW-hr instead of the value 16.6
g/kW-hr used in this study. If these lower Lloyds (1995) estimates are used, then no emission
reductions can be expected for newer vessels meeting the MARPOL standard.
For PM the primary uncertainty is the sulfur level of the fuel used for propulsion and auxiliary
engines. The sulfur level chosen for the heavy fuel used in the baseline estimates for propulsion
engines was 3% by weight, while one report indicated that the sulfur can range from 0.8% to
3.92% worldwide with the US range from 1.8% to 3.9%. (Bunker fuel specifications found at
http://www.marinelink.com/members/stats/) The PM emission rates were then recalculated based
on the discussion in Chapter 1.
As expected, when the emission factors are changed, the overall emission estimates were
proportionally affected as shown in Table 6-10. The emission changes primarily affect the transit
emissions produced by propulsion engines, though steamships are thought to use residual fuel in
the boilers while hotelling. Therefore a small portion of the PM and SO2 emission increases were
assumed to occur during hotelling, but the NOx decrease was assumed to occur only during transit
modes.
Table 6-10. Effect of NOx emission factor and fuel sulfur assumptions on
total port emissions (tons/year).
Comparison NOx PM SO
2
Lower NOx Emission Rates
1% Sulfur Fuel
4% Sulfur Fuel
Baseline
129,794
-
-
156,478
-
3,942
23,240
11, 794
-
42,204
109,043
86, 763
STEAMSHIPS
It is likely that the current (1996 base year) numbers of steamships will dwindle as these older
ships are retired because very few new steamships will be constructed. For instance, according to
a report by the TIME (1999), only 4 out of 363 vessels constructed in Japan (the county that was
the largest builder of merchant vessels in that year) in 1997 were steam turbine-powered.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 6.wpd
6-6
-------
April 2002
A sensitivity analysis was run that converted the 1996 port calls of steamships entirely to diesel
powered vessels of similar dead weight tonnage (DWT). As Table 6-11 shows, the emissions of
NOx, HC, and CO were higher and PM and SO2 were lower by supplanting steamships with
diesel powered vessels according to the emission rates for steamships compared to motorships.
Table 6-11. 1996 emissions with steamships replaced by diesel motor ships (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Baseline Total
HC
1,489
2,550
479
188
465
257
141
1,516
259
7,377
6.650
CO
6,015
6,290
2,072
1,134
1,167
756
567
4,971
570
23,642
27.529
NOx
46,025
41,738
16,152
6,297
8,165
4,160
4,894
39,510
3,732
171,022
156.478
PM
2,608
2,706
902
252
510
263
285
2,276
293
10,109
/ /. 794
SO2
18,177
19,431
6,103
1,577
3,620
1,952
1,976
15,546
2,247
70,240
86. 763
LOAD ASSUMPTIONS
Besides the issue of the which engines supply auxiliary load during transit is the uncertainty in the
10% auxiliary and 80% cruise load estimates. The 80% load at cruise is the historic EPA guidance
but Environment Canada measured this load at anywhere from 70% to 99%.
The relative auxiliary load was based on the fraction of installed power as supplied by Lloyds
registry data, so is highly uncertain given that ships with large propulsion engines may require not
much more auxiliary power than smaller ships. A range of 5 to 15% auxiliary load is suggested for
a sensitivity analysis. Also this load may be supplied only by Category 2 engines, so the
sensitivity analysis of auxiliary load may not be relevant to Category 3 engine emissions.
Four sensitivity runs were performed using the load equations shown below.
(1) An assumption for the cruise load of 100% and hotelling load of 10% was
made and affected the cruise, RSZ, and maneuvering modal emissions through
the equation shown below with results shown in Table 6-12.
Load Fraction = 0.1 + 0.9 * (Speed/Cruise Speed)3
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 6.wpd
6-7
-------
April 2002
Table 6-12. Case of 100% cruise load (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Baseline Total
HC
1,641
2,583
537
191
374
279
159
1,311
286
7,388
6.650
CO
6,262
6,211
2,171
1,088
932
794
602
4,220
620
22,939
27.529
NOx
50,693
43,527
17,921
6,135
6,858
4,553
5,459
36,142
4,320
175,868
156.478
PM
3,102
3,578
1,147
266
843
296
479
3,482
341
13,545
/ /. 794
SO2
22,059
27,372
8,053
1,707
6,544
2,206
3,555
25,758
2,622
100,014
86. 763
(2) An assumption for the cruise load of 70% and hotelling load of 10% was
made and affected the cruise, RSZ, and maneuvering modal emissions
through the equation shown below with results shown in Table 6-13.
Load Fraction = 0.1 + 0.6 * (Speed/Cruise Speed)3
Table 6-13. Case of 70% cruise load (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Baseline Total
HC
1,371
2,248
448
173
329
247
131
1,107
245
6,282
6.650
CO
5,728
5,590
2,005
1,056
852
736
549
3,815
545
20,824
27.529
NOx
42,448
35,843
15,157
5,804
5,785
3,964
4,515
29,962
3,438
146,783
156.478
PM
2,451
2,898
920
235
700
247
392
2,832
268
10,919
/ /. 794
SO2
17,188
22,136
6,383
1,474
5,434
1,826
2,894
20,881
2,059
80,137
86. 763
(3) An assumption of the cruise load of 80% and auxiliary load of 15% was
made and affected the RSZ, maneuvering, and hotelling modal emissions
through the equation shown below with results shown in Table 6-14.
Load Fraction = 0.15 + 0.65 * (Speed/Cruise Speed)3
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 6.wpd
6-8
-------
April 2002
Table 6-14. Case of 15% auxiliary load (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Baseline Total
HC
1,820
3,090
595
236
450
344
173
1,475
332
8,447
6.650
CO
8,126
7,863
2,862
1,541
1,199
1,056
778
5,355
755
29,377
27.529
NOx
56,470
47,301
20,334
8,302
7,654
5,450
5,977
39,394
4,420
194,722
156.478
PM
3,109
3,775
1,181
316
921
329
514
3,657
341
14,066
/ /. 794
SO2
21,527
28,796
8,109
1,935
7,152
2,418
3,784
26,879
2,617
102,690
86. 763
(4) An assumption of the cruise load of 80% and auxiliary load of 5% was
made and affected the RSZ, maneuvering, and hotelling modal emissions
through the equation shown below with results shown in Table 6-15.
Load Fraction = 0.05 + 0.75 * (Speed/Cruise Speed)3
Table 6-15. Case of 5% auxiliary load (tons/year).
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
Roll-on Roll-off
Tanker
Vehicle Carrier
Total
Baseline Total
HC
1,102
1,630
361
122
239
171
107
875
185
4,854
6.650
CO
3,687
3,732
1,258
592
559
455
355
2,545
386
13,682
27.529
NOx
33,922
29,508
11,822
3,526
4,631
2,870
3,683
24,649
3,044
118,234
156.478
PM
2,227
2,475
810
174
574
197
328
2,439
244
9,522
/ /. 794
SO2
16,097
18,966
5,770
1,169
4,455
1,487
2,444
18,135
1,876
70,836
86. 763
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Chapter 6.wpd
6-9
-------
April 2002
€NVIRON
REFERENCES
ARB (2001), personal communication with Walter Wong, August, 2001.
Acurex (1996), 'Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies,' Prepared for the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, December, 1996.
Arcadis (1999a), 'Commercial Marine Activity for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the
United States,' Prepared for EPA by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., EPA420-R-99-
019, September 1999.
Arcadis (1999b), 'Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States Prepared
for EPA by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., EPA420-R-99-020, September 1999.
Arcadis (1999c), 'Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory," Prepared for South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., September
1999.
BAH (1991), 'Commercial Marine Vessel Contributions to Emission Inventories,' Final Report
prepared for EPA, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, October 7, 1991.
Beaumont-Port Arthur Pilots (2001), personal communication with Doug Crafton, Harbor Pilots
dispatcher at Sabine Pilots 409-722-1141.
Brazos -Santiago Pilots (2001), personal communication with James H. Franceschi, Senior Pilot
956-546-6103 direct or 956-554-3700 general office number for Brownsville and Port
Isabel.
BTS (1999), "Maritime Trade & Transportation," Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Available
Online; January, 2002; http://206.4.84.245/btsproducts/ under Freight Categories.
Corbett, J.J (2000) and Fischbeck, P.S., "Emissions from Waterborne Commerce Vessels in
United States Continental and Inland Waterways," Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 34, 2000.
Corbett, Jr., J.J. and Fischbeck, P.S. (1998), "Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory for EPA
Category 2 and 3 Compression Ignition Marine Engines in the United States Continental
and Inland Waterways," Prepared for EPA, EPA420-R-98-020, August, 1998.
ENVIRON (2001), 'Port Matching Criteria,' Draft Task 2 Report, Prepared for EPA under
Subcontract to E.H. Pechan, July 31, 2000.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Refi.wpd R-l
-------
April 2002
€NVIRON
Environment Canada (1997), 'Port of Vancouver Marine Vessel Emissions Test Report, Final
Report," ERMD Report #97-04, presumably 1997.
Environment Canada (1999), Ferry Engine Emissions, personal communication with Greg
Rideout.
EPA (2000), 'Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data,'
EPA420-R-00-002, Prepared for EPA by Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.,
February 2000.
EPA (1999a), 'Control Of Air Pollution From Marine Compression-Ignition Engines' Part 94,
Code of Federal Regulations, December, 1999. Published in the Federal Register
December 29, 1999.
EPA (1999b), 'Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Compression-
Ignition Marine Engines,' EPA420-R-99-026, November, 1999.
EPA (1998), 'Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling—Compression-Ignition,'
NONROAD Model Report No. NR-009A, June 15, 1998.
EPA (1992), 'Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources,'
EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised).
ETC (1997), 'Shipboard Marine Engines Emission Testing for the United States Coast Guard,'
Prepared for the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and the United States
Coast Guard by Environmental Transportation Consultants under Delivery Order No. 31,
presumably 1997.
FHWA (2001), "Freight Trends/Issues, Multimodal System Flows & Forecasts, and Policy
Implications," Federal Highway Administration, Available online:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/pp/policy_implications/sld016.htm, December,
2001.
Japan Institute of Marine Engineering (1999), "Marine Engineering Progress in 1998," Annual
Review, Bulletin of the M.E.S.J., Vol. 27, No.2, October 1999. Available online at;
http://www.mesj.or.jp/bunken/english/pdf/mv27n021999p81.pdf August, 2001.
Lloyds (1997), 'Vancouver Marine Emissions Quantification, BCFC Ferries in Greater
Vancouver Airshed,' Report #97/EE/7002, September 1997.
Lloyds (1995), 'Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme,'; 'Steady-state Operation,'
1990; 'Slow Speed Addendum,' 1991; 'Marine Exhaust Emissions Research
Programme,' 1995; Lloyds Register Engineering Services, Croyden, Lloyds Register of
Shipping, London.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Refi.wpd R-2
-------
April 2002
€NVIRON
MARAD (2001), "World Order Book" and "Water Transportation Trends and Forecasts,"
Maritime Administration, Available Online:
http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statisties/index.html December, 2001.
MARPOL (1997), "Consideration and Adoption of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified
by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto: Text of the Protocol of 1997 and Annex VI to
the International Convention for the prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)," October 1997.
Matagorda Pilots (2001), personal communication with Robinson, Larry, Harbor Pilot for
Matagorda Bay Pilots 361-552-9988, (also determined that Victoria is a barge canal).
MER (2001), 2001 Directory of Marine Diesel Engines, Marine Engineers Review, Institute
of Marine Engineers, April, 2001. (Also 1985 and 1997 Directories.)
Motor Ship (1999), MEPC studies pollution solutions, January, 1999.
PCPA (2001), Port Canaveral Pilots Association, 321-783-4645.
Rideout, Greg (2001), Environment Canada, personal communication, August 8, 2001.
Samulski (2000), personal communication, April 5, 1999.
Starcrest (2000), "Houston-Galveston Area Vessel Emissions Inventory," Prepared by
Starcrest Consulting for the Port of Houston and the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, November 2000. Also; Appendix C of HGA Post-1999
ROP/Attainment Demonstration SIP, Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission, December, 2000.
TRC (1989), 'Ship Emissions Control Study for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles,
Volume I Marine Vessel Emissions While Hotelling in Port,' Prepared for the Ports of
Long Beach and Los Angeles, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and
Western States Petroleum Association, December, 1989.
USACE (2002), correspondence with Mickey LaMarca, January 22, 2002.
US ACE (2001), "Waterborne Commerce of the United States - Calendar Year 1996, 1999;
Part 2 Waterways and Harbors Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System, and Antilles,"
Water Resources Support Center.
USACE (2001), personal communication with Peggy Galliano, US Army Corps of Engineers,
July, 2001.
