Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Les Benedict
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
2
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
3
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Pulp and paper



SO2
Mercury
Mercaptan
4
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Aluminum



Fluoride
POM
PCBs
5
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Automotive


Styrene
PCBs
6
Tribal Case Study: Modeling


Assess impacts to tribal airshed
Research existing information

NYS
7
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Emissions inventory



Characterize impacts
Quantitative
Categorize
8
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Emission Inventory



Use of emission Factors
Per-capita calculations
Models
9
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Model: definition





Analogy
Help visualize
Emulate
System of data, inference
Mathematical description
10
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Model


Estimate source receptor relationships
Patterns of concentrations of air pollutants
11
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Models predict




Emission rates
Concentrations
Fugitive releases
Points of impact
12
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Patterns



Regional – Ozone, haze
Local – Urban air shed
Global – global warming
13
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Models: characteristics


Simple – SCREEN3
Complex – ISC3
14
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Models



Conservative
Overestimate impacts
Important for “risk” scenarios
15
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Emissions inventory tools

AP42 Volume 1


EPA emission factors for stationary sources
AP42 Volume 2

EPA emission factors for mobile sources
16
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Emissions inventory tools (cont.)

Emission Inventory Improvement Program
(EIIP) guidance documents


Spell out the Process for EIs
Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE)

Database of factors for HAPs
17
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Emissions inventory tools (cont.)



Locating and Estimating Documents
Clearinghouse for Inventory and Emission
Factors (CHIEF)
MODELS
18
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

SRMT EI


TANKS3
Mobile 5a and 5b
19
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS 3



Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) tanks
Computer-based
DOS system
20
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS3



Calculates VOC and ozone emissions
Stage I filling
Operational losses
21
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS3




DOS system
Developed in FOXPRO
Easier to use
Menu driven
22
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Mobile 5a & 5b



Criteria pollutants from MV
VOCs from Stage II
Evaporative losses
23
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Mobile 5a & 5b




DOS system
FORTRAN
No GUI
Not as easy to use
24
Tribal Case Study: Modeling



Computer Aided Management of
Emergency Operations (CAMEO)
Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres
(ALOHA)
Mapping Applications for Response,
Planning, and Local Operational Tasks
(MARPLOT)
25
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

CAMEO




Chemical search engine
Linked to chemical-specific information
firefighting techniques, cleanup
procedures, and protective clothing
Basic information on Tier II facilities that
store chemicals
Emergency planning resources
26
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

ALOHA

atmospheric dispersion model used for
evaluating releases of hazardous chemical
vapors
27
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MARPLOT




allows users to "see" their data (e.g.,
roads, facilities, schools, response
assets)
Display this information on computer
maps
Overlay areas contaminated by potential
or actual chemical release
Maps created from the U.S. Bureau of
Census TIGER/Line files
28
Tribal Case Study: Modeling


CAUTION
Before installing software


Check with LAN administrator or your
Techie
Review operating system requirements
29
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Before you start




README files
Manuals
Instructions
First things first!
30
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

DOS-based systems

E.g. FORTRAN
Require INPUT files
 Data entry very specific in format and placement



Uses abbreviations
Truncation
31
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Using models


Plan for their use
Provide adequate time
Work plans
 Budgeting


It takes weeks to months to
Learn
 Collect data

32
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Using models

Seek expert help
EPA modelers/developers
 State modelers/developers
 Other users

33
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Using models


Understand limitations
Understand intended uses
Screening level
 Risk exposure

34
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS
35
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS




Version 3.1 was used
Storage Tank Emissions Calculations
Earlier versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.1 designed strictly
for DOS environment
Written with FOXPRO
36
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS


Version 4 is latest version
TANKS4 designed for Windows



Win 95, 98 or NT
Written using Visual Basic
Do not install on a LAN
37
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Storage tank Estimates
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
 HAPS


Does not predict values for any receptor point
38
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS



Chemical data
Meteorological data
Storage Tank Information
39
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Vertical or horizontal fixed roof
(a) Typical fixed-roof tank.
40
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Internal or external floating roof tanks
41
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS
Domed External
floating roof tanks

(d) Domed external floating roof tank.
42
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Underground tanks
43
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS



Data is entered through a series of menus
Storage tank info
Stored liquid info
44
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS





Batch mode operation
Single file mode
Database for over 100 organic liquids
Database for over 240 cities
More liquids and cities can be added
45
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS
 Steps
 Read
documentation
 Installed program
 Worked with sample data
 Become familiar with the program
 Learned data requirements
46
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS



No “special” features
Standard key-board entry
Some F1-F12 functions to learn
47
48
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Overview
Provides information about the program
 Describes general features

49
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

4 Key Elements needed to generate
emissions information
Tank information
 Fitting information
 Site information
 Liquid information

50
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Tank information
Type
 ID number
 A description
 State
 Company

51
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Tank information

Dimensions

Length, width, diameter, radius, slope, etc.
Annual throughputs (gallons/year)
 Turnovers/year - # times emptied/filled

52
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Tank information
Paint color
 Breather vent settings
 Liquid heights
 Working volumes
 Whether tanks is heated or not

53
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Tank information
Condition of tank shell
 Roof condition and type
 Vacuum settings in pounds per square inch gauge
(PSIG)
 Pressure settings (relief valves)

54
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS



Default settings
Others you will need to research and obtain
There is a lot of work to do before running
the program
55
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS
 Data must be
 Accurate
 Valid
 Documented
56
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Bob’s Electric &. Maintenance
Gasoline Alley -P.O. Box 196 Hogansburg, New York 13655
Petroleum Marketing Equipment Sales -Installation -Service
ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE ENVIRONMENT DIVISION
ATTENTION: Les Benedict
8/29/98
OPW MODEL 523-1100 UNIVERSAL MODEL 46--2080 ENTERPRISE BRASS WORKS
MODEL 802303
PRESSURE 8 OZ/PSJ PRESSURE 8 OZ/PSJ PRESSURE 8 OZ/PSI
VACUUM 1/2 OZ/PSI VACUUM 1/2 OZ/PSI VACUUM 5 OZ/PSI
57
58
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS





Information is critical
Tank supplier
Owner operator
Installer
Inspection
59
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Information affects results of the model

Tank color


Pressure settings


Heat adsorption
Release of vapors
Design

Surface area affected by heat
60
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS
 Information affects results of model
 Turnover
 Throughput

Vapor displacement
61
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS
 Information affects results of model
 Fitting

information
Seal around floating roof tanks
 Relates to vapor loss along edge
62
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Site Information
Daily average temperature degrees F
 Annual maximum temperature degrees F
 Annual minimum temperature degrees F

63
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Site information
Average wind speed, mph
 Annual average solar insolation factor,
Btu/ft*ft*day

64
65
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Site information
From TANKS database
 Use nearest city
 Or, obtain information from



National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
EPA Technology Transfer Network website
66
67
68
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Liquid Information
69
70
71
72
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Liquid information
From database
 From other sources
 NIOSH Guide
 CAMEO
 CAS

73
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Liquid information
The selection is assisted by Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) number
 Chemical name
 Look out for synonyms

74
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Report Generation
Storage Loss
 Working Loss
 Withdrawal loss
 Rim seal loss
 Fitting loss
 Deck Seam loss

75
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Report Generation
Brief
 Summary
 Detailed

76
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Report Generation
Printed
 Exported



Excel
Lotus
77












ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ»
º
TANKS Program 3.1
11/17/98 º
º
Emissions Report - Summary
Format PAGE 1
º
º
Tank Identification and Physical
Characteristics
º
ÈÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍͼ
Identification
Identification No.:
17
City:
Hogansburg
State:
NY
Company:
Rez Gaz
Type of Tank:
Horizontal Fixed Roof
Description:
Borderline Tank 1
78
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Tank Dimensions
Shell Length (ft):
21.3
Diameter (ft):
8.0
Volume(gallons):
8000
Is tank underground? (Y/N):
N
Turnovers:
24.0
Net Throughput (gal/yr):
192000
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition:
White/White
Good
79
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Setting (psig):
Pressure Setting (psig):
-0.50
0.50
Meteorological Data Used in Emission
Calculations: Burlington, Vermont
(Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.7 psia)
80
Tribal Case Study: Modeling





ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
»
º
TANKS
Program 3.1
11/17/98 º
º
Emissions Report
- Summary Format
PAGE 2
º
º
Liquid Contents
of Storage Tank
º
ÈÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
81
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Liquid
Bulk
Daily Liquid
Vapor
Liquid
Temperatures
Mol.
Mass
Surf.
Vapor
(deg F)
Mass
Temp.
Vapor Pressures (psia)
Mol.
Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component
Month Avg.
Min.
Max.
(deg F) Avg.
Min.
Max.
Weight Fract. Fract.
Weight Calculations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gasoline (RVP 10)
All
45.48 40.85
44.12
3.8815 3.5266 4.2648 66.000
92.00 Option 4: RVP=10.00, ASTM Slope=3.0
50.11
ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ 82
Tribal Case Study: Modeling





ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ»
º
TANKS Program
3.1
11/17/98 º
º
Emissions Report Summary Format
PAGE 3
º
º
Individual Tank
Emission Totals
º
ÈÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
83
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Annual Emissions Report
Losses
(lbs.):
Liquid Contents
Standing
Working
Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------Gasoline (RVP 10)
80.49
1171.11
1251.60
Total:
1171.11
80.49
1251.60
84
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS


Information compiled into EI
More readable format
85
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Gasoline Marketing: VOC and Ozone
Emissions, Baseline Year 1995
Activity
Stage I
Stage II
VOC Emissions
Tons/Year
Typical Ozone Season
Daily Emissions
0.050
0.001757 Tons
355.39
0.976 Tons
Trucks In Transit
0.0526
0.0014 Tons
Working Losses
23.76
1.319 Tons/day
86
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

TANKS

Overall
Model becomes easy to use
 Understand inputs
 Research, document, validate data
 GIGO

87
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5
88
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5



Emission factor model
Motor vehicles on highway
Calculates Stage II refueling emissions
89
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5

Typical Engine Combustion
FUEL + AIR ==>> UNBURNED
HYDROCARBONS + NITROGEN OXIDES +
CARBON MONOXIDE + CARBON DIOXIDE +
water

90
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5





Computer based
FORTRAN code
Input files
Output files
DOS system
91
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5

Calculates
HC
 CO
 NOx
 Gasoline
 Diesel

92
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5






Light duty vehicles
Light duty trucks
Heavy duty vehicles
Motorcycles
Diesel light duty vehicles
Heavy duty vehicles
93
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5
 Input file features
 Control
Section
 One-time data section
 Scenario Section
94
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5

Control Section
Specifies values for variables
 Flags
 Contain possible settings
 Numeric
 Results in specific action

95
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5

SPDFLG
Specifying one speed for all eight vehicle types
 Or of specifying different speeds for each vehicle
type
 This flag can be set to 1, 2, 3, or 4

96
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
MOBILE 5
SPDFLG
Value
Action
1
User supplies one value of average
speed for all vehicle types
2
User supplies eight values of average
speed, one for each vehicle type
97
Tribal Case Study: Modeling


MOBILE 5
SPDFLG
Value
Action
3
User supplies one value of average
speed for all vehicle types, and a set of
trip length distribution records for use
in calculating running loss emission
factors for each scenario, in the
Scenario data section
98
Tribal Case Study: Modeling