C:\Mypaes\Fact Sheets\2002\420R02019\Refi.wpd R-3
-------
April 2002
C:\MyFaes\FactSheets\2002\420R02019\Refi.wpd
R-4
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Ports Emissions
File Name
DetailedPortsEmissionsOS with SO2.xls
-------
EMISSION FACTORS
Cruise Load
g/hp-hr HC
2
4
Steam
CO
0.395
0.395
0.05
0.8
0.82
0.52
0.22
NOx PM
17.6
12.38
2.09
S02
1.29
1.31
1.86
9.56
9.69
15.0
RSZ
g/hp-hr
Steam
Speed
HC
2 0.395
4 0.395
0.05
6.5
CO
0.82
0.52
0.22
knots
NOx PM
17.6
12.38
2.09
S02
1.29 9.56
1.31 9.69
1.86 15.0
Maneuver
g/hp-hr
2
4
Steam
Speed
For SO2 calcs:
BSFC (g/hp-hr)
2-stroke 253.7893025 163.3
4-stroke 260.1601133 165.5
Steam 255 255
Maneuverir
slow
medium
-------
HC
2.085717
2.172732
0.05
4
CO
6.072741
4.432346
0.22
knots
NOx PM
23.9113 2
16.87605 2
2.09
168337
216072
1.86
S02
23.02
23.87
15.0
Hotel
g/hp-hr
Steam
Load
HC CO
2 0.1
4 0.1
0.05
0.1
NOx
1.85
1.85
0.22
PM
9.96
9.96
2.09
S02
0.239
0.239
1.86
1.07
1.07
1.65
All Modes
ig Adjustment
HC CO
5.28 7.41
5.500588 8.523742
NOx PM
1.36
1.36317
CO2
1.68 1.55
1.691658 1.571964
-------
-------
Lower Mississippi River Ports Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLE CARRIER
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
1
68
5
8
0
3
0
2
21
0
107
Cruise
CO
1
139
10
14
0
6
0
3
43
0
218
Cruise
NOx
26
2992
206
313
5
114
7
71
930
1
4665
Cruise
PM
4
223
25
25
0
13
1
5
72
0
368
Cruise
SO2
28
1651
194
185
3
102
4
40
532
1
2741
RSZ
HC
1
93
6
18
0
4
0
3
61
0
188
RSZ
CO
2
192
13
35
0
9
1
7
124
0
382
RSZ
NOx
44
4113
255
761
9
182
12
142
2668
4
8190
RSZ
PM
7
309
32
60
1
22
1
11
205
0
648
RSZ
SO2
51
2289
247
446
5
169
7
79
1525
2
4820
Maneuver
ing HC
0
24
2
4
0
1
0
1
12
0
43
Maneuver
ing CO
1
69
6
10
0
3
0
2
33
0
123
Maneuver
ing NOx
3
271
24
38
1
12
1
8
129
0
487
Maneuver
ing PM
0
25
3
4
0
2
0
1
12
0
47
Maneuviri
ng SO2
4
266
31
39
1
15
1
8
129
0
495
Hotelling
HC
1
70
3
8
1
1
1
1
17
0
101
Hotelling
CO
12
1280
43
155
10
14
12
19
307
1
1853
Lower Mississippi River Ports Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
99
7
1
107
Cruise
CO
206
9
2
218
Cruise
NOx
4421
204
24
4665
Cruise
PM
324
22
21
368
Cruise
SO2
2401
160
169
2741
RSZ
HC
172
14
1
188
RSZ
CO
358
18
4
382
RSZ
NOx
7676
439
40
8190
RSZ
PM
563
46
36
648
RSZ
SO2
4169
343
289
4820
Maneuver
ingHC
40
3
0
43
Maneuver
ing CO
116
7
0
123
Maneuver
ing NOx
457
25
2
487
Maneuver
ingPM
41
3
2
47
Maneuviri
ng SO2
440
36
17
495
Hotelling
HC
91
8
2
101
Hotelling
CO
1688
144
7
1853
New York Ports Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
0
5
38
3
0
5
1
4
16
5
77
Cruise
CO
0
10
80
7
0
8
2
8
33
9
157
Cruise
NOx
1
215
1683
149
3
164
38
182
703
188
3325
Cruise
PM
1
17
155
12
0
24
3
14
64
15
304
Cruise
SO2
6
128
1171
89
2
181
21
101
479
109
2286
RSZ
HC
0
6
15
2
0
2
0
2
11
2
41
RSZ
CO
0
12
32
5
0
4
1
4
23
4
84
RSZ
NOx
0
249
660
98
2
82
15
87
484
91
1769
RSZ
PM
0
19
61
8
0
12
1
6
44
7
160
RSZ
SO2
2
143
461
58
2
94
8
48
333
53
1201
Maneuver
ing HC
0
3
13
1
0
2
0
2
13
2
36
Maneuver
ing CO
0
8
36
4
0
4
1
6
36
6
102
Maneuver
ing NOx
0
32
144
15
0
17
3
24
143
25
404
Maneuver
ing PM
0
3
15
1
0
3
0
2
15
2
42
Maneuviri
ng SO2
1
32
155
15
0
27
3
24
153
26
436
Hotelling
HC
0
6
12
3
0
1
0
2
9
1
34
Hotelling
CO
1
110
210
38
1
12
8
31
165
19
595
-------
New York Ports Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
67
9
1
77
Cruise
CO
139
12
7
157
Cruise
NOx
2983
280
62
3325
Cruise
PM
219
30
56
304
Cruise
SO2
1620
219
447
2286
RSZ
HC
36
5
1
41
RSZ
CO
74
6
3
84
RSZ
NOx
1592
146
31
1769
RSZ
PM
117
15
28
160
RSZ
SO2
865
114
222
1201
Maneuver
ing HC
32
4
0
36
Maneuver
ing CO
93
9
1
102
Maneuver
ing NOx
365
33
5
404
Maneuver
ing PM
33
4
5
42
Maneuviri
ng SO2
351
47
38
436
Hotelling
HC
28
3
3
34
Hotelling
CO
519
63
13
595
Delaware River Ports Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLE CARRIER
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
5
6
3
0
0
3
1
14
1
33
Cruise
CO
11
11
6
0
0
6
1
29
2
66
Cruise
NOx
238
235
127
1
9
136
21
607
39
1413
Cruise
PM
18
19
10
0
2
10
2
53
3
117
Cruise
SO2
131
138
77
1
18
76
14
397
22
873
RSZ
HC
10
6
5
0
0
4
1
24
1
51
RSZ
CO
20
12
10
0
0
7
1
51
1
103
RSZ
NOx
420
268
215
2
8
155
30
1071
31
2200
RSZ
PM
31
21
17
0
2
12
3
94
2
183
RSZ
SO2
231
157
129
1
20
86
19
702
18
1363
Maneuver
ing HC
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
8
0
14
Maneuver
ing CO
6
5
3
0
0
3
0
23
1
41
Maneuver
ing NOx
23
18
12
0
1
13
1
89
3
161
Maneuver
ing PM
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
9
0
16
Maneuviri
ng SO2
23
19
13
0
2
13
2
93
3
168
Hotelling
HC
5
2
3
0
0
2
0
13
0
26
Hotelling
CO
90
43
50
0
1
42
6
227
4
465
Delaware River Ports Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
28
4
0
33
Cruise
CO
59
6
1
66
Cruise
NOx
1267
135
11
1413
Cruise
PM
93
14
10
117
Cruise
SO2
688
105
80
873
RSZ
HC
45
6
0
51
RSZ
CO
93
8
2
103
RSZ
NOx
1999
182
19
2200
RSZ
PM
147
19
17
183
RSZ
SO2
1086
142
135
1363
Maneuver
ing HC
13
2
0
14
Maneuver
ing CO
37
3
0
41
Maneuver
ing NOx
148
12
1
161
Maneuver
ing PM
13
2
1
16
Maneuviri
ng SO2
142
17
9
168
Hotelling
HC
23
2
1
26
Hotelling
CO
417
44
3
465
Puget Sound Ports Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
Cruise
HC
Cruise
CO
Cruise
NOx
Cruise
PM
Cruise
SO2
RSZ
HC
RSZ
CO
RSZ
NOx
RSZ
PM
RSZ
SO2
Maneuver
ing HC
Maneuver
ing CO
Maneuver
ing NOx
Maneuver
ing PM
Maneuviri
ng SO2
Hotelling
HC
Hotelling
CO
-------
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
FISHING
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
10
27
1
3
0
0
0
1
4
2
49
21
57
1
7
0
0
1
3
11
4
104
452
1194
17
142
2
10
16
39
190
77
2140
34
112
2
11
0
1
1
14
47
6
229
256
845
17
84
2
8
9
109
370
44
1745
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
62
2
11
0
1
1
2
13
6
134
75
132
3
21
1
1
2
6
34
11
285
1605
2747
65
466
11
24
50
79
575
233
5857
124
255
9
38
1
3
4
33
145
18
629
925
1927
67
280
11
20
29
260
1143
135
4796
4
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
17
11
21
1
3
0
0
1
0
11
2
50
43
85
4
12
0
1
3
3
47
6
204
4
9
1
1
0
0
0
1
11
1
28
43
91
6
13
0
1
3
10
100
6
273
11
12
3
3
1
0
1
2
4
0
37
208
203
50
46
14
3
15
9
45
8
600
Puget Sound Ports Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
44
2
2
49
Cruise
CO
92
3
9
104
Cruise
NOx
1980
75
85
2140
Cruise
PM
145
8
76
229
Cruise
SO2
1075
59
611
1745
RSZ
HC
120
8
6
134
RSZ
CO
250
11
25
285
RSZ
NOx
5367
256
235
5857
RSZ
PM
393
27
209
629
RSZ
SO2
2915
200
1681
4796
Maneuver
ing HC
16
1
0
17
Maneuver
ing CO
46
3
1
50
Maneuver
ing NOx
183
10
12
204
Maneuver
ing PM
17
1
10
28
Maneuviri
ng SO2
176
14
84
273
Hotelling
HC
27
4
6
37
Hotelling
CO
496
79
25
600
Port of Corpus Christ! Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
TANKER
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
0
3
0
13
0
0
17
Cruise
CO
0
6
0
29
0
0
36
Cruise
NOx
0
139
2
574
3
1
720
Cruise
PM
0
10
0
78
0
0
89
Cruise
SO2
2
77
1
600
3
1
684
#
0
0
0
0
#
RSZ
HC
0
2
0
8
0
0
10
RSZ
CO
0
4
0
18
0
0
22
RSZ
NOx
0
90
1
355
2
1
449
RSZ
PM
0
7
0
47
0
0
54
RSZ
SO2
1
50
1
364
2
0
418
Maneuver
ingHC
0
2
0
8
0
0
11
Maneuver
ing CO
0
6
0
24
0
0
31
Maneuver
ing NOx
0
24
1
98
0
0
123
Maneuver
ingPM
0
2
0
13
0
0
15
Maneuviri
ng SO2
0
23
1
125
1
0
150
Hotelling
HC
0
1
0
5
0
0
6
Hotelling
CO
0
26
1
75
1
0
103
Port of Corpus Christ! Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Cruise
HC
14
1
1
Cruise
CO
30
2
4
Cruise
NOx
634
43
43
Cruise
PM
47
5
38
Cruise
SO2
345
33
306
RSZ
HC
9
1
1
RSZ
CO
19
1
3
RSZ
NOx
400
24
25
RSZ
PM
29
3
23
RSZ
SO2
217
19
181
Maneuver
ing HC
10
1
0
Maneuver
ing CO
28
2
0
Maneuver
ing NOx
112
6
5
Maneuver
ing PM
10
1
4
Maneuviri
ng SO2
108
9
33
Hotelling
HC
5
1
1
Hotelling
CO
87
11
5
-------
[Grand Total
361 7201 891
6841
10| 221 4491 541 4181 f
311 123f
15| 150]
6| 1031
Port of Tampa Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
TUG
VEHICLES CARRIER
BARGE DRY CARGO
BARGE TANKER
MISCELLANEOUS
UNSPECIFIED MOTOR
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
7
0
2
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Cruise
CO
14
0
3
6
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
Cruise
NOx
299
4
70
127
20
5
157
0
1
0
0
2
0
685
Cruise
PM
24
0
6
10
1
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
Cruise
SO2
175
2
46
73
11
3
157
0
1
0
0
2
0
469
0
0
0
0
#
RSZ
HC
4
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
RSZ
CO
7
0
2
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
RSZ
NOx
155
2
39
63
7
3
83
0
0
0
0
1
0
353
RSZ
PM
12
0
3
5
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
RSZ
SO2
90
1
26
36
4
2
82
0
0
0
0
1
0
241
Maneuver
ingHC
4
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Maneuver
ing CO
10
0
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
Maneuver
ing NOx
41
1
5
9
2
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
Maneuver
ingPM
4
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Maneuviri
ng SO2
41
1
6
9
2
1
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
77
Hotelling
HC
5
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Hotelling
CO
90
3
20
21
9
3
21
0
1
0
0
6
0
174
Port of Tampa Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
9
1
0
17
Cruise
CO
19
1
1
32
Cruise
NOx
403
23
10
685
Cruise
PM
30
2
9
63
Cruise
SO2
219
18
72
469
RSZ
HC
5
0
0
9
RSZ
CO
10
0
1
16
RSZ
NOx
208
11
5
353
RSZ
PM
15
1
5
32
RSZ
SO2
113
9
37
241
Maneuver
ingHC
4
0
0
7
Maneuver
ing CO
12
0
0
18
Maneuver
ing NOx
49
2
1
71
Maneuver
ingPM
4
0
1
7
Maneuviri
ng SO2
47
3
5
77
Hotelling
HC
5
1
0
10
Hotelling
CO
94
16
2
174
Port of Baltimore by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
Cruise
HC
7
11
2
0
0
0
Cruise
CO
14
24
4
0
0
0
Cruise
NOx
302
510
85
3
9
1
Cruise
PM
24
40
7
0
2
0
Cruise
SO2
182
299
52
2
12
1
RSZ
HC
31
31
9
0
1
0
RSZ
CO
64
66
17
1
1
0
RSZ
NOx
1354
1397
363
16
20
2
RSZ
PM
108
110
30
2
4
0
RSZ
SO2
809
817
225
11
29
1
Maneuver
ingHC
2
4
1
0
0
0
Maneuver
ing CO
6
13
2
0
0
0
Maneuver
ing NOx
25
50
8
0
1
0
Maneuver
ingPM
2
5
1
0
0
0
Maneuviri
ng SO2
25
49
8
0
1
0
Hotelling
HC
6
3
2
1
0
0
Hotelling
CO
111
52
35
13
5
3
-------
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
4
2
4
30
9
3
7
62
186
70
155
1321
14
6
12
105
101
45
90
784
13
7
10
102
27
14
20
209
586
291
434
4463
43
25
34
356
320
191
253
2656
2
1
2
11
5
2
5
33
19
6
19
129
2
1
2
12
19
7
20
130
2
1
1
16
32
13
19
283
Port of Baltimore Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
28
2
0
30
Cruise
CO
58
3
1
62
Cruise
NOx
1248
65
8
1321
Cruise
PM
91
7
7
105
Cruise
SO2
678
51
55
784
RSZ
HC
95
7
1
102
RSZ
CO
196
9
3
209
RSZ
NOx
4217
219
27
4463
RSZ
PM
309
23
24
356
RSZ
SO2
2290
171
194
2656
Maneuver
ing HC
11
1
0
11
Maneuver
ing CO
31
2
0
33
Maneuver
ing NOx
122
6
1
129
Maneuver
ing PM
11
1
0
12
Maneuviri
ng SO2
117
9
4
130
Hotelling
HC
13
2
1
16
Hotelling
CO
244
37
2
283
Coos Bay Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
2
1
0
2
Cruise
CO
4
1
0
5
Cruise
NOx
76
30
0
106
Cruise
PM
6
2
0
8
Cruise
SO2
41
16
0
58
RSZ
HC
0
0
0
1
RSZ
CO
1
0
0
1
RSZ
NOx
16
6
0
23
RSZ
PM
1
0
0
2
RSZ
SO2
9
3
0
12
Maneuver
ing HC
0
0
0
0
Maneuver
ing CO
1
0
0
1
Maneuver
ing NOx
3
1
0
4
Maneuver
ing PM
0
0
0
0
Maneuviri
ng SO2
2
1
0
3
Hotelling
HC
1
0
0
2
Hotelling
CO
21
8
0
29
Coos Bay Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
2
0
0
2
Cruise
CO
5
0
0
5
Cruise
NOx
106
1
0
106
Cruise
PM
8
0
0
8
Cruise
SO2
57
1
0
58
RSZ
HC
1
0
0
1
RSZ
CO
1
0
0
1
RSZ
NOx
23
0
0
23
RSZ
PM
2
0
0
2
RSZ
SO2
12
0
0
12
Maneuver
ingHC
0
0
0
0
Maneuver
ing CO
1
0
0
1
Maneuver
ing NOx
4
0
0
4
Maneuver
ingPM
0
0
0
0
Maneuviri
ng SO2
3
0
0
3
Hotelling
HC
2
0
0
2
Hotelling
CO
28
0
0
29
Port of Cleveland Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
Cruise
HC
0
1
Cruise
CO
1
3
Cruise
NOx
16
60
Cruise
PM
1
5
Cruise
SO2
9
41
RSZ
HC
0
0
RSZ
CO
0
1
RSZ
NOx
3
15
RSZ
PM
0
1
RSZ
SO2
2
10
Maneuver
ingHC
0
5
Maneuver
ing CO
1
13
Maneuver
ing NOx
5
51
Maneuver
ingPM
0
5
Maneuviri
ng SO2
5
55
Hotelling
HC
1
0
Hotelling
CO
15
0
-------
CONTAINER SHIP, SALT}
EXCURSION VESSEL
GENERAL CARGO, SALT
TANKER, SALTY
Grand Total
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
1
77
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
1
0
50
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
31
0
1
0
0
3
0
9
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
15
0
1
0
0
58
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
62
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
17
Port of Cleveland Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
1
0
0
2
Cruise
CO
3
1
0
4
Cruise
NOx
63
13
1
77
Cruise
PM
5
1
1
7
Cruise
SO2
34
10
6
50
0
0
RSZ
HC
0
0
0
1
RSZ
CO
1
1
0
1
RSZ
NOx
15
15
0
31
RSZ
PM
1
2
0
3
RSZ
SO2
8
12
1
22
Maneuver
ingHC
4
1
0
5
Maneuver
ing CO
12
3
0
15
Maneuver
ing NOx
47
11
0
58
Maneuver
ingPM
4
1
0
6
Maneuviri
ng SO2
45
15
2
62
Hotelling
HC
1
0
0
1
Hotelling
CO
16
1
0
17
Burns Waterway Harbor Emissions by Vessel Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
GENERAL CARGO, SALT
TANKER, SALTY
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
0
1
0
0
1
Cruise
CO
0
1
0
0
2
Cruise
NOx
10
23
0
0
34
Cruise
PM
1
2
0
0
3
Cruise
SO2
6
14
0
0
20
RSZ
HC
0
0
0
0
0
RSZ
CO
0
0
0
0
0
RSZ
NOx
2
5
0
0
8
RSZ
PM
0
0
0
0
1
RSZ
SO2
1
3
0
0
5
Maneuver
ing HC
0
1
0
0
1
Maneuver
ing CO
1
1
0
0
2
Maneuver
ing NOx
3
5
0
0
9
Maneuver
ing PM
0
1
0
0
1
Maneuviri
ng SO2
3
6
0
0
9
Hotelling
HC
0
0
0
0
0
Hotelling
CO
5
1
0
0
6
Burns Waterway Harbor Emissions by Engine Type (TPY)
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Cruise
HC
1
0
0
1
Cruise
CO
1
0
0
2
Cruise
NOx
31
3
0
34
Cruise
PM
2
0
0
3
Cruise
SO2
17
2
1
20
0
0
RSZ
HC
0
0
0
0
RSZ
CO
0
0
0
0
RSZ
NOx
7
1
0
8
RSZ
PM
1
0
0
1
RSZ
SO2
4
1
0
5
Maneuver
ing HC
1
0
0
1
Maneuver
ing CO
2
0
0
2
Maneuver
ing NOx
8
1
0
9
Maneuver
ing PM
1
0
0
1
Maneuviri
ng SO2
8
1
0
9
Hotelling
HC
0
0
0
0
Hotelling
CO
6
0
0
6
-------
Lower Mississippi River F
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLE CARRIER
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
68
6901
240
838
54
78
65
102
1654
4
10002
Hotelling
PM
11
181
23
22
1
7
2
2
45
0
296
Hotelling
SO2
86
865
170
108
6
52
7
11
222
0
1527
All Modes
HC
3
254
16
38
1
9
1
7
111
0
439
All Modes
CO
16
1680
72
214
11
32
13
31
506
1
2576
All Modes
NOx
140
14277
724
1950
68
386
85
323
5381
10
23344
All Modes
PM
22
737
84
111
3
44
3
19
334
1
1358
All Modes
SO2
170
5071
643
778
15
338
18
138
2408
4
9583
Lower Mississippi River F
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
9089
774
64
10002
Hotelling
PM
218
19
57
296
Hotelling
SO2
974
83
462
1527
All Modes
HC
403
32
3
439
All Modes
CO
2368
178
14
2576
All Modes
NOx
21642
1443
131
23344
All Modes
PM
1146
90
116
1358
All Modes
SO2
7983
622
937
9583
total
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes Modes Modes Modes Modes
HC CO NOx PM SO2
311 680 12,553 928 7,009 Slow
24 34 669 71 539 Medium
3 14 131 116 937 Steamship
99 1,832 9,863 237 1,057 category 2
437 2,559 23,215 1,352 9,543
New York Ports Emission
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
9
594
1150
217
5
69
42
170
898
102
3257
Hotelling
PM
8
16
68
33
0
6
1
14
40
2
188
Hotelling
SO2
65
79
454
252
1
41
4
96
243
11
1246
All Modes
HC
0
19
78
10
0
10
2
10
49
10
189
All Modes
CO
1
140
358
53
1
28
11
49
258
38
938
All Modes
NOx
10
1091
3636
479
11
332
98
463
2228
406
8755
All Modes
PM
9
56
300
54
1
45
5
36
162
27
694
All Modes
SO2
73
381
2241
414
5
343
36
269
1208
199
5170
-------
New York Ports Emission
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
2793
337
127
3257
Hotelling
PM
67
8
113
188
Hotelling
SO2
299
36
911
1246
All Modes
HC
163
21
5
189
All Modes
CO
825
89
24
938
All Modes
NOx
7733
796
225
8755
All Modes
PM
435
58
201
694
All Modes
SO2
3136
416
1618
5170
total
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes Modes Modes Modes Modes
HC
CO
135
18
5
31
189
NOx PM
306 4,940
27 459
24 225
581 3,130
938 8,755
SO2
368 2,836 Slow
49 380 Medium
201 1,618 Steamship
75 336 category 2
694 5,170
Delaware River Ports Emi
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLE CARRIER
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
484
233
270
1
8
228
33
1234
24
2515
Hotelling
PM
12
6
6
0
2
5
1
55
1
88
Hotelling
SO2
53
25
29
0
16
24
4
339
3
493
All Modes
HC
22
16
12
0
1
10
2
59
2
124
All Modes
CO
127
71
69
0
2
59
9
329
8
674
All Modes
NOx
1166
754
623
4
25
531
86
3002
96
6288
All Modes
PM
63
47
35
0
7
29
5
210
6
403
All Modes
SO2
437
339
247
2
56
199
38
1532
45
2896
Delaware River Ports Emi
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
2244
239
32
2515
Hotelling
PM
54
6
28
88
Hotelling
SO2
241
26
226
493
All Modes
HC
109
14
2
124
All Modes
CO
606
61
7
674
All Modes
NOx
5658
568
63
6288
All Modes
PM
307
41
56
403
All Modes
SO2
2156
291
449
2896
total
Transit Transit
Modes Modes
HC
CO
86
12
2
25
124
190
16
7
461
674
Transit Transit
Modes Modes
NOx PM
3,414
329
63
2,483
6,288
253
35
56
60
403
Transit
Modes
SO2
1,916
265
449
266
2,896
Slow
Medium
Steamship
category 2
Puget Sound Ports Emiss
Vessel Type
Hotelling
NOx
Hotelling
PM
Hotelling
SO2
All Modes
HC
All Modes
CO
All Modes
NOx
All Modes
PM
All Modes
SO2
-------
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
FISHING
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
1122
1115
275
249
73
16
79
76
285
44
3334
30
70
23
6
2
1
2
55
93
1
283
142
474
161
31
10
7
8
440
737
5
2015
62
108
6
19
1
1
3
4
25
8
237
315
413
54
77
14
5
18
18
101
24
1041
3223
5141
361
869
87
50
149
197
1098
360
11535
192
446
34
57
4
5
7
102
296
26
1170
1366
3336
252
408
23
36
50
819
2349
190
8830
Puget Sound Ports Emiss
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
2672
428
234
3334
Hotelling
PM
64
10
209
283
Hotelling
SO2
286
46
1683
2015
All Modes
HC
208
16
14
237
All Modes
CO
885
96
60
1041
All Modes
NOx
10201
768
566
11535
All Modes
PM
619
46
504
1170
All Modes
SO2
4453
318
4059
8830
total
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes Modes Modes Modes Modes
HC
CO
181
12
14
31
237
NOx PM
389 7,530
16 340
60 566
576 3,100
1,041 11,535
SO2
555 4, 166 Slow
36 272 Medium
504 4,059 Steamship
74 332 category 2
1,170 8,830
Port of Corpus Christ! Em
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
TANKER
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
1
138
4
423
4
1
571
Hotelling
PM
1
3
0
47
0
0
52
Hotelling
SO2
7
15
0
350
1
0
373
All Modes
HC
0
9
0
35
0
0
44
All Modes
CO
0
42
1
146
1
0
191
All Modes
NOx
1
391
7
1450
10
3
1863
All Modes
PM
1
23
0
185
1
0
210
All Modes
SO2
10
166
3
1439
6
1
1624
Port of Corpus Christ! Em
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Hotelling
NOx
469
58
44
Hotelling
PM
11
1
39
Hotelling
SO2
50
6
317
All Modes
HC
38
4
3
All Modes
CO
164
15
12
All Modes
NOx
1615
131
117
All Modes
PM
97
9
104
All Modes
SO2
720
68
837
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes Modes Modes Modes Modes
HC CO NOx PM SO2
33 77 1,146 86 669 Slow
3 5 74 8 62 Medium
3 12 117 104 837 Steamship
-------
[Grand Total
5T\]
521 373]
~44T
1911
1863| 210| 1624]
total
5
44
98
191
527
1,863
13
210
57 category 2
1,624
Port of Tampa Emissions
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
TUG
VEHICLES CARRIER
BARGE DRY CARGO
BARGE TANKER
MISCELLANEOUS
UNSPECIFIED MOTOR
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
487
17
107
115
46
16
121
0
5
0
0
32
0
946
Hotelling
PM
12
0
3
3
1
0
17
0
0
0
0
1
0
38
Hotelling
SO2
57
2
15
12
6
2
127
0
1
0
0
3
0
225
All Modes
HC
20
0
4
6
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
All Modes
CO
122
4
26
32
10
3
36
0
1
0
0
6
0
241
All Modes
NOx
981
24
222
314
75
25
373
0
7
0
0
36
0
2055
All Modes
PM
52
1
13
18
3
1
50
0
0
0
0
1
0
140
All Modes
SO2
363
6
93
130
23
8
383
0
1
0
0
6
0
1013
Port of Tampa Emissions
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
503
89
17
946
Hotelling
PM
12
2
15
38
Hotelling
SO2
54
10
125
225
All Modes
HC
23
2
1
41
All Modes
CO
134
18
4
241
All Modes
NOx
1164
125
33
2055
All Modes
PM
61
6
30
140
All Modes
SO2
433
40
239
1013
Transit
Modes
HC
total
Transit
Modes
CO
18 41
1 2
1 4
6 110
26 156
Transit
Modes
NOx
660
36
33
592
1,322
Transit
Modes
PM
Transit
Modes
SO2
49
4
30
14
97
379 Slow
30 Medium
239 Steamship
64 category 2
713
Port of Baltimore bvVess
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
Hotelling
NOx
600
281
192
68
31
15
Hotelling
PM
18
10
11
2
7
0
Hotelling
SO2
91
53
69
7
54
2
All Modes
HC
46
50
13
1
1
0
All Modes
CO
195
154
58
14
7
3
All Modes
NOx
2281
2238
648
88
61
19
All Modes
PM
153
164
49
4
12
1
All Modes
SO2
1107
1219
354
22
96
3
-------
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
174
68
101
1532
4
2
2
56
19
14
11
320
21
10
17
160
73
31
51
586
966
436
709
7444
63
35
51
530
458
257
373
3889
Port of Baltimore Emissio
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
1311
199
22
1532
Hotelling
PM
31
5
20
56
Hotelling
SO2
141
21
158
320
All Modes
HC
146
12
1
160
All Modes
CO
529
51
6
586
All Modes
NOx
6898
490
57
7444
All Modes
PM
443
36
51
530
All Modes
SO2
3226
253
410
3889
total
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes Modes Modes Modes Modes
HC
CO
133
10
1
15
160
NOx PM
285 5,586
14 291
6 57
280 1,510
586 7,444
SO2
412 3,085 Slow
31 232 Medium
51 410 Steamship
36 162 category 2
530 3,889
Coos Bay Emissions bvV
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
110
42
1
154
Hotelling
PM
3
1
0
4
Hotelling
SO2
12
5
0
16
All Modes
HC
3
1
0
5
All Modes
CO
25
10
0
36
All Modes
NOx
205
79
2
287
All Modes
PM
10
4
0
14
All Modes
SO2
65
25
1
90
Coos Bay Emissions by E
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
152
2
0
154
Hotelling
PM
4
0
0
4
Hotelling
SO2
16
0
0
16
All Modes
HC
5
0
0
5
All Modes
CO
35
0
0
36
All Modes
NOx
284
3
0
287
All Modes
PM
13
0
0
14
All Modes
SO2
89
1
0
90
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes
HC
Modes
CO
Modes
NOx
Modes
PM
Modes
SO2
total
7
0
0
29
36
132
1
0
154
287
10
0
0
4
14
73 Slow
1 Medium
0 Steamship
16 category 2
90
Port of Cleveland Emissic
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
Hotelling
NOx
82
0
Hotelling
PM
2
0
Hotelling
SO2
9
0
All Modes
HC
2
7
All Modes
CO
17
16
All Modes
NOx
106
126
All Modes
PM
4
12
All Modes
SO2
24
106
-------
CONTAINER SHIP, SALT}
EXCURSION VESSEL
GENERAL CARGO, SALT
TANKER, SALTY
Grand Total
1
0
7
0
90
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
10
0
0
0
0
9
0
1
1
0
36
1
13
8
1
255
0
1
0
0
18
0
11
2
1
143
Port of Cleveland Emissic
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
87
3
0
90
Hotelling
PM
2
0
0
2
Hotelling
SO2
9
0
0
10
All Modes
HC
7
2
0
9
All Modes
CO
32
5
0
36
All Modes
NOx
212
42
1
255
All Modes
PM
12
4
1
18
All Modes
SO2
97
38
9
143
total
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes Modes Modes Modes Modes
HC
CO
6
2
0
1
9
NOx
15
4
0
17
36
PM
125
39
1
90
255
SO2
10
4
1
2
18
87 Slow
37 Medium
9 Steamship
1 0 category 2
143
Burns Waterway Harbor E
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
GENERAL CARGO, SALT
TANKER, SALTY
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
27
3
1
0
32
Hotelling
PM
1
0
0
0
1
Hotelling
SO2
5
1
0
0
6
All Modes
HC
1
1
0
0
2
All Modes
CO
6
3
0
0
10
All Modes
NOx
43
37
2
1
82
All Modes
PM
2
3
0
0
5
All Modes
SO2
15
23
1
1
39
Burns Waterway Harbor E
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Hotelling
NOx
30
1
0
32
Hotelling
PM
1
0
0
1
Hotelling
SO2
3
0
3
6
All Modes
HC
2
0
0
2
All Modes
CO
9
1
0
10
All Modes
NOx
76
6
1
82
All Modes
PM
4
0
0
5
All Modes
SO2
32
4
4
39
total
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
Modes Modes Modes Modes Modes
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SO2
2
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
6
10
46
4
1
31
82
4
0
0
1
5
28 Slow
4 Medium
4 Steamship
3 category 2
39
-------
Lower Mississippi River F
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLE CARRIER
Grand Total
Lower Mississippi River F
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
New York Ports Emission
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
-------
New York Ports Emission
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Delaware River Ports Emi
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLE CARRIER
Grand Total
Delaware River Ports Emi
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Puget Sound Ports Emiss
Vessel Type
-------
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
FISHING
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
Puget Sound Ports Emiss
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Port of Corpus Christ! Em
Vessel Type
BARGE CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
TANKER
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
Grand Total
Port of Corpus Christ! Em
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
-------
[Grand Total |
Port of Tampa Emissions
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
PASSENGER
REEFER
RORO
TANKER
TUG
VEHICLES CARRIER
BARGE DRY CARGO
BARGE TANKER
MISCELLANEOUS
UNSPECIFIED MOTOR
Grand Total
Port of Tampa Emissions
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Port of Baltimore bvVess
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
CONTAINER SHIP
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
PASSENGER
REEFER
-------
RORO
TANKER
VEHICLES CARRIER
Grand Total
Port of Baltimore Emissio
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Coos Bay Emissions bvV
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER
GENERAL CARGO
MISCELLANEOUS
Grand Total
Coos Bay Emissions by E
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Port of Cleveland Emissic
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
-------
CONTAINER SHIP, SALT]
EXCURSION VESSEL
GENERAL CARGO,SALT
TANKER, SALTY
Grand Total
Port of Cleveland Emissic
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
Burns Waterway Harbor E
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
GENERAL CARGO,SALT
TANKER, SALTY
Grand Total
Burns Waterway Harbor E
2-stroke
4-stroke
Steam Engine
Grand Total
-------
Table 6-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River
Ship Type
BARGE CARRIER
BARGE CARRIER
BARGE CARRIER
BARGE CARRIER
BARGE CARRIER
BARGE CARRIER Total
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
Engine Type
2
2
ST
ST
0
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
0
2
2
2
2
4
ST
ST
ST
0
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
DWT Range
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
0
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
> 45,000
0
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
0
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
30,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
15,000-30,000
Calls
9
10
10
6
3
38
438
717
507
1,183
70
13
10
26
5
1
21
10
3,001
120
6
66
4
84
58
37
1
3
379
247
265
41
4
308
43
2
DWT
(Tonnes)
44,799
49,835
41 ,578
47,036
45,701
45,701
18,138
29,492
39,596
72,142
15,614
27,092
38,731
63,419
18,314
33,373
54,624
46,560
46,560
18,707
28,019
38,743
53,726
10,063
21,711
26,803
38,656
22,127
22,127
9,246
20,223
40,358
46,648
5,180
18,775
22,536
Power
(hp)
26,100
26,000
31 ,565
31 ,565
28,570
28,570
8,060
10,768
11,266
14,501
6,606
9,528
12,650
13,531
8,384
11,837
17,614
1 1 ,904
11,904
15,717
19,411
27,387
28,845
12,157
25,280
32,787
31 ,565
20,366
20,366
6,166
1 1 ,344
12,943
14,313
3,047
8,922
23,673
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
18
18
22
22
20
20
15
15
15
15
14
14
16
14
15
15
18
15
15
19
19
21
19
17
22
22
21
20
20
15
16
15
17
12
15
21
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
140
132
114
98
479
278
464
342
123
123
123
123
123
117
111
91
97
425
242
242
242
242
242
178
134
97
105
493
460
212
% RPM
>130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
39%
51%
15%
0%
100%
100%
100%
73%
21%
21%
21%
21%
21%
27%
0%
0%
0%
100%
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
91%
30%
0%
0%
100%
100%
64%
Date of
Build
1972
1969
1974
1975
1972
1972
1979
1978
1982
1984
1975
1987
1981
1983
1975
1983
1970
1981
1981
1987
1984
1987
1985
1991
1974
1974
1971
1984
1984
1981
1982
1983
1995
1979
1979
1969
Cruise
(hr/call)
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
3.4
3.3
3.4
7.8
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.5
5.0
3.3
2.9
3.7
5.1
2.7
2.8
2.5
3.1
2.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
3.5
2.6
3.5
3.1
3.3
3.0
4.1
3.3
3.0
RSZ
(hr/call)
18.3
18.6
18.2
18.8
19.9
18.6
20.7
19.9
20.8
18.4
21.7
21.5
21.6
16.9
14.1
35.1
16.2
20.4
19.6
14.6
14.5
12.9
13.1
12.8
12.4
12.8
18.5
12.7
13.4
19.9
19.0
22.9
13.9
20.2
21.1
16.8
Maneuver
(hr/call)
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.5
1.8
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.6
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.5
2.8
1.7
2.2
2.0
2.2
1.9
2.2
2.2
3.0
Hotel
(hr/call)
80.1
81.4
107.7
76.7
134.0
91.4
144.7
172.9
153.8
195.2
124.7
193.2
252.9
200.2
81.7
38.7
198.4
206.7
173.9
58.4
66.6
25.5
30.0
20.5
28.7
31.8
250.8
190.0
38.6
141.7
88.4
84.2
32.8
193.2
138.1
230.8
6-8
-------
Table 6-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River
Ship Type
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO Total
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS Total
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER Total
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER Total
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO Total
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER Total
TUG
TUG
TUG
TUG
TUG Total
VEHICLE CARRIER
VEHICLE CARRIER Total
Engine Type
0
2
2
4
4
0
2
2
2
4
4
ST
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
ST
0
2
2
4
0
2
DWT Range
0
<1500
> 4,500
<1500
> 4,500
0
<5,000
5,000-10,000
> 15,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
5,000-10,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
<5,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
> 15,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-150,000
> 150,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-150,000
0
< 1 ,000
<500
<500
0
> 35,000
Calls
1
911
1
1
11
1
7
21
26
54
9
4
7
52
152
5
8
1
14
4
7
10
45
8
26
100
314
304
303
287
49
4
103
19
53
10
3
3
1