MOBILE 5
SPDFLG
Value
Action
4
User supplies one value of average
speed for all vehicle types, and a single
set of trip length distribution records for
use in calculating running loss emission
factors for all scenarios, in the One-time
Data section
99
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Example Input File Mobile 5a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROMPT
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe - EI 95
1
TAMFLG
1
SPDFLG
1
VMFLAG
1
MYMRFG
1
NEWFLG
1
IMFLAG
1
ALHFLG
1
ATPFLG
1
RLFLAG
2
LOCFLG - LAP record will appear once, in one-time data section.
1
TEMFLG
4
OUTFMT - 112-column descriptive format.
1
PRTFLG - Print exhaust HC, CO and NOx results.
1
IDLFLG
3
NMHFLG - Calculate emissions for volatile organic hydrocarbons.
2
HCFLAG - Print sum of all HC component emissions.
SRMR Summer 95. A 57. 80. 09.0 09.0 92 1 1 1
Local Area Parameter record
1 95 45.0 70.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 07
Scenario description record
1 95 45.0 70.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
Scenario description record
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Example Output File Mobile 5a
1 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe - EI 95
MOBILE5a (26-Mar-93)
0SRMR Summer 95.
Minimum Temp: 57. (F)
Maximum Temp: 80. (F)
Period 1 RVP: 9.0
Period 2 RVP: 9.0 Period 2 Yr: 2002
0VOC HC emission factors include evaporative HC emission factors.
0________________________________________________________________________________
0Emission factors are as of July 1st of the indicated calendar year.
0Cal. Year: 1995
Region: Low
Altitude: 500. Ft.
I/M Program: No
Ambient Temp:
74.3 (F)
Anti-tam. Program: No
Operating Mode:
20.6 / 27.3 / 20.6
Reformulated Gas: No
0Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2
LDGT
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
All Veh
+
______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______
Veh. Spd.: 45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
VMT Mix: 0.631 0.181 0.084
0.031 0.003 0.002 0.061 0.007
0Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
VOC
HC: 1.44
1.87
2.51
2.07
4.52
0.39
0.57
1.29
3.26
1.70
Exhst HC: 0.82
1.12
1.58
1.27
1.51
0.39
0.57
1.29
1.12
0.99
Evap. HC: 0.25
0.33
0.45
0.37
2.19
1.84
0.34
Refuel HC: 0.17
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.37
0.17
Runing HC: 0.14
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.36
0.14
Rsting HC: 0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.30
0.06
101
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
________________________________________________________________________________
0Emission factors are as of Jan. 1st of the indicated calendar year.
0Cal. Year: 1995
Region: Low
Altitude: 500. Ft.
I/M Program: No
Ambient Temp:
74.3 (F)
Anti-tam. Program: No
Operating Mode:
20.6 / 27.3 / 20.6
Reformulated Gas: No
0Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2
LDGT
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
All Veh
+
______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______
Veh. Spd.: 45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
VMT Mix: 0.633 0.180 0.084
0.031 0.004 0.002 0.061 0.007
0Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
VOC
HC: 1.47
1.92
2.58
2.13
4.71
0.39
0.57
1.32
3.27
1.74
Exhst HC: 0.84
1.16
1.62
1.31
1.58
0.39
0.57
1.32
1.14
1.02
Evap. HC: 0.26
0.34
0.48
0.39
2.29
1.84
0.35
Refuel HC: 0.17
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.37
0.18
Runing HC: 0.14
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.37
0.14
Rsting HC: 0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.30
0.06
102
Mobile 5b
Input
1
St.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
SRMR
1 95
1 95
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
PROMPT
Regis Mohawk Tribe - EI 95
TAMFLG
SPDFLG
VMFLAG
MYMRFG
NEWFLG
IMFLAG
ALHFLG
ATPFLG
RLFLAG
LOCFLG - LAP record will appear once, in one-time data section.
TEMFLG
OUTFMT - 112-column descriptive format.
PRTFLG - Print exhaust HC, CO and NOx results.
IDLFLG
NMHFLG - Calculate emissions for volatile organic hydrocarbons.
HCFLAG - Print sum of all HC component emissions.
Summer 95. A 57. 80. 09.0 09.0 92 1 1 1
Local Area Parameter record
45.0 70.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 07
Scenario description record
45.0 70.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
Scenario description record
103
Mobile 5b
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Output
1 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe - EI 95
MOBILE5b (14-Sep-96)
0
-M170 Warning:
+
Exhaust emissions for gasoline fueled vehicles
beginning in 1995 have been reduced as a result of
Gasoline Detergent Additive Regulations (1994).
-M154 Warning:
+
Refueling emissions for LDGV and LDGT after 1998
model year have been reduced as a result of the
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Regulations (1994).
0SRMR Summer 95.
Minimum Temp: 57. (F)
Maximum Temp: 80. (F)
Period 1 RVP: 9.0
Period 2 RVP: 9.0
Period 2
Start Yr: 2002
0Total HC emission factors include all evaporative HC emission factors, except for
refueling emissions.
104
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
0Emission factors are as of July 1st of the indicated calendar year.
0Cal. Year: 1995
I/M Program: No
Ambient Temp: 74.3 (F)
Region: Low
Anti-tam. Program: No
Operating Mode: 20.6 / 27.3 / 20.6
Altitude: 500
Ft.
Reformulated Gas: No
0 Veh. Type:
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
LDGT
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
All Veh
+
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
Veh. Speeds:
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
VMT Mix:
0.631
0.181
0.084
0.031
0.003
0.002
0.061
0.007
0Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Total
HC:
1.33
1.72
2.37
1.92
4.24
0.38
0.55
1.31
3.36
1.587
Exhaust HC:
0.88
1.19
1.66
1.34
1.60
0.38
0.55
1.31
1.22
1.053
Evaporat HC:
0.25
0.33
0.45
0.37
2.19
1.84
0.337
Refuel L HC:
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.37
0.175
Runing L HC:
0.14
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.36
0.142
Rsting L HC:
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.30
0.056
105
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
0Evaporative Emissions by Component
Weathered RVP: 9.0
Hot Soak Temp: 76.4 (F)
(Hot Soak: g/trip, Diurnals: g, Crankcase: g/mi, Refuel: g/gal, Resting: g/hr)
Running Loss Temp: 77.3 (F)
Resting Loss Temp: 69.6 (F)
Hot Soak
1.28
5.98
WtDiurnal
2.70
10.33
Multiple
6.77
Crankcase
0.01
0.00
Refuel
3.68
Resting
0.07
0.12
1.46
2.08
1.64
7.22
4.39
8.09
5.50
29.86
8.63
0.02
11.06
0.02
9.36
0.02
35.35
0.03
3.68
0.07
3.68
0.07
3.68
0.07
3.68
0.10
___________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________
106
-M154
+
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
Warning:
Refueling emissions for LDGV and LDGT after 1998
model year have been reduced as a result of the
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Regulations (1994).
0Emission factors are as of Jan. 1st of the indicated calendar year.
0Cal. Year: 1995
I/M Program: No
Ambient Temp: 74.3 (F)
Region: Low
Anti-tam. Program: No
Operating Mode: 20.6 / 27.3 / 20.6
Altitude: 500.
Ft.
Reformulated Gas: No
0 Veh. Type:
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
LDGT
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
All Veh
+
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
Veh. Speeds:
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
VMT Mix:
0.633
0.180
0.084
0.031
0.004
0.002
0.061
0.007
0Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Total
HC:
1.36
1.77
2.43
1.98
4.42
0.38
0.55
1.34
3.37
1.626
Exhaust HC:
0.90
1.23
1.70
1.38
1.67
0.38
0.55
1.34
1.24
1.077
Evaporat HC:
0.26
0.34
0.48
0.39
2.29
1.84
0.350
Refuel L HC:
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.37
0.175
Runing L HC:
0.14
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.37
0.143
Rsting L HC:
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.30
0.056
107
Tribal Case Study: Modeling
0Evaporative Emissions by Component
Weathered RVP: 9.0
Hot Soak Temp: 76.4 (F)
(Hot Soak: g/trip, Diurnals: g, Crankcase: g/mi, Refuel: g/gal, Resting: g/hr)
Running Loss Temp: 77.3 (F)
Resting Loss Temp: 69.6 (F)
Hot Soak
1.31
5.99
WtDiurnal
2.82
10.32
Multiple
7.01
Crankcase
0.01
0.00
Refuel
3.68
Resting
0.07
0.12
1.51
2.17
1.71
7.48
4.64
8.60
5.83
30.92
9.21
0.02
11.61
0.02
9.93
0.02
35.94
0.03
3.68
0.07
3.68
0.07
3.68
0.07
3.68
0.10
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________
108
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5
Mobile Emissions, St. Regis Mohawk Reservation,
Baseline Year 1995. Tons/Year.
Pollutant
Hydrocarbons
Summer
Winter
0.015
0.0727
CO
0.0698
0.382
NOx
0.0155
0.0527
0.0016 Tons
NA
Typical Ozone
Daily Emissions
109
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5