5
1,458
3
28
4
44
79
2
2
DWT
(Tonnes)
13,112
13,112
879
9,360
878
9,950
2,132
2,132
4,217
6,473
19,830
1,358
6,620
8,721
7,519
8,467
11,457
4,196
9,871
4,613
6,521
12,777
37,027
3,262
9,883
21,412
16,943
40,559
77,606
97,851
134,806
157,345
9,575
46,237
81 ,275
40,102
71 ,694
92,809
122,249
57,586
57,586
669
6
0
62
62
40,999
40,999
Power
(hp)
7,128
7,128
3,000
10,330
3,478
13,800
4,670
4,670
29,370
30,083
14,726
9,167
36,706
25,504
27,240
10,440
14,812
4,400
12,507
6,100
7,014
11,512
27,881
3,336
5,998
16,259
7,930
12,593
15,455
15,067
23,453
19,605
5,240
15,072
14,394
15,190
19,728
24,167
25,647
12,699
12,699
6,717
3,631
3,628
3,895
3,895
14,000
14,000
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
15
15
12
18
14
15
14
14
21
19
18
17
20
23
21
18
20
15
19
17
17
17
19
12
14
17
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
16
15
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
12
13
13
13
15
15
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
212
212
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
363
363
102
750
533
363
363
141
123
128
128
451
451
157
102
1800
500
451
168
111
97
95
99
85
414
132
296
132
132
132
132
132
132
ND
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
% RPM
>130
64%
64%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
53%
53%
0%
100%
100%
53%
53%
50%
0%
14%
14%
86%
86%
100%
0%
100%
100%
86%
76%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
74%
20%
58%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
ND
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
Date of
Build
1980
1980
1978
1980
1980
1982
1980
1980
1983
1985
1988
1967
1991
1958
1976
1982
1980
1981
1980
1979
1983
1989
1982
1980
1984
1983
1984
1984
1984
1990
1983
1992
1981
1979
1982
1967
1971
1977
1973
1985
1985
1978
1970
1966
1970
1970
ND
#N/A
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.6
3.6
4.2
2.8
3.9
3.3
5.0
4.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.6
3.3
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
4.0
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.4
4.3
3.9
4.0
4.1
3.3
3.3
RSZ
(hr/call)
15.2
19.9
36.8
19.7
11.4
13.0
17.2
14.9
18.7
18.7
11.5
18.5
18.7
18.5
18.2
16.3
18.1
10.9
17.0
19.4
19.2
16.6
19.7
18.4
13.0
17.5
25.9
21.7
27.0
27.5
10.4
19.8
23.1
25.2
25.3
25.7
14.0
26.6
29.0
16.5
24.7
18.4
18.7
17.7
14.1
16.1
26.4
26.4
Maneuver
(hr/call)
2.5
2.1
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.6
3.0
1.8
1.5
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
Hotel
(hr/call)
24.9
140.4
1276.3
1072.3
502.4
234.7
355.5
512.1
25.5
16.9
36.1
188.5
26.7
20.3
25.7
251.1
383.5
186.9
322.2
89.4
120.7
192.2
44.9
101.7
25.5
66.2
81.8
91.6
71.0
66.6
76.3
107.7
79.8
454.9
66.2
96.0
73.9
73.1
134.5
143.7
83.0
280.2
558.6
1420.6
847.7
752.7
117.3
117.3
6-9
-------
Table 6-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River
Ship Type
Grand Total
Engine Type
DWT Range
Calls
6,155
DWT
(Tonnes)
40,829
Power
(hp)
12,393
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
15
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
154
% RPM
>130
30%
Date of
Build
1982
Cruise
(hr/call)
4.2
RSZ
(hr/call)
20.3
Maneuver
(hr/call)
2.4
Hotel
(hr/call)
142.1
6-10
-------
Table 7-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Consolidated Port of New York and Ports on the Hudson River
Ship Type
BARGE CARRIER
BARGE CARRIER Total
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO Total
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS Total
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER Total
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER Total
Stroke
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
2
2
2
DWT Category
35,000 - 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
30,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
<1 5,000
<1500
> 4,500
<1500
> 4,500
<5,000
5,000-10,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
> 15,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
> 15,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
> 15,000
Calls
6
6
69
85
64
122
16
1
1
4
28
390
396
167
348
491
92
5
24
234
33
14
16
1,820
49
122
54
2
79
11
9
326
2
2
18
1
23
26
4
22
97
1
19
14
1
43
227
3
60
1
64
DWT
(tonnes)
46,153
46,153
19,957
29,401
39,241
71 ,583
18,260
25,739
41,513
70,719
18,314
41,733
20,258
30,162
40,772
51,853
9,833
27,396
62,685
20,521
26,207
39,433
47,864
34,197
11,029
20,397
39,365
46,865
5,539
19,019
12,931
18,440
24,713
23,945
1 1 ,783
5,009
13,670
4,300
5,830
1,896
6,467
8,600
15,521
9,102
13,960
16,604
8,648
9,864
11,757
15,100
11,721
Power
(hp)
31,541
31,541
8,666
10,766
10,891
14,107
6,523
8,200
10,000
12,075
8,378
11,119
16,922
22,994
40,589
38,622
8,018
15,962
50,235
25,642
31,541
35,483
79,967
29,929
7,586
13,611
13,689
10,345
3,765
8,896
14,746
10,184
2,200
9,000
2,320
13,581
5,860
29,370
19,500
15,080
21,809
86,140
130,005
41,479
40,177
43,369
36,700
14,865
16,661
20,500
16,637
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
22
22
15
15
15
14
15
14
14
14
15
15
19
20
23
22
17
18
24
22
22
25
23
21
16
17
15
15
13
17
19
16
12
16
14
14
14
21
19
18
19
18
28
25
18
24
21
22
22
22
22
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
ND
ND
152
130
118
102
573
157
ND
ND
ND
132
117
102
99
95
481
386
99
ND
ND
ND
ND
131
146
132
ND
111
616
ND
ND
336
ND
ND
ND
720
720
ND
ND
646
588
514
ND
ND
ND
ND
600
ND
114
ND
114
%RPM
>130
ND
ND
62%
63%
10%
0%
100%
100%
ND
ND
ND
24%
10%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
ND
ND
ND
ND
10%
25%
32%
ND
0%
100%
ND
ND
58%
ND
ND
ND
100%
100%
ND
ND
100%
100%
100%
ND
ND
ND
ND
100%
ND
0%
ND
0%
Date of
Build
1974
1974
1982
1979
1982
1986
1979
1992
1982
1980
1975
1982
1987
1984
1982
1988
1989
1980
1993
1971
1973
1976
1973
1984
1986
1982
1981
1993
1987
1982
1962
1983
1968
1987
1987
1992
1985
1984
1971
1987
1974
1996
1969
1963
1961
1961
1973
1980
1988
1979
1987
Cruise
(hr/call)
2.3
2.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.4
2.7
2.6
2.2
2.3
3.0
2.7
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.2
2.4
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.9
3.0
2.6
3.3
4.2
3.1
3.6
3.6
3.6
2.4
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
1.8
2.0
2.8
2.1
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
RSZ (hr)
3.4
3.4
14.3
11.6
14.8
5.9
7.3
4.9
2.4
4.6
5.6
10.1
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
6.5
4.7
4.5
7.0
7.6
4.0
5.9
21.1
5.2
4.7
2.3
6.1
5.2
5.2
6.0
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.2
4.7
4.4
4.7
4.4
Man. (hr)
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.9
2.7
1.3
5.0
2.5
1.3
2.5
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.3
1.7
4.3
2.3
1.6
0.5
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.8
1.2
0.5
1.1
Hotel (hr)
209.4
209.4
120.0
184.6
102.0
115.6
219.2
104.4
226.2
83.1
39.9
127.5
24.9
22.3
19.7
22.2
22.1
16.0
31.0
25.5
20.5
15.7
16.2
22.7
70.3
54.6
21.1
29.7
78.9
124.3
1060.7
81.4
146.4
77.6
53.7
1.5
61.5
6.3
15.6
24.1
8.8
72.1
8.1
10.5
6.2
7.8
10.2
24.9
36.9
8.2
35.8
7-7
-------
Table 7-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Consolidated Port of New York and Ports on the Hudson River
Ship Type
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO Total
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER Total
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
Grand Total
Stroke
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
DWT Category
<1 0,000
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
<1 0,000
20,000 - 30,000
10,000-20,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-150,000
> 150,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
> 150,000
<1 2,500
12,500-15,000
15,000-17,500
> 17,500
<1 2,500
12,500-15,000
15,000-17,500
> 17,500
Calls
73
13
3
119
14
1
1
224
202
489
155
81
31
9
65
21
29
14
82
2
23
1,203
76
73
72
54
51
19
2
2
349
4,632
DWT
(tonnes)
16,968
15,302
23,242
46,217
5,979
20,303
15,946
31,817
22,271
34,820
74,752
95,769
140,266
137,489
15,402
43,052
71,780
26,459
36,889
63,000
35,605
45,538
1 1 ,461
13,788
17,041
22,727
10,566
13,498
15,396
19,422
14,890
33,449
Power
(hp)
11,478
1 1 ,338
20,271
25,750
7,851
25,920
29,570
19,088
8,766
12,546
15,612
13,993
20,709
20,940
7,551
14,917
13,598
14,784
15,108
19,713
35,293
13,120
1 1 ,243
13,961
13,984
16,382
13,240
14,287
12,555
16,880
13,670
20,932
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
17
16
19
19
15
19
24
18
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
16
14
18
16
16
16
15
18
19
18
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
97
159
ND
97
425
ND
ND
104
135
117
101
98
86
85
351
ND
256
ND
ND
ND
ND
128
119
107
113
106
518
520
ND
ND
178
162
%RPM
>130
0%
100%
ND
0%
100%
ND
ND
3%
27%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
65%
ND
39%
ND
ND
ND
ND
12%
6%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
ND
ND
18%
18%
Date of
Build
1981
1990
1981
1983
1977
1971
1970
1982
1985
1985
1984
1991
1987
1991
1984
1979
1985
1964
1964
1971
1975
1983
1982
1986
1985
1985
1980
1980
1982
1981
1984
1983
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.0
3.1
2.6
2.7
3.3
2.6
2.1
2.9
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.5
2.8
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.4
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.8
RSZ (hr)
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.7
7.5
4.0
3.2
4.7
6.1
6.3
5.8
6.1
4.4
6.3
5.6
5.5
6.2
5.4
6.1
5.6
5.5
6.0
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.9
5.1
4.9
5.4
Man. (hr)
1.8
1.7
4.1
2.1
2.0
1.3
3.2
2.0
3.4
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.7
3.2
3.6
3.9
2.6
3.6
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.2
1.9
1.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
Hotel (hr)
28.2
25.5
277.1
17.0
93.7
1490.5
1625.7
43.2
45.6
61.6
64.5
62.6
72.3
72.2
29.5
57.0
58.8
26.4
50.1
85.4
23.8
56.0
13.9
17.7
15.7
22.9
30.0
24.7
6.1
6.8
19.3
45.0
7-8
-------
Table 8-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA
Ship Type
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO Total
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS Total
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER Total
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
Engine Type
2
2
2
2
4
ST
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
2
4
4
4
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
DWT Range
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
<25,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
<25,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
30,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
<1 5,000
< 1,000
< 1 ,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
> 15,000
Calls
109
126
77
81
17
1
411
242
27
129
398
132
90
8
1
166
16
1
414
8
4
12
6
6
9
1
22
28
87
153
3
DWT
(tonnes)
18,365
29,721
38,659
79,616
13,853
18,314
40,274
18,425
27,503
12,143
18,208
6,833
18,918
38,907
46,956
5,316
18,775
10,538
10,538
0
448
149
1,332
7,257
9,076
13,016
7,828
4,988
7,667
1 1 ,833
15,696
Power
(HP)
9,665
9,696
10,320
16,328
7,504
8,300
11,018
17,757
16,327
10,898
15,383
5,784
10,456
12,876
12,170
3,944
7,536
6,284
6,284
2,400
1,293
2,031
16,108
20,776
40,649
169,708
34,403
9,553
9,706
12,500
18,467
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
19
18
18
19
14
16
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
18
18
26
30
22
18
18
19
20
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
144
126
113
113
473
131
131
106
229
429
229
437
140
96
117
743
561
561
561
ND
ND
#N/A
532
616
582
582
582
146
141
116
155
%RPM
>130
68%
52%
11%
0%
100%
36%
36%
0%
38%
100%
38%
89%
63%
0%
0%
100%
90%
90%
90%
ND
ND
#N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
65%
59%
0%
41%
Date of
Build
1981
1982
1983
1983
1977
1975
1982
1987
1977
1989
1987
1985
1980
1981
1992
1988
1981
1918
1985
1943
1978
1955
1983
1966
1964
1952
1969
1984
1988
1987
1979
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.4
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.7
3.7
3.2
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
2.9
2.7
2.0
1.7
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
RSZ
(hr/call)
14.9
14.7
15.2
15.3
14.4
12.3
14.9
11.4
12.9
12.5
11.9
13.3
14.6
12.3
12.4
12.9
15.1
14.2
13.4
10.9
12.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
12.6
5.5
11.6
10.7
10.7
12.2
11.4
Maneuver
(hr/call)
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.5
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.3
Hotel
(hr/call)
81.0
100.8
95.1
110.9
86.3
64.3
95.8
37.4
35.7
25.8
33.5
63.0
119.3
62.3
33.0
98.1
122.6
18.1
91.3
45.4
41.1
44.0
24.3
23.4
15.9
20.5
20.5
51.4
56.8
64.8
33.6
8-8
-------
Table 8-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA
Ship Type
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER Total
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO Total
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER Total
VEHICLE CARRIER
VEHICLE CARRIER
VEHICLE CARRIER
VEHICLE CARRIER
VEHICLE CARRIER
VEHICLE CARRIER
VEHICLE CARRIER Total
Grand Total
Engine Type
4
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
DWT Range
<5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
<1 5,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-150,000
> 150,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
90,000-120,000
> 150,000
<1 2,500
12,500-15,000
15,000-17,500
> 17,500
<1 2,500
12,500-15,000
Calls
16
15
3
305
26
5
26
57
237
78
111
91
150
32
57
5
17
24
54
2
10
868
39
5
7
13
8
1
73
2,560
DWT
(tonnes)
4,880
6,555
11,087
10,137
7,074
22,845
7,601
9,142
13,261
43,461
77,375
98,373
137,083
155,676
15,655
44,153
80,320
26,755
35,574
92,760
276,808
74,084
12,115
13,813
16,209
18,558
10,382
14,501
13,678
38,991
Power
(HP)
7,048
6,837
15,672
10,958
8,280
12,852
8,553
8,805
10,008
12,616
16,026
15,451
23,046
25,559
7,077
15,360
14,305
14,646
15,498
23,923
36,324
15,137
11,877
12,859
13,911
15,224
13,150
14,770
12,914
12,476
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
16
17
22
19
17
18
14
16
14
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
16
16
16
16
15
18
18
18
19
18
18
18
16
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
202
402
428
155
242
102
720
456
132
125
95
97
93
85
413
133
416
133
133
133
133
133
117
111
111
101
527
143
143
236
%RPM
>130
100%
100%
100%
41%
100%
0%
100%
69%
30%
41%
0%
0%
0%
0%
89%
19%
75%
19%
19%
19%
19%
19%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
8%
8%
0
Date of
Build
1992
1989
1992
1987
1981
1988
1981
1982
1984
1982
1983
1991
1982
1983
1981
1980
1981
1959
1962
1976
1973
1982
1982
1986
1984
1987
1977
1983
1983
1984
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.1
3.0
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.7
3.3
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.4
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.7
3.2
RSZ
(hr/call)
13.6
13.0
11.2
11.7
13.2
8.8
13.3
12.9
14.4
14.2
14.9
13.8
16.5
16.3
14.0
15.7
14.7
14.0
13.8
14.6
15.4
14.8
7.6
10.1
9.0
6.9
13.2
9.5
8.4
13.5
Maneuver
(hr/call)
2.5
1.9
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.4
3.2
3.2
2.0
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.0
2.3
3.0
2.4
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.8
Hotel
(hr/call)
87.8
81.7
54.0
63.0
67.1
43.0
57.7
60.7
72.3
62.8
70.8
83.0
137.4
122.6
61.6
63.9
77.3
88.4
65.8
70.2
104.1
85.1
17.7
27.2
23.9
25.2
39.9
18.0
22.7
74.1
Ship Type
Engine Type
DWT Range
Calls
DWT
(tonnes)
Power
(HP)
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
%RPM
>130
Date of
Build
Cruise
(hr/call)
RSZ
(hr/call)
Maneuver
(hr/call)
Hotel
(hr/call)
8-9
-------
Table 9-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for Puget Sound Area Ports Including Seattle, WA
Ship Type - Manip
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP Total
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING
FISHING Total
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO Total
MISCELANEOUS
MISCELANEOUS
MISCELANEOUS
MISCELANEOUS
MISCELANEOUS Total
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
Stroke type
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
ST
2
2
2
2
4
ST
ST
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
2
2
4
ST
2
2
4
4
DWT Range
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<1500
1 ,500 - 3,000
3,000 - 4,500
> 4,500
<1500
1 ,500 - 3,000
3,000 - 4,500
> 4,500
> 4,500
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
30,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
<1 5,000
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
<5,000
5,000-10,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
Calls
165
306
167
216
8
2
2
13
13
892
184
135
363
276
8
3
93
64
24
1,150
12
3
1
2
20
10
2
27
4
81
7
73
52
77
21
32
1
263
3
1
4
3
11
3
1
4
3
DWT
(tonnes)
22,130
27,887
40,489
66,419
6,436
32,019
41 ,642
63,029
82,035
39,661
19,019
31 ,480
40,261
56,958
19,987
19,800
28,628
38,988
47,851
38,791
789
1,883
4,500
9,360
698
1,861
3,372
5,805
19,286
3,846
3,540
21,745
41,323
45,539
9,063
20,039
14,897
30,851
7,900
1,200
761
3,988
3,548
4,226
5,340
850
7,089
Power
(HP)
7,073
8,155
10,752
12,646
3,625
10,400
10,943
14,806
17,111
9,727
18,365
26,364
31,808
51,033
12,405
26,797
30,080
31,565
80,006
34,337
1,897
3,626
10,768
10,331
1,702
5,159
14,398
8,048
37,976
6,774
3,647
1 1 ,495
12,006
10,164
9,493
20,164
15,289
11,907
9,387
1,860
3,486
8,483
5,827
29,370
32,350
9,906
45,589
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
14
14
15
15
13
15
14
15
16
14
19
20
22
23
19
21
20
21
23
21
12
14
18
18
12
16
15
14
20
14
12
16
15
15
15
18
19
16
14
12
13
15
14
21
19
16
21
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
150
124
107
98
ND
518
117
400
ND
123
135
101
93
95
428
ND
ND
ND
ND
98
ND
150
660
ND
773
720
500
720
ND
686
200
130
104
98
278
ND
ND
122
ND
ND
1225
ND
1225
ND
ND
788
514
% RPM
>130
94%
32%
3%
0%
ND
100%
0%
100%
ND
34%
77%
0%
0%
0%
100%
ND
ND
ND
ND
5%
ND
100%
100%
ND
100%
100%
100%
100%
ND
100%
100%
29%
5%
0%
100%
ND
ND
17%
ND
ND
100%
ND
100%
ND
ND
100%
100%
Date of
Build
1990
1988
1985
1987
1977
1983
1989
1983
1968
1987
1985
1984
1987
1992
1988
1980
1973
1973
1972
1985
1973
1987
1996
1984
1983
1978
1991
1993
1964
1984
1987
1981
1984
1988
1982
1985
1966
1984
1991
1990
1986
1940
1983
1983
1986
1983
1993
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.5
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.4
4.3
3.5
2.8
2.8
4.3
3.1
3.3
3.6
2.5
3.7
4.3
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.5
2.9
2.6
3.2
3.6
4.2
3.8
3.3
3.7
2.4
2.6
3.2
2.4
RSZ
(hr/call)
15.4
16.5
16.3
15.8
17.7
14.6
13.4
16.6
21.5
16.2
17.9
16.6
16.4
16.0
16.0
18.2
16.5
15.5
16.2
16.5
21.1
15.9
16.7
16.0
20.1
13.2
16.3
14.8
13.0
16.9
17.9
18.4
13.3
16.2
17.9
17.6
18.3
16.6
19.3
22.4
16.1
15.4
17.3
14.5
17.5
17.1
16.2
Maneuver
(hr/call)
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.0
5.1
1.4
0.9
2.1
1.4
1.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
5.9
1.8
0.9
3.7
4.3
1.8
7.9
4.3
4.1
4.2
2.8
1.5
1.0
1.1
2.1
2.1
0.9
1.4
2.4
0.9
3.2
0.9
2.1
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
Hotel
(hr/call)
70.6
128.1
88.1
154.1
84.4
96.8
64.3
177.9
58.8
115.4
34.3
25.9
30.9
28.4
59.5
138.7
40.4
17.8
30.3
30.8
1291.8
33.4
1432.0
654.3
915.6
321.5
1405.4
399.2
534.6
686.4
65.2
52.4
32.0
23.2
353.6
112.5
163.9
71.9
2189.6
472.8
300.1
49.0
762.6
67.1
7.7
9.5
54.6
9-8
-------
Table 9-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for Puget Sound Area Ports Including Seattle, WA
Ship Type - Manip
PASSENGER
PASSENGER Total
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER Total
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO Total
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER Total
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
Grand Total
Stroke type
ST
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
ST
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
DWT Range
5,000-10,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-15,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
<1 0,000
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
10,000-20,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-150,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-150,000
> 150,000
<12,500
12,500-15,000
15,000-17,500
> 17,500
<12,500
12,500-15,000
15,000-17,500
> 17,500
Calls
2
13
17
21
7
7
8
60
11
16
16
4
121
168
66
79
18
20
26
12
1
18
35
125
29
119
5
553
27
33
49
7
19
4
2
1
142
3,333
DWT
(tonnes)
8,706
4,623
3,307
6,642
11,746
2,004
5,804
5,640
7,976
11,346
26,787
41 ,856
17,084
17,455
19,629
46,934
71,315
100,679
123,742
10,056
37,350
19,992
39,541
71,997
91,915
122,732
189,978
73,490
10,286
13,709
16,272
19,783
10,981
12,917
17,224
19,712
13,946
40,347
Power
(HP)
25,154
26,704
4,767
6,945
11,969
1,730
5,676
6,136
6,738
8,004
18,649
15,136
29,764
24,777
9,104
12,451
15,262
14,738
26,146
4,864
11,700
14,795
13,809
19,286
23,095
26,360
27,620
18,099
10,289
14,049
14,023
15,501
13,118
13,600
16,880
16,880
13,319
20,617
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
23
19
15
17
20
11
16
16
16
16
19
14
25
23
15
15
15
14
16
13
14
18
16
17
16
16
14
16
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
18
18
18
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
ND
670
155
163
115
230
634
272
174
162
ND
ND
ND
166
176
107
89
94
ND
245
520
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
129
158
109
120
98
ND
ND
450
ND
137
139
% RPM
>130
ND
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
88%
75%
81%
ND
ND
ND
79%
79%
0%
0%
0%
ND
33%
100%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
22%
82%
9%
0%
0%
ND
ND
100%
ND
22%
25%
Date of
Build
1958
1982
1986
1988
1988
1970
1991
1986
1988
1992
1983
1981
1976
1979
1986
1984
1984
1991
1974
1976
1981
1964
1969
1970
1977
1974
1978
1977
1983
1985
1984
1985
1981
1980
1978
1981
1984
1984
Cruise
(hr/call)
2.2
2.6
3.3
3.0
2.6
4.7
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
2.6
3.5
2.0
2.3
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.1
4.0
3.6
2.8
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.9
RSZ
(hr/call)
17.6
16.4
15.6
14.1
15.6
22.1
16.7
16.0
22.1
19.9
17.9
14.2
17.0
17.6
19.0
15.9
16.0
15.8
14.5
15.6
17.0
14.4
15.4
16.6
15.9
14.7
11.1
16.0
20.0
18.6
17.3
18.4
20.2
20.2
18.9
19.4
18.7
16.5
Maneuver
(hr/call)
0.9
1.0
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.5
1.0
2.9
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.3
4.3
4.0
3.3
2.6
7.2
0.9
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.4
5.3
6.2
1.9
4.4
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
3.1
1.2
1.9
Hotel
(hr/call)
67.5
42.0
315.7
163.2
201.5
259.8
51.5
207.3
30.1
24.4
25.0
10.3
73.8
60.1
43.7
67.6
45.2
64.0
63.9
16.2
84.7
59.7
45.3
62.4
52.1
62.8
103.4
58.3
32.2
19.0
19.6
19.9
20.2
13.5
22.0
21.1
21.8
83.9
9-9
-------
Table 10-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Corpus Christi, TX
Port of Corpus Christ, TX
SOURCE:
EPA document Commercial Marine Activity of Deep Sea Ports, Table 10-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Corpus Christi, TX
Ship Type Manip
BARGE CARRIER
BARGE CARRIER Total
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP Total
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER Total
GENERAL CARGO
Stroke type
ST
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
ST
2
DWT
Category
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
DWT Range
25,000 - 35,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
45,000 - 90,000
> 90,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
45,000 - 90,000
> 45,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-150,000
above 150,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000-120,000
< 25,000
Calls
2
2
38
35
21
60
36
5
6
1
7
209
1
1
66
276
161
171
31
5
34
24
27
2
522
4
9
1,332
6
DWT
(tonnes)
30,298
30,298
14,322
28,117
39,326
68,076
133,928
18,600
29,485
36,414
70,656
57,708
65,642
65,642
19,231
44,487
76,375
98,320
139,846
155,042
8,311
43,869
77,584
25,943
37,414
63,000
91,898
53,948
9,861
Power
(HP)
31 ,564
31,564
6,448
11,029
11,298
14,830
19,693
8,100
11,036
15,600
12,057
12,793
66,398
66,398
8,852
11,085
15,241
15,403
21,270
20,124
4,828
15,369
14,563
10,968
13,060
19,727
24,166
13,178
5,483
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
22
22
13
15
15
15
15
15
14
17
14
15
24
24
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
16
15
16
16
16
16
15
15
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
ND
ND
151
150
108
93
91
ND
460
ND
440
162
100
100
183
123
99
89
85
85
532
ND
275
ND
ND
ND
ND
128
200
%RPM
>130
ND
ND
67%
100%
17%
0%
0%
ND
100%
ND
100%
28%
0%
0%
88%
44%
0%
0%
0%
0%
78%
ND
50%
ND
ND
ND
ND
24%
100%
Date of
Build
1972
1972
1974
1977
1981
1982
1989
1978
1979
1981
1981
1981
1996
1996
1983
1984
1984
1991
1987
1991
1984
1975
1983
1954
1957
1971
1977
1974
1319
Cruise
(hr/call)
2.3
2.3
3.9
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.6
2.9
3.6
3.5
2.1
2.1
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.4
RSZ
(hr/call)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.6
6.6
6.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.6
5.3
5.0
10-5
-------
Tampa Harbor, FL
SOURCE:
Table 11-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL
EPA document Commercial Marine Activity of Deep Sea Ports, Table 11-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO Total
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER Total
REEFER
Engine
Type
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
ST
0
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
0
2
2
4
4
0
2
DWT
CAT
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
0
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
2
0
2
DWT RANGE
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
0
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<25,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
30,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
<1 5,000
15,000-30,000
<1 5,000
0
<5,000
5,000-10,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
0
5,000-10,000
Calls
52
82
66
117
8
2
1
1
229
558
2
1
1
4
37
22
2
1
70
5
14
191
342
26
55
5
2
32
120
46
DWT
(tonnes)
18,828
29,575
39,389
57,952
15,900
29,089
41,455
92,854
39,830
39,830
36,750
60,639
21,540
38,920
6,769
21,512
34,336
46,641
3,158
19,880
14,897
9,060
9,060
4,243
6,456
1,254
5,500
5,485
5,485
6,417
Power (HP)
8,478
9,367
10,670
13,451
6,581
8,198
11,336
10,876
10,876
10,876
23,945
51 ,920
16,993
29,201
4,048
9,736
10,300
8,950
2,322
10,120
4,428
4,428
4,428
29,370
29,961
9,313
20,934
28,408
28,408
8,160
Vessel Speed
(knots)
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
16
15
15
21
24
20
22
14
16
15
15
13
15
19
14
14
21
19
17
18
20
20
18
Engine Speed
(RPM)
158
125
114
110
124
157
117
124
124
124
259
90
428
259
197
130
95
105
554
280
280
280
280
559
120
769
580
559
559
158
% RPM
>130
56%
32%
14%
0%
23%
100%
0%
23%
23%
23%
50%
0%
100%
50%
100%
50%
0%
0%
100%
86%
86%
86%
86%
75%
0%
100%
100%
75%
75%
70%
Date of
Build
1979
1983
1983
1979
1975
1995
1995
1975
1981
1981
1986
1990
1993
1989
1979
1982
1980
1995
1978
1981
1966
1978
1978
1984
1984
1979
1987
1984
1984
1986
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.4
3.4
2.4
2.1
2.5
2.3
3.7
3.2
3.5
3.3
3.9
3.5
2.6
3.6
3.6
2.4
2.6
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.8
RSZ
(hr/call)
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.7
5.3
4.4
5.3
5.5
5.8
5.7
5.3
5.8
5.9
5.4
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
11-7
-------
Table 11-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL
Tampa Harbor, FL
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER
REEFER Total
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO Total
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER Total
TUG
TUG
TUG
TUG Total
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
BARGE DRY CARGO
BARGE DRY CARGO Total
BARGE TANKER
BARGE TANKER Total
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
2
4
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
ST
ST
ST
0
2
4
0
2
0
0
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
3
10,000-15,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
<5,000
<5,000
5,000-10,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
> 150,000
0
0
0
0
12,500-15,000
0
0
< 1,000
5,000-10,000
6
1
1
54
30
12
2
44
111
17
45
3
37
121
1
148
483
701
166
459
1,326
2
2
525
525
852
852
4
1
11,054
3,536
6,502
6,880
872
2,697
7,440
1,668
19,007
39,778
3,121
37,874
24,854
37,075
228,274
25,893
25,893
75
157
91
91
13,208
13,208
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
113
9,360
12,983
3,002
6,933
8,578
1,948
2,849
9,000
2,514
11,871
16,976
1,542
16,000
9,794
9,794
9,794
9,794
9,794
4,905
9,206
5,768
5,768
1 1 ,500
11,500
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
895
10,332
20
14
16
18
14
13
15
14
16
17
11
16
14
15
17
15
15
12
14
13
13
18
18
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
12
18
120
600
168
168
650
750
600
650
136
122
459
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
111
111
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
430
430
0%
100%
100%
70%
100%
100%
100%
100%
47%
0%
100%
44%
44%
44%
44%
44%
44%
ND
ND
ND
#N/A
0%
0%
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
100%
100%
1976
1978
1995
1985
1959
1977
1993
1966
1978
1977
1972
1971
1947
1955
1977
1966
1966
1976
1978
1976
1976
1984
1984
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
1977
1984
2.6
3.6
3.1
2.8
3.6
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.1
3.0
4.5
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.9
3.4
3.4
4.3
3.7
4.2
4.2
2.8
2.8
ND
#N/A
ND
#N/A
4.2
2.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.9
5.6
6.0
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.7
5.4
6.0
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.7
5.7
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.9
3.5
11-8
-------
Table 11-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL
Man.
(hr/call)
1.9
2.8
2.7
3.4
1.4
3.3
3.0
9.0
1.5
2.3
3.3
1.0
3.0
2.6
1.8
1.4
1.0
5.7
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Hotel
(hr/call)
76.2
87.4
96.1
71.9
346.8
64.6
223.2
265.3
56.3
75.6
276.3
7.1
125.9
171.4
46.2
80.8
43.5
120.8
98.7
51.4
35.7
62.3
68.0
15.1
10.2
224.3
9.5
71.8
36.6
38.8
11-9
-------
Table 11-6: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.1
1.9
2.4
1.2
1.4
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.0
352.4
86.2
81.8
75.3
60.3
216.1
199.9
110.3
34.3
37.0
86.0
35.9
21.1
47.7
640.7
21.9
39.0
55.7
64.9
49.6
54.7
203.3
203.3
91.8
91.8
149.6
149.6
83.5
319.7
11-10
-------
Table 12-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for Baltimore Harbor, MD
Ship Type
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO Total
Miscellaneous
Engine Type
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
ST
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
4
ST
ST
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
2
DWT Range
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
45,000 - 90,000
> 90,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
45,000 - 90,000
> 90,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
> 90,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
45,000 - 90,000
< 25,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
45,000 - 90,000
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
< 25,000
< 10,000
Calls
50
85
73
144
76
10
3
3
2
29
1
5
481
247
96
92
72
13
3
18
541
114
13
9
1
80
4
5
226
4
DWT
(tonnes)
18,690
29,958
39,143
68,715
133,223
12,466
32,322
89,127
158,526
18,232
33,373
159,743
59,304
21,107
29,065
39,319
55,730
8,793
18,832
26,826
30,106
16,545
30,370
41,141
45,000
5,301
29,719
13,264
14,626
6,450
Power
(hp)
8,707
10,618
10,435
13,970
18,241
5,700
8,602
12,600
17,850
9,115
1 1 ,837
27,126
12,611
18,352
16,979
46,221
41 ,379
6,508
28,112
35,181
26,242
10,516
10,302
13,058
12,300
3,469
12,000
16,709
8,281
3,500
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
15
15
15
14
14
14
13
14
14
15
15
16
15
19
19
23
22
16
23
20
20
16
15
16
16
13
14
20
15
15
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
146
131
109
100
86
ND
157
404
399
ND
ND
ND
111
118
102
105
94
475
ND
ND
117
154
108
ND
93
642
ND
ND
435
ND
%RPM
>130
63%
61%
5%
3%
0%
ND
100%
100%
100%
ND
ND
ND
16%
16%
0%
0%
0%
100%
ND
ND
10%
55%
0%
ND
0%
100%
ND
ND
78%
ND
Date of
Biuld
1981
1982
1984
1986
1985
1974
1984
1982
1986
1975
1983
1970
1983
1987
1984
1979
1988
1984
1973
1973
1985
1982
1984
1984
1994
1988
1974
1962
1984
1982
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.7
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.4
2.6
2.7
2.2
2.2
3.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.8
3.6
2.6
3.4
3.3
RSZ
(hr/call)
16.0
16.7
16.6
17.4
18.9
14.7
20.1
17.5
17.2
14.2
10.7
17.2
17.0
14.1
14.5
16.9
17.1
13.4
14.1
15.5
15.1
16.7
16.5
14.3
17.4
19.0
18.0
17.4
17.4
15.9
Maneuver
(hr/call)
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
2.1
1.3
1.5
2.0
Hotel
(hr/call)
113.5
167.7
133.1
79.1
49.5
63.6
181.8
91.0
64.7
30.3
1.2
61.4
98.8
23.7
17.2
16.1
13.7
105.4
12.7
20.7
21.7
108.3
96.8
29.8
180.0
55.7
107.2
358.9
91.7
509.1
12-8
-------
Table 12-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for Baltimore Harbor, MD
Ship Type
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous Total
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
PASSENGER Total
REEFER
REEFER Total
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO
RORO Total
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER
TANKER Total
TUG
TUG
TUG Total
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
Grand Total
Engine Type
4
2
4
ST
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
ST
2
4
2
2
2
4
4
DWT Range
< 10,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
10,000-20,000
<1 0,000
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
<1 0,000
20,000 - 30,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 90,000
90,000- 120,000
> 150,000
<30,000
30,000 - 60,000
30,000 - 60,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
<1 0,000
10,000-20,000
Calls
6
10
3
6
6
15
2
2
66
46
51
83
3
1
250
53
42
13
1
1
22
7
8
147
15
27
42
3
225
3
12
50
293
2,007
DWT
(tonnes)
7,053
6,812
6,291
5,478
7,942
6,626
1 1 ,560
11,560
5,420
15,272
26,522
45,016
8,903
24,106
24,800
19,174
37,543
64,867
95,628
281 ,559
8,330
36,753
44,388
31,354
177
430
340
9,352
14,660
26,342
8,246
12,863
14,156
31,529
Power
(hp)
11,671
10,503
22,000
32,171
35,363
31,413
13,100
13,100
9,650
14,935
16,952
26,562
10,332
27,000
17,805
8,165
12,008
14,170
16,600
29,460
5,354
14,760
16,275
10,331
4,713
15,252
11,488
10,978
13,308
13,963
1 1 ,830
13,649
13,289
16,493
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
14
15
20
20
24
21
19
19
16
19
20
19
15
22
18
14
15
15
14
15
14
16
15
15
13
16
15
18
18
19
18
18
18
17
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
720
720
ND
524
ND
524
117
117
96
98
102
98
425
ND
107
157
113
108
94
75
486
ND
ND
222
900
750
825
124
110
101
530
502
173
172
%RPM
>130
100%
100%
ND
100%
ND
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
ND
3%
52%
7%
0%
0%
0%
100%
ND
ND
46%
100%
100%
100%
33%
0%
0%
100%
100%
17%
23%
Date of
Biuld
1990
1987
1976
1986
1961
1974
1987
1987
1981
1985
1984
1983
1979
1972
1983
1984
1982
1985
1993
1995
1989
1983
1958
1983
1975
1978
1977
1984
1985
1990
1980
1981
1984
1984
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.5
3.4
2.5
2.6
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.6
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.7
3.3
2.3
2.8
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.0
3.2
3.4
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.7
3.0
RSZ
(hr/call)
18.3
17.3
15.1
15.1
16.1
15.5
10.9
10.9
17.1
15.1
14.6
17.4
15.8
16.2
16.3
15.6
16.5
15.9
17.5
17.2
14.5
16.8
18.1
15.9
16.6
14.9
15.5
16.1
14.7
17.0
14.2
15.5
14.9
16.0
Maneuver
(hr/call)
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.3
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.4
2.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.5
Hotel
(hr/call)
790.1
677.7
81.9
85.7
146.7
109.4
531.4
531.4
47.8
30.3
32.6
19.8
33.6
1301.3
37.0
34.3
51.5
34.3
242.4
93.3
29.1
39.0
30.9
40.3
52.9
29.3
37.8
35.4
22.8
17.0
21.7
28.1
23.7
56.4
12-9
-------
Table 13-5: Summary of 1996 Deep-Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Coos Bay, OR
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER Total
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO
GENERAL CARGO Total
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS Total
Grand Total
Engine Type
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
DWT Range
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
(blank)
< 25,000
25,000 - 35,000
35,000 - 45,000
> 45,000
< 25,000
(blank)
Calls
26
39
60
28
2
155
10
18
20
5
1
54
1
1
210
DWT
(tonnes)
22,978
30,108
42,436
46,825
36,790
36,790
20,800
30,068
42,857
46,547
23,168
34,486
36,189
#N/A
36,189
Power
(HP)
7,007
9,756
9,136
10,249
9,136
9,136
11,770
8,040
13,010
12,300
7,800
10,962
9,612
#N/A
9,612
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
14
15
14
14
14
14
16
14
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
Engine
Speed
(RPM)
149
127
105
106
117
117
103
95
119
93
103
103
ND
#N/A
116
%RPM
>130
96%
13%
6%
0%
24%
24%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
ND
#N/A
21%
Date of
Build
1993
1983
1987
1990
1987
1987
1980
1984
1982
1994
1978
1983
ND
#N/A
1986
Cruise
(hr/call)
3.6
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
3.1
3.5
3.2
3.1
3.3
3
3.4
#N/A
3
RSZ
(hr/call)
3.6
3.4
3.0
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.6
3.6
2.7
4.0
3.0
3.3
4.0
4.0
3.3
Maneuver
(hr/call)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
Hotel
(hr/call)
64.0
69.4
58.9
94.8
179.7
70.4
65.3
52.5
56.5
128.5
67.4
63.7
128.7
128.7
69.0
13-5
-------
Cleveland Harbor. OH
SOURCE:
EPA document Commercial Marine Activity for Lake and Ri\
Ship Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total
EXCURSION VESSEL
EXCURSION VESSEL
EXCURSION VESSEL Total
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total
TANKER, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY Total
Grand Total
Engine
Type
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
ST
2
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
2
4
DWT
Category
< 10, 0(
10,000- 20, (
20,000- 30, (
> 30, 0(
10,000- 20, (
20,000- 30, (
30,000- 40, (
> 40, 0(
< 10, 0(
10,000- 20, (
20,000- 30, (
30,000- 40, (
10,000- 20, (
< 10, 0(
10,000- 20, (
450
1000
< 10, 0(
10,000- 20, (
< 10, 0(
10,000- 20, (
20,000- 30, (
< 10, 0(
10,000- 20, (
Trips
2
23
134
60
219
39
717
55
37
56
350
70
16
106
1446
4
2
6
572
748
1320
2
6
8
2
2
20
5
12
17
1665
Year
Build
ND
ND
1984
1981
1983
1943
1977
1974
1980
1959
1951
1973
1980
1943
1967
ND
1995
1995
1981
1990
1986
ND
1980
1963
ND
ND
1972
1974
1978
1976
1968
DWT
(tonnes)
8,186
15,866
27,225
35,125
28,022
17,500
26,830
37,107
50,800
7,686
17,000
21,303
33,205
15,047
23,445
8,229
10,187
8,882
ND
ND
ND
7,805
15,658
7,251
17,154
23,000
12,394
8,000
1 1 ,420
10,280
23,678
a ST refers to steam turbine
b Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship-types
-------
c Hotelling times are found in Table 3-7
Table 3-7. Average hotelling times by ship-type for calls on Port of Cleveland in 1996
Ship-type Category a Calls Hotelling (hrs/call)
BULK CARRIER, SALTY 10,000 - 2C 11 41.3
20,000-3C 75 69.3
> 30, 45 49.1
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 131 60
BULK CARRIER, LAKER 20,000 - 3C 1 7.8
> 30, 1 7
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 2 7.4
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY < 10, 1 24.7
10,000-2C 1 111.5
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total 2 68.1
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY < 10, 9 55.1
10,000-2C 6 78.9
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total 15 64.6
PASSENGER, SALTY all 2 30.5
TANKER, SALTY all 1 29
Grand Total 153 59.3
-------
EMISSION FAC'
ler Ports, Table 3-4. Summary of trips for the Port of Cleveland for 1996
Power
(hp)
6,200
6,996
9,116
10,909
9,358
4,500
7,098
7,087
8,538
4,303
4,236
5,503
9,601
8,269
6,308
5,950
7,382
6,427
460
850
655
5,400
10,600
3,391
6,000
7,800
6,456
2,950
6,253
5,152
6,664
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
14
14
15
14
14
13
13
13
13
14
13
14
12
15
13
15
16
15
10
12
11
15
16
12
14
13
14
12
15
14
13
Engine Speed
(RPM)
ND
113
110
100
109
ND
750
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
750
ND
500
500
ND
ND
ND
225
ND
550
ND
ND
442
750
117
328
519
Cruise
(hr/trip)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
RSZ
(hr/trip)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2
2
2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Maneuver
(hr/trip)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.4
1
0.9
0.9
2
2.5
0.8
0.9
2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.6
0.8
1.4
1.8
Calls
11
75
45
0.911055
0.774648
0.088945
0.225352
1
1
0.866667
1.133333
1.8
4.5
7.2
1.5
0.294118
0.705882
Hotel
(hr/call)
41.3
69.3
49.1
7.8
7
7.8
7
24.7
111.5
30.5
30.5
55.1
78.9
55.1
78.9
29
29
Total
Grams
per Year
2-stroke
Tons per
Year
4-stroke
Tons per
Year
Cruise
g/hp-hr
Steam
2
4
-------
-------
Load
HC
CO
0.395
0.395
0.05
0.8
NOx
0.82
0.52
0.22
PM
17.6
12.38
2.09
SO2
1.29
1.31
1.86
9.56
9.69
15.0
RSZ
g/hp-hr HC
2
4
Steam
Speed
0.395
0.395
0.05
9
Cruise HC
g/yr
1959
25423
193004
103417
323804
27729
804104
61586
49913
38073
234251
60863
29126
17530
1323175.00
3760
1866
5627
0
0
0
1706
8039
5143
1896
2465
19250
2331
11856
14186
1686041.41
1.41
0.42
Cruise CO
g/yr
4067
52778
400666
214689
672201
57564
1669279
127849
103617
50121
308381
80124
38343
77133
2512411.51
7806
2457
10263
0
0
0
3542
16689
6771
2496
3245
32743
4838
15607
20445
3248063.69
2.93
0.56
Cruise NOx
g/yr
87296
1132792
8599670
4607962
14427720
1235520
35828433
2744086
2223978
1193274
7341835
1907560
912848
732064
54119598.15
167552
58489
226041
0
0
0
76032
358195
161205
59424
77251
732108
103840
371578
475418
69980884.99
62.88
13.29
Cruise PM
g/yr
6398
83029
630317
337743
1057486
90558
2626061
201129
163007
126267
776882
201850
96594
652126
4934475.64
12281
6189
18470
0
0
0
5573
26254
17058
6288
8174
63347
7611
39319
46930
6120709.01
4.61
1.41
Cruise SO2
g/yr
47411
615231
4670571
2502632
7835845
671024
19458796
1490342
1207866
933784
5745277
1492741
714339
5245200
36959369.04
90999
45770
136769
0
0
0
41294
194540
126150
46502
60452
468937
56397
290775
347171
45748091.69
34.15
10.40
RSZ Load
0.29
0.33
0.25
0.48
0.29
0.29
RSZ HC g/yr
420
5453
41395
22181
69449
6910
200386
20463
12439
9488
58376
15167
8065
4369
335662.07
708
439
1148
100481
242801
343282
366
2155
1226
407
705
4858
500
2543
3043
757441.67
0.34
0.48
-------
0.02
1.85
0.08
3.57
0.81
76.98
0.72
6.73
5.77
50.32
0.00
0.83
-------
CO
knots
NOx
0.82
0.52
0.22
PM
17.6
12.38
2.09
SO2
1.29
1.31
1.86
9.56
9.69
15.0
Maneuver
g/hp-hr
Steam
Speed
HC
2 2.085717156
4 2.172732372
0.05
4
EMISSION
RSZ CO g/yr
872
11320
85934
46046
144172
14345
415990
42481
25822
12490
76850
19967
10617
19222
637783.49
1471
579
2049
132279
319637
451916
760
4474
1614
535
928
8311
1038
3347
4385
1248615.90
0.72
0.64
RSZ NOx g/yr
18723
242958
1844432
988302
3094415
307896
8928569
911781
554223
297368
1829611
475371
252761
182433
13740012.44
31567
13774
45341
3149253
7609816
10759069
16307
96031
38417
12745
22091
185591
22271
79695
101966
27926394.13
15.36
15.16
RSZ PM g/yr
1372
17808
135188
72438
226807
22567
654424
66829
40622
31466
193602
50302
26746
162512
1249070.36
2314
1458
3771
333241
805239
1138480
1195
7039
4065
1349
2338
15985
1632
8433
10065
2644178.51
1.13
1.60
RSZ SO2 g/yr
10169
131953
1001730
536757
1680609
167221
4849199
495198
301004
232702
1431743
371996
197795
1307122
9353981.62
17144
10779
27923
2464415
5954982
8419397
8857
52155
30062
9974
17287
118335
12096
62364
74460
19674706.43
8.34
11.86
Maneuvering
Load
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.12
Maneuvering
HC g/yr
2407
31232
237101
127046
397786
35255
3067026
97876
71392
56729
775632
251907
32146
4749
4392711.14
4498
2907
7405
30565
73856
104420
2096
12345
5485
2426
3154
25507
9305
15172
24477
4952306.03
4.07
1.37
-------
0.02
1.37
0.20
30.72
0.18
2.91
1.44
21.64
0.01
5.45
-------
CO NOx PM SO2
6.072740558 23.91129555 2.168336646
4.432346073 16.87604551 2.216072174
0.22 2.09 1.86
knots
23.02
23.87
15.0
Hotel
g/hp-hr
Steam
Load
HC
2 0.1
4 0.1
0.05
MS ESTIMATES
Maneuvering
CO g/yr
7008
90935
690339
369905
1158187
102647
8929903
284974
207865
115726
1582280
513886
65578
20894
11823752.51
13097
5930
19027
62351
150665
213016
6103
35943
11190
4950
6435
64620
27091
30951
58042
13336645.03
11.84
2.80
Maneuvering
NOx g/yr
27593
358055
2718197
1456492
4560337
404172
35161316
1122080
818463
440624
6024490
1956608
249685
198302
46375740.40
51570
22579
74149
237401
573653
811054
24032
141524
42605
18846
24500
251507
106671
117844
224516
52297301.95
46.63
10.68
Maneuvering
PM g/yr
2502
32469
246493
132078
413543
36651
3188517
101753
74220
57860
791104
256931
32787
176648
4716472.97
4677
2965
7641
31174
75329
106503
2179
12834
5595
2475
3217
26300
9673
15475
25148
5295608.01
4.23
1.40
Maneuvering
SO2 g/yr
26564
344701
2616820
1402171
4390255
389098
33849944
1080231
787938
623168
8520351
2767203
353126
1420824
49791883.47
49647
31932
81580
335753
811309
1147062
23136
136245
60255
26654
34650
280940
102693
166666
269359
55961078.44
44.89
15.10
Hotelling HC
g/yr
31783
473804
241034
746621
504
384
38
151
1078.33
1470
8231
9701
122
294
415
5356
37635
13453
7101
63545
252
1280
1532
822892.04
0.87
0.03
-------
0.02
14.67
0.22
57.53
0.19
5.83
1.56
61.56
0.00
0.91
-------
CO
0.1
NOx
1.85
1.85
0.22
PM
9.96
9.96
2.09
SO2
0.239
0.239
1.86
1.07
1.07
15.00
All modes
Hotelling CO
g/yr
587982
8765376
4459136
13812494
9331
7109
706
2802
19949.03
27189
152272
179461
2249
5436
7685
99081
696253
248876
131369
1175579
4655
23680
28335
15223502.69
16.12
0.62
Hotelling
NOx g/yr
3165570
47190888
24007022
74363480
50238
38276
3803
15085
107401.25
146377
819801
966178
12111
29264
41375
533430
3748476
1339896
707260
6329062
25061
127491
152552
81960046.94
86.80
3.36
Hotelling PM
g/yr
75961
1132392
576072
1784425
1206
918
91
362
2577.20
3512
19672
23184
291
702
993
12800
89948
32152
16971
151872
601
3059
3661
1966711.97
2.08
0.08
Hotelling
SO2 g/yr
339316
5058377
2573305
7970999
5385
4103
408
1617
11512.31
15690
87874
103564
1298
3137
4435
57178
401798
143623
75811
678410
2686
13666
16352
8785272.74
9.30
0.36
All Modes
HC g/yr
4786.24
93891.19
945303.92
493678.13
1537659.47
69893.95
4072019.70
180309.58
133743.98
104289.67
1068259.14
327975.20
69487.81
26647.50
6052626.54
10436.86
13443.49
23880.34
131167.14
316950.70
448117.85
9524.38
60174.30
25307.18
11830.01
6323.93
113159.80
12386.60
30850.55
43237.15
8218681.15
6.69
2.32
All Modes
CO g/yr
11947.22
743014.79
9942315.34
5089775.13
15787052.48
174556.43
11024503.77
462413.80
337303.62
178337.82
1967510.12
614683.15
117338.83
117249.01
14993896.54
49562.96
161237.54
210800.51
196879.55
475737.37
672616.92
109486.46
753358.55
268450.85
139349.59
10607.39
1281252.84
37621.81
73586.23
111208.04
33056827.31
31.61
4.62
All Modes
NOx g/yr
133611.65
4899374.74
60353187.19
31059777.19
96445950.77
1947587.50
79968556.07
4816223.36
3596664.42
1931265.47
15195936.08
4343341.21
1430378.44
1112799.67
114342752.23
397066.35
914642.37
1311708.72
3398764.27
8212733.07
11611497.34
649801.15
4344225.53
1582123.02
798274.75
123842.56
7498267.01
257843.63
696608.31
954451.94
232164628.01
211.67
42.49
-------
0.00
16.75
0.00
90.16
0.00
2.16
0.00
9.66
0.03
9.04
0.13
36.36
1.22
255.38
8.55
35.62
242.61
-------
All Modes
PM g/yr
10272.88
209266.51
2144389.96
1118331.15
3482260.51
149776.67
6470207.21
370629.99
277849.83
215593.86
1761588.06
509174.35
156489.14
991287.07
10902596.17
22783.50
30283.41
53066.91
364705.62
881270.27
1245975.89
21747.52
136074.79
58869.91
27082.79
13729.22
257504.23
19517.97
66285.82
85803.79
16027207.49
12.05
4.49
All Modes
SO2 g/yr
84143.59
1431201.65
13347497.64
7014865.42
21877708.30
1227343.00
58163324.86
3069873.75
2296808.00
1789654.26
15697370.60
4632348.27
1266878.00
7973145.70
96116746.44
173480.67
176355.49
349836.16
2801465.77
6769428.15
9570893.92
130464.52
784738.29
360090.35
158939.83
112389.42
1546622.40
173871.48
533470.61
707342.09
130169149.31
96.69
37.73
-------
1.09
8.77
17.63
143.19
16.26
132.66
-------
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
SOURCE:
EPA document Commercial Marine Activity for Lake and River Ports, Table 3-12. Summary of trips for Burns Waterway Harbor for 1996
Ship Type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total
TANKER, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY Total
Grand Total
Engine Type
2
2
2
4
4
4
ST
2
2
2
ST
2
2
4
4
DWT
Category
20,000- 30, C
30,000- 40, C
> 40,000
1 0,000 -20,C
20,000- 30, C
30,000- 40, C
20,000 -30,C
1 0,000- 20, C
20,000- 30, C
30,000 -40,C
20,000 -30,C
< 10,000
1 0,000 -20,C
< 10,000
< 10,000
< 10,000
Trips
9
37
162
14
6
27
11
266
4
99
42
20
165
8
1
6
15
200
200
646
Year
Build
1973
1974
1975
1952
1971
1979
1953
1973
1976
1973
1982
1961
1974
1962
1982
1979
1970
1973
1973
1973
DWT
(tonnes)
24,827
34,925
67,695
17,978
22,491
32,908
23,627
52,630
14,631
27,329
32,449
26,175
28,185
8,395
16,467
5,785
7,889
7,500
7500
40,342
Power
(Up)
8,531
7,108
14,376
4,800
6,600
9,541
8,886
11,753
6,700
8,839
10,132
3,551
8,476
4,100
11,200
3,667
4,400
400
400
9,792
Vessel
Speed
(knots)
13
13
14
13
15
12
16
14
14
13
14
16
14
14
16
12
13
14
14
14
Engine
Speed (RPM
g/yr)
750
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
750
ND
219
105
ND
193
ND
150
ND
150
720
720
596
Cruise
(hr/trip)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
RSZ
(hr/trip)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Maneuver
(hr/trip)
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
Calls
2.423077
1.146018
5.017699
7
1.615385
0.836283
2.961538
4
35.77311
19
7.226891
5.714286
1
4.285714
a ST refers to steam turbine
b Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship-types
c Hotelling times are found in Table 3-15
Table 3-15. Average hotelling times by ship-type for calls on Burns Waterway Harbor
-------
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
Category a
10,000- 20, 00(
20,000- 30, 00(
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
> 30,000
10,000- 20, 00(
20,000- 30, 00(
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
> 30,000
< 10,000
20,000- 30, 00(
GENERAL CARGO Total
DRY-CARGO BARGE
LIQUID CARGO BARGE
LIQUID CARGO BARGE Total
Grand Total
<2000
<2000
2000 - 5000
Calls
7
7
7
21
4
43
19
66
10
1
11
446
23
27
50
594
Hotelling
(hrs/call)
13.5
17.9
18.7
16.6
61
43.2
48
45.8
26.3
23.9
26
46.8
52.9
29.7
40.3
44.4
a Category is in dead weight tonnes.
-------
EMISSION FAC"
Hotel
(hr/call)
17.9
18.7
18.7
13.5
17.9
18.7
17.9
61
43.2
48
43.2
26.3
23.9
26.3
Cruise Load 0.8
g/hp-hr HC CO NOx PM SO2
2 0.395 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56
4 0.395 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69
Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0
RSZ
g/hp-hr HC CO NOx PM SO2
2 0.395 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56
4 0.395 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69
Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0
Speed 9 knots
Maneuver
g/hp-hr HC
2 2.085717156
4 2.172732372
Steam 0.05
Speed 4
Total
Grams per
Year
2-stroke
Tons per
Year
4-stroke
Tons per
Year
Steam
Engine
Tons per
Year
Total
Tons per
Year
Cruise HC
g/yr
12131
41553
367968
10618
6257
48842
1564
488933
4234
1 38260
67236
1136
210866
5182
1416
4172
10770
12640
12640
723209
0.70
0.09
0.00
0.80
Cruise CO
g/yr
25184
86263
763883
13978
8237
64299
6881
968724
8790
287020
139578
5000
440389
10758
2939
5492
19189
16640
16640
1444941
1.46
0.12
0.01
1.59
Cruise NOx
g/yr
540524
1851492
16395540
332774
196099
1530804
65310
20912544
188672
6160429
2995830
47453
9392384
230912
63078
130745
424735
396160
396160
31125823
31.27
2.85
0.12
34.24
Cruise PM
g/yr
39618
1 35706
1201719
35213
20750
161983
58178
1653167
13829
451531
219581
42271
727212
16925
4623
13835
35383
41920
41920
2457682
2.29
0.30
0.11
2.70
Cruise SO2
g/yr
293564
1005565
8904589
260409
153455
1197915
467942
12283440
1 02470
3345794
1627066
339996
5415326
125411
34259
102313
261982
310011
310011
1 8270759
16.98
2.23
0.89
20.10
RSZ Load
0.29
0.29
0.33
0.29
RSZHC
g/yr
3469
11883
78921
3036
1342
11639
419
110710
908
29654
14421
305
45287
1291
441
1155
2888
2711
2711
161595
0.16
0.02
0.00
0.18
RSZ CO
g/yr
7202
24668
163835
3997
1767
15323
1845
218637
1885
61559
29936
1340
94721
2681
915
1521
5117
3569
3569
322044
0.32
0.03
0.00
0.35
RSZ NOx
g/yr
1 54573
529470
3516467
95163
42059
364803
17509
4720044
40466
1321271
642537
12722
2016995
57544
19649
36202
113396
84967
84967
6935402
6.91
0.69
0.03
7.63
RSZPM
g/yr
11330
38808
257741
10070
4450
38602
15597
376598
2966
96843
47095
11333
158237
4218
1440
3831
9489
8991
8991
553314
0.51
0.07
0.03
0.61
RSZ SO2
g/yr
83950
287561
1909830
74469
32913
285472
125454
2799649
21977
717596
348968
91152
1179693
31253
10672
28330
70254
66490
66490
4116087
3.75
0.54
0.24
4.53
Maneuvering
Load
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Maneuvering
HC g/yr
13040
38286
339030
11889
7006
45576
341
455169
4552
148618
72273
289
225732
5765
1969
4029
11763
12132
12132
704795
0.69
0.09
0.00
0.78
-------
-------
CO
6
4
072740558
432346073
0.22
NOx
23.91129555
16.87604551
2.09
PM S02
2.168336646
2.216072174
1.86
23.02
23.87
15.0
knots
Hotel
g/hp-hr
Steam
Load
HC CO
2 0.1
4 0.1
0.05
0.1
NOx
1.85
1.85
0.22
PM
9.96
9.96
2.09
I
S02
0.239
0.239
1.86
1.07
1.07
15.00
All modes
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Maneuvering
CO g/yr
37967
111472
987115
24254
14292
92975
1501
1269576
13252
432713
210429
1272
657667
16786
5732
8218
30737
24749
24749
1982728
2.00
0.18
0.00
2.18
Maneuvering
NOx g/yr
149494
438917
3886746
92346
54418
354002
14245
4990167
52181
1703799
828561
12075
2596616
66095
22569
31292
119956
94230
94230
7800969
7.86
0.69
0.03
8.58
Maneuvering
PM g/yr
13556
39802
352460
12126
7146
46486
12689
484266
4732
154505
75136
10756
245129
5994
2047
4109
12149
12374
12374
753918
0.71
0.09
0.03
0.83
Maneuvering
SO2 g/yr
143918
422547
3741787
130603
76963
500659
102064
5118541
50235
1640254
797659
86517
2574665
63630
21727
44255
129613
1 33269
133269
7956087
7.57
0.97
0.21
8.75
Hotelling HC
g/yr
3700
1523
13489
4536
1908
1492
2355
29004
16348
136598
92404
5543
250893
6162
2677
4133
12972
0
292869
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.32
Hotelling CO
g/yr
68453
28181
249549
83916
35306
27603
10363
503371
302438
2527059
1709471
24390
4563357
113992
49521
76465
239977
0
5306706
5.55
0.25
0.04
5.84
Hotelling
NOx g/yr
368536
151719
1343518
451786
190078
148610
98357
2752604
1628261
13605137
9203422
231482
24668301
613707
266609
411670
1291986
0
28712892
29.90
1.32
0.36
31.58
Hotelling PM
g/yr
8843
3641
32239
10841
4561
3566
87617
151309
39072
326469
220845
206205
792590
14726
6398
9878
31002
0
974901
0.72
0.03
0.32
1.07
Hotelling
SO2 g/yr
39503
16263
144011
48427
20374
15929
706591
991099
174533
1458330
986512
1662942
4282318
65783
28578
44127
138488
0
5411904
3.20
0.14
2.61
5.95
All Modes
HC g/yr
32340
93245
799408
30079
16513
107550
4680
1083816
26042
453129
246333
7273
732778
18401
6502
13489
38392
27483
27483
1882468
1.84
0.21
0.01
2.07
All Modes
CO g/yr
138805
250583
2164383
126145
59602
200200
20590
2960308
326366
3308351
2089415
32002
5756134
144217
59107
91696
295020
44958
44958
9056420
9.33
0.57
0.06
9.96
-------
-------
All Modes
NOx g/yr
1213127
2971598
25142272
972069
482654
2398218
195422
33375359
1909580
22790635
13670350
303731
38674296
968258
371906
609908
1950073
575358
575358
74575086
75.94
5.54
0.55
82.03
All Modes
PM g/yr
73347
217956
1844159
68250
36908
250637
174083
2665340
60598
1 029348
562657
270565
1923168
41863
14508
31653
88024
63285
63285
4739816
4.23
0.50
0.49
5.21
All Modes
SO2 g/yr
560936
1731935
14700218
513908
283705
1999976
1402050
21192728
349215
7161974
3760206
2180607
13452002
286077
95235
219025
600337
509770
509770
35754836
31.51
3.88
3.94
39.33
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Texas Ports Example Calculations
-------
Matched Texas Port Example
From the draft Task 2 report, Beaumont was associated with the Port of Corpus Christi and the
ports in Port Arthur, Matagorda, and Brownsville were associated with the Port of Tampa based
on the similar vessel drafts of ships for Gulf Coast ports. Table B-l shows the 1995 vessel trips
by vessel type reported by Arcadis (1999). Tables B-2a and 2b show the 1996 and 1999 vessel
trips by type of vessel for the detailed ports (Corpus Christi and Tampa) and the 1999 trips for
the matched Texas ports with the total trips by vessel with Category 3 engines summed.
Although the 1996 and 1999 vessel trips for these ports does not appear extraordinary, other
ports show extraordinary differences between the 1995 and 1996 and 1999 vessel trip data.
Table B-l. 1995 Vessel trips for matched ports (Arcadis, 1999).
PORT NAME
Corpus Christi,
TX
Tampa, FL
Beaumont, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Matagorda Ship
Channel, TX
Brownsville. TX
Table B-2a.
PORT NAME
Corpus Christi,
TX
Tamna. FT,
Table B-2b.
PORTNAME
Corpus Christi,
TX
Beaumont, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Matagorda Ship
Channel, TX
Brownsville. TX
BA BC
2 407
958
78
321
205
120
BD
1,030
1,134
1,846
1,398
1,435
330
1996 Vessel trips
BA BC
6 592
- 1 .588
BD
1,392
1.370
1999 Vessel trips
BA BC
6 707
45
- 369
- 292
50
BD
1,396
2,035
1,616
1,453
485
BL
7,590
1,312
7,837
4,202
1,412
507
CS GC OT
7 27
32 229 17
6 13
24 126 20
2 34 1
30 25 8
PA
125
96
2
10
2
RF RO
10
238 64
2 24
2 16
6
SV
2,702
-
357
95
6
6
TA
1,921
974
719
1,220
173
88
TUG
4,716
2,369
7,268
5,430
1,265
509
UC
98
534
49
189
51
617
VC Cat. 3 Total
2,594
2 3,144
892
1,929
466
2 898
for detailed ports (USACE, 2001).
BL
10,255
1 .584
CS GC OT
10 39 4
53 380 40
for matched ports
BL
10,284
8,641
4,856
1,429
744
CS GC OT
12 47 1
3 7 1
28 145 21
3 48 2
13 10 2
PA
182
160
RF RO
14
394 106
SV
3,933
TA
2,142
1.015
TUG
14,245
3.308
UC
142
884
VC Cat. 3 Total
3,126
4 4.624
(USACE, 2001).
PA
217
1
12
1
RF RO
17
1 14
2 19
3
SV
4,693
205
109
9
3
TA
1,992
2,186
266
267
77
TUG
13,940
10,387
4,736
1,319
669
UC
169
28
218
73
7,59
VC Cat. 3 Total
3,162
2,287
1,079
685
1 415
BA = Barge Carrier
BC = Bulk Cargo Carrier
BD = Dry-cargo Barge
BL = Liquid Cargo (Tanker) Barge
CS = Container Ship
GC = General Cargo
OT = Other, Unknown, or Undefined
PA = Passenger, Cruise and Excursion
RF = Reefer
RO = RORO and Ferry
SV = Supply Vessel and Support Vessel
TA = Tanker
TUG = Tugboat and Pushboat
UC = Unidentified Dry-cargo
-------
VC = Vehicle Carrier
Arcadis (1999) recommended that unclassified (UC) vessels be reclassified according to the
proportion of dry cargo vessels (i.e. all those Category 3 vessels other than tankers (TA) at the
port of interest. This procedure was followed for the detailed and matched port trip totals with
the result shown in Tables B-3 and B-4. Based on a review of the engines of such vessels, barge
carriers (BA), dry cargo barges (BD), liquid barges (BL), supply vessels (SV) such as used for
off-shore oil and gas production, and tugs (TUG) were not considered to have Category 3 engines
onboard.
Table B-3. 1995 Detailed ports' Category 3
PORT NAME
Corpus Christi, TX
Tampa, FL
BC
476
1,270
CS
8
42
GC
31
304
trips modified for unclassified vessels.
OT
23
PA
146
128
RF
315
RO
12
85
TA
1,921
974
UC
0
0
VC
0
3
Cat. 3
Total
2,594
3,144
Table B-4. 1995 Matched ports' Category 3
PORT NAME
Beaumont, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Matagorda Ship Channel, TX
Brownsville, TX
BC
108
438
248
505
CS
8
33
2
125
GC
18
172
41
104
trips modified for unclassified vessels.
OT
-
27
1
34
PA
3
14
-
8
RF
3
3
-
-
RO
33
22
-
26
TA UC
719
1,220
173
88
Cat. 3
VC Total
892
1,929
466
9 898
The detailed port data may have fewer vessel types than were expected based on the USAGE
(2001) data, so all vessel types not explicitly categorized in the detailed data were assumed to be
equivalent to the other or miscellaneous category. For Corpus Christi and the port matched to
Corpus Christi (Beaumont), vessel trips associated with passenger (PA) and reefer (RF), roll on-
roll off (RO), and vehicle carrier (VC) vessels were lumped with the other (OT) vessel types to
conform to the detailed vessel data available for Corpus Christi. Detailed data for Tampa
included all vessel types, so no adjustment was necessary for ports matched to Tampa. The
results are shown in Tables B-5 and B-6.
Table B-5. 1995 detailed ports' Category 3 trips modified to match Marine Exchange vessel
types.
CaTJ"
PORT NAME BC CS GC OT PA RF RO TA UC VC Total
Corpus Christi, TX 476 8 31 158 - - - 1,921 0 - 2,594
Tamna. FL 1.270 42 304 23 128 315 85 974 0 3 3.144
-------
Table B-6. 1995 matched ports' Category 3 trips modified to match Marine Exchange vessel
types.
PORT NAME
Beaumont, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Matagorda Ship Channel, TX
Brownsville TX
BC
108
438
248
505
CS
8
33
2
125
GC
18
172
41
104
OT
39
27
1
34
PA
-
14
0
8
RF
-
3
0
0
RO
-
22
0
26
TA
719
1,220
173
88
UC
0
0
0
0
vc
-
0
0
9
Cat. 3
Total
892
1,929
466
898
For the Texas ports, the ratio of the vessel trips by type of vessel were calculated and are shown
in Table B-7 for the typical (or like) detailed ports of Corpus Christi and Tampa.
Table B-7. Ratio of the 1995 matched to the detailed ports' trips.
Like
Port
CC
TM
TM
TM
Port
Beaumont, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Matagorda Ship Channel, TX
Brownsville TX
BC
0.23
0.35
0.20
040
CS
1.03
0.78
0.06
2 98
GC
0.57
0.57
0.14
034
OT
0.25
1.21
0.05
1 49
PA
-
0.11
0.00
007
RF
-
0.01
0.00
000
RO
-
0.26
0.00
0 30
TA
0.37
1.25
0.18
009
VC
-
0.00
0.00
274
CC - Corpus Christi; TM - Tampa
For each port the RSZ speed and distance were needed to calculate the time and load in the RSZ
mode, as summarized in Table B-8 based on discussions with the local pilots (Beaumont-Port
Arthur, Brazos-Port Isabel, Matagorda Pilots (2001)). The speed was used to calculate the
average load using the equation described below where the cruise speed was supplied by vessel
type for each detailed port. The distance divided by the speed represents the time in mode for the
RSZ mode.
Load Factor = 0.1 + 0.7 * (Actual Speed / Cruise Speed)3
Table B-8. Estimates of the Reduce Speed Zone (RSZ) trips by port.
Speed
Port Distance (knots)
Corpus Christi, TX
Tampa, FL
Beaumont, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Matagorda Ship Channel, TX
Brownsville. TX
25
24
56.5
20
24
18.5
10
9
7
7
7.25
8.75
The emission estimates were then calculated by applying the vessel call ratio to the detailed port
emission estimates by vessel type provided in Appendix A. RSZ mode emissions were adjusted
for time and load in mode based on the specific conditions within each port and compared by
ship type with the detailed port information shown in Table B-9.
-------
Table B-9. Average vessel speed and Reduced Speed Zone load by ship type.
Ship Type
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
Roro
Tanker
Vehicles Carrier
Miscellaneous
Corpus Christl
Cruise Speed
(knots)
14.5
24.0
15.6
-
15.1
-
12.5
RSZ Load
0.33
0.15
0.29
-
0.30
-
0.46
lampa
Cruise Speed
(knots)
14.7
21.5
14.3
19.7
17.8
13.8
15.0
18.0
13.0
RSZ Load
0.26
0.15
0.27
0.17
0.19
0.30
0.25
0.19
0.33
The emission totals are provided below and reflect the 1996 emission estimates because the
Marine Exchange data for the detailed ports was based on 1996 activity. The 1995 vessel trip
data was used to determine the relative activity between ports and applied to the 1996 activity
data.
1996 Corpus Christ! Emission Totals (Tons/year)
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP Total
TANKER Total
GENERAL CARGO Total
MISCELLANEOUS Total
TOTAL
Transit
ffntellinp
HC
7
0
28
0
0
35
29
6
CO
37
1
126
1
0
165
63
107
JNOx
385
7
1426
10
3
1831
1260
570
PM
22
0
182
1
0
205
154
51
SO,
152
2
1109
5
1
1270
1179
Ql
1996 Beaumont Emission Totals (Tons/year)
Vessel Type
CXT
IN Ox
PM
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP Total
TANKER Total
GENERAL CARGO Total
MISCELLANEOUS Total
TOTAL
Transit
2
0
13
0
0
15
13
2
9
1
52
1
0
63
27
35
101
9
629
7
1
746
550
196
6
0
81
1
0
88
69
19
42
3
616
4
0
666
531
135
-------
1996 Tampa Emission Totals (Tons/year)
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO Total
PASSENGER Total
REEFER Total
RORO Total
TANKER Total
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
MISCELLANEOUS Total
Total
Transit
ffntellinp
He
16
0
4
6
1
0
8
0
0
36
26
W
1996 Port Arthur Emission Totals
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO Total
PASSENGER Total
REEFER Total
RORO Total
TANKER Total
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
MISCELLANEOUS Total
Total
Transit
Hrttffllinf
1996 Matagorda Ship Channel
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO Total
PASSENGER Total
REEFER Total
RORO Total
TANKER Total
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
MISCELLANEOUS Total
Total
Transit
ffntellinp
He1
5
0
2
1
0
0
9
0
1
17
13
5
CO
113
3
25
30
10
3
33
1
6
225
57
774
(Tons/year)
CO
38
3
14
3
0
1
40
0
7
107
25
87
Emission Totals
HC
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
4
/
CO
22
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
31
7
25
JNOx
970
23
220
311
74
25
370
7
36
2036
1090
946
JNOx
319
18
117
32
1
6
433
0
43
969
520
449
(Tons/year)
JNOx
185
1
29
0
0
0
64
0
2
281
747
114
PM
50
1
13
18
3
1
49
0
1
137
99
38
PM
16
1
7
2
0
0
58
0
1
85
56
79
PM
10
0
2
0
0
0
8
0
0
20
74
6
SO,
339
5
90
125
21
7
376
1
6
971
746
225
SO,
108
4
46
12
0
2
441
0
7
620
425
795
SO,
64
0
11
0
0
0
65
0
0
141
705
36
-------
1996 Brownsville Emission Totals (Tons/year)
Vessel Type
BULK CARRIER Total
CONTAINER SHIP Total
GENERAL CARGO Total
PASSENGER Total
REEFER Total
RORO Total
TANKER Total
VEHICLES CARRIER Total
MISCELLANEOUS Total
Total
Transit
ffntellinp
HC
6
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
10
7
4
CO
44
10
8
2
0
1
3
3
9
80
12
f,R
JNOx
370
69
71
19
0
7
31
18
53
638
277
167
PM
19
3
4
1
0
0
4
1
2
33
23
10
SO,
125
15
28
7
0
2
32
4
8
222
169
5?
-------
APPENDIX C
Maps USACE Waterway Link Network
-------
MAPS USACE WATERWAY LINK NETWORK
National Waterway Network (NWN)
-------
USACE Waterway Link Network
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data Classified as
Offshore (>25mi from shore for ocean-going, >10mi from shore for Great Lakes)
-------
USACE Waterway Link Network (Great Lakes)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data (Great Lakes)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data Classified as
Offshore (>10mi from shore for Great Lakes)
-------
USACE Waterway Link Network (East Coast)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data (East Coast)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data Classified as
Offshore (>25mi from shore for East Coast)
-------
USACE Waterway Link Network (Gulf Coast)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data (Gulf Coast)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data Classified as
Offshore (>25mi from shore for Gulf Coast)
-------
USACE Waterway Link Network (West Coast)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data (West Coast)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data Classified as
Offshore (>25mi from shore for West Coast)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network (Hawaii)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data (Hawaii)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data Classified as
Offshore (>25mi from shore for Hawaii)
-------
USACE Waterway Link Network (Alaska)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data (Alaska)
-------
USAGE Waterway Link Network - Links with 1999 Commodity Tonnage Data Classified as
Offshore (>25mi from shore for Alaska)
-------
APPENDIX D
Domestic Fleet Traffic
-------
DOMESTIC FLEET TRAFFIC
The difficulty with the domestic fleet was that some of the ocean and lake traffic could be served
by either tow boats (using Category 1 or 2 engines) or larger vessels (using Category 3 engines).
The domestic fleet comprises a relatively small number of vessels from the BTS (1999) review
quoted below.
"The fleet serving U.S. domestic deep-sea trades in 1997 included 39 dry-cargo vessels (800,000 dwt), 122
tankers (8.2 million dwt), 3,393 dry-cargo barges (4.8 million DWT) and 669 tank barges (3.4 million dwt).
Barges carried 86 percent of deep-sea cargoes moved less than 500 miles, while self-propelled vessels
carried 91 percent of the metric tons moved in trades greater than 1,500 miles."
The Table C-l describes the domestic sea trade tonnage by length of voyage demonstrating that
most of the traffic traveling over 1,000 miles was handled by vessels, considered in this work to
be powered by Category 3 propulsion engines. Applying the average trip length to the tonnage by
vessel from Table D-l indicates that domestic ton-miles would be estimated to be 223 x 109 for
all traffic compared with the 112 xlO9 estimate in this work for ocean trip traffic in the 25 - 200
mile range.
Table D-l. Domestic Deep-Sea Trade, Self-Propelled Vessel v. Barge, by Length of Haul, 1997
(Million metric tons) (Table 1-18, BTS, 1999)
Miles
<500
500-1,000
1,001-1,500
1,501-2,000
> 2,000
Total
Barge
55.6
32.7
11.7
3.7
3.6
107.3
Vessel
9.2
12
42
35.3
38.4
137
Total
64.8
44.7
53.7
39
42
244.3
Percent
(barge)
85.8
73.1
21.8
9.4
8.6
43.9
-------
APPENDIX E
Comparison with Corbett and Fischbeck (1998)
-------
EMISSION TOTAL COMPARISONS
A comparison of the emission results from this work with those previously estimated for Corbett
and Fischbeck (1998). The comparison shows that the emission totals are similar for all vessels
together though somewhat smaller for the comparable in-use year of 1996.
Table E-l. Comparison of Category 3 results between Corbett and Fischbeck (1998). (1,000
tons/year).
Emission Estimate
Corbett (1998) (Table 2)
1996 Category 3 US Flag
Corbett (1998) (Table 2)
1996 Category 3 Foreign Flag
Corbett (1998) (Table 2)
1996 Category 3 Total
Corbett (1998) (Table 3)
1993 Category 3 US Flag
Corbett (1998) (Table 3)
1993 Category 3 Foreign Flag
Corbett (1998) (Table 3)
1993 Category 3 Total
Chapter 3 Category 3 *
1996 Near Ports
Chapter 4 Category 3 *
1996 Between Ports
1996 Total Emissions
HC
3.4
3.6
7.0
1.3
3.6
4.9
5.2
2.1
7.3
CO
10.6
11.0
21.6
4.4
11.0
15.4
11.5
4.2
15.7
NOx
118.8
116.9
235.7
57.1
117.0
174.0
101.0
88.8
189.8
PM
9.6
8.7
18.3
4.1
8.7
12.8
9.2
7.8
17.0
SO2
-
-
-
-
-
-
68.2
58.9
127.1
* Category 3 were summed as transit mode emissions of merchant vessels plus hotelling emissions for passenger
and reefer vessels including steamships.
------- |