MOBIL 4.1
Used in 1992
 Coupled with CAL3QHC

110
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5


Differences in emission rates
Accounted for 50,000 mile deterioration
111
Table 12. Comparison of Model Year Contribution to the FleetAverage LDGV Emission Rate for Calendar Year 1995 (MOBILE4.1
Versus MOBILE5a)
I/MScenarioa
1981+ HC
No I/M
0.297
Basic I/M
0.262
Enhanced I/M
No I/M
Basic I/M
Enhanced I/M
NOx
No I/M
Basic I/M
Enhanced I/M
0.285
0.244
0.222
0.226
MOBILE4.1
MOBILE5a
Pollutant/
Pre-1981
1981+
Pre-1981
0.703
0.738
CO
0.715
0.756
0.778
0.774
0.168
0.214
0.192
0.224
0.786
0.808
0.776
0.183
0.151
0.176
0.817
0.849
0.824
0.135
0.137
0.832
0.865
0.863
112
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

MOBILE 5

CAL3QHC
1 hr and 8 hr CO concentrations at intersections
 Dependent upon vehicle, road-way and met
conditions
 Developed in 1978
 Still used
 CAL3QHCR – requires local met data

113
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Summary




Select the model appropriate to needs
Understand uses
Understand limitations
Study Documentation
114
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Summary (cont.)

Learn to operate it
Test runs
 Test files included



Consult with others who use it
Consult with developers
115
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Summary (cont.)




Adequate time to learn program
Understand inputs
Do homework for data
Document data
116
Tribal Case Study: Modeling

Your Success is Guaranteed!
Thank You
